DOCSLIB.ORG

Small Spacecraft Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Small Spacecraft Overview Small Spacecraft Overview Mr. Stevan M. Spremo, Mr. Alan R. Crocker, and Dr. Tina L. Panontin NASA Ames Research Center Summary Small spacecraft play a major role in earth, lunar, planetary, stellar, and interstellar discoveries. As technologies improve, instruments scale down in size, and their advantages in reduced cost and development time continue to attract investment, small satellites1 will play an even more important role. Today, the growth rate of small spacecraft utilization is limited by the availability of affordable launch opportunities. Introduction Small spacecraft have been an integral part of space study, exploration, and commercialization since humankind’s first steps into low Earth orbit with Sputnik-1 and Explorer-1. As defined in Table 1, Spacecraft Class Definition Wet Mass, kg Large Spacecraft ≥1000 Medium Spacecraft 500-1000 Mini Spacecraft 100-500 * Small Spacecraft Micro Spacecraft 10-100 Nano Spacecraft 1-10 }Cubesats Pico Spacecraft 0.01-1 Femto Spacecraft 0.01-0.01* * organization-dependent upper thresholds vary from 180 to 500 kg ** organization-dependent upper thresholds vary from 0.01 to 0.1kg Table 1 Spacecraft classification based on wet mass “small spacecraft” are considered to be those with wet masses below 500kg. Although the 500 to 1000 kg mass range is defined technically as a “medium” spacecraft class, it is common to omit reference to medium classifications and refer to a spacecraft as either “small” or “large”. 1 The term “satellite”, commonly used in describing an artificial object in orbit around the earth or other celestial body, can also refer to a spacecraft on an escape trajectory to eventually exit our solar system. Development of small satellite platform standards have created new opportunities in the nanosatellite market. The standard “one unit” (1U) cubesat spacecraft, illustrated in Figure 1, is a cube 10 cm on each side with a mass of approximately 1 kg. (CubeSat Program, 2014). Cubesats can be composed of a single cube (a “1U” cubesat) or several cubes combined forming, for instance, 3U, 6U or even 27U integrated units. Representative configurations and sizes are compared in Figure 2. Figure 1 Typical 1U Cubesat Most Cubesat masses qualify them as nanosatellites; however, cubesats less than 1 kg may be considered pico spacecraft. Practical femtosats have not yet entered the marketplace, but attempts to develop and launch such “ChipSats” systems are underway. (Jones, 2016) Figure 2 Comparative size of 1U, 3U, and 6U Cubesats Although their mass and volume constraints can significantly limit power, propulsion, and communication subsystem sizes, small spacecraft do provide certain advantages. With generally lower complexity and fewer payloads, small satellites can be produced at an increased cadence than larger ones. Rapid development provides organizations with more agility in meeting requirements and adapting to new technologies. For instance, the Department of Defense Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program pursues small satellites to meet its primary goal to rapidly assemble, test, and launch satellites in support of warfighters. Rapid development can also drive costs down such that use of small satellites may allow more frequent research missions and technology demonstrations. Low cost developments can also provide opportunities for engineering and project management education and capability maturation. Cubesats, in particular, are often used as educational and technology demonstration platforms. History and Evolution of Small Spacecraft Small spacecraft are not a new phenomenon but rather are the original class of space vehicle and a cornerstone of the United States space program. The first artificial satellites – the Soviet Union’s Sputnik 1 and The United States’ Explorer 1 – were small satellites. More than 50 small spacecraft followed as part of NASA’s Explorer Program – missions investigating earth science, astronomy and heliophysics. (NASA, 2017). Though small in size, complexity, and cost, NASA's Explorer spacecraft were well-engineered and highly reliable. Many continued to operate for 5 or more years; the longest-lived, IMP-8, operated for 33 years. (NASA, 2017) Small spacecraft missions were not limited to just the Explorer Program. Many of the early interplanetary Mariner and Pioneer spacecraft may be categorized as small spacecraft. NASA’s Apollo Program deployed two small lunar satellites as part of the Apollo 15 and 16 missions of the early 1970’s. Organizations outside of NASA, including the Department of Defense, academia, and foreign governments, successfully developed and operated small spacecraft as well. NASA began the Small Explorer Program (SMEX), in 1989 as a follow-on to the Explorer Program. Cost capped at $120M (FY17 dollars), with a primary goal of utilizing small spacecraft to conduct mission in astrophysics, space physics and upper atmospheric science, the SMEX program was also to usher in a new generation of engineers through apprenticeship with experienced spacecraft developers. A decade later, NASA initiated the University-class explorer (“UNEX”) program to conduct missions at a per mission cost of less than $15M (FY17 dollars) that provides even more "hands-on" training ground for future spacecraft developers. Figure 3 shows the growing variety of NASA’s small spacecraft over many decades. Figure 3 Small spacecraft mass trends over the past six decades There are many examples of smallsats that provide cost-effective platforms for astrophysics, heliophysics, and Earth science research. One is the 200 kg Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS) spacecraft that provides important insights into our Sun. Another is the 385 kg Stardust mission, launched in 1999, that collected comet dust samples and returned those samples to Earth. The Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS), launched in 2016, placed 8 microsatellites in low Earth orbit to study the formation and intensity of tropical cyclones and hurricanes. (NASA, 2016) The Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) mission launched a constellation of 5 smallsats to study Earth’s magnetosphere. Military and commercial interest in smallsats has grown as well. In 2005, the 100 kg U.S. Air Force XSS-11 spacecraft demonstrated the ability to rendezvous with and repair another satellite. (David, 2005). In 1999, the cubesat standard revolutionized the secondary payload industry, replacing non-functional "ballast mass" with small, low cost spacecraft and creating a new, diverse community of spacecraft developers. Cubesats provide low-cost access to space, enabling research and educational projects that might not otherwise be possible using “traditional” methods. Their low cost make cubesat educational programs accessible from the elementary school to university levels. Cubesat design, launch, and operation programs are a growing part of STEM curricula in K-12 schools, community colleges, and universities. A cubesat dispenser design, the Poly-Picosat On-Orbit Deployer (P-POD) shown in Figure 4, emerged in parallel with the cubesat standard to enable easy integration with existing launch vehicles. The mechanically robust dispenser accommodated a pack of 3 1U spacecraft until commanded to eject the cubesats with a spring-actuated “foot”. Today, multiple cubesat dispenser options are available as open design standards and proprietary commercial solutions. Figure 4 P-POD Cubesat Launcher Beyond educational access to space, cubesats provide a low-cost, yet effective, means to demonstrate new technologies. For example, in 2012, NASA’s PhoneSat spacecraft demonstrated the application of COTS technologies for affordable spacecraft. NASA has also utilized cubesats for space biology experimentation since 2006. The U.S. Army’s Operational Nanosatellite Effect (ONE) program began investigating the use of cubesat platforms in 2011 (Brinton, 2011). Cubesats may also begin to play support roles in larger missions, for example, NASA’s InSight mission to Mars will use two Mars Cube One (MarCO) spacecraft to provide communications relay functions during InSight’s entry, descent and landing. (Matousek, 2014) Low cost Earth imaging is an emerging commercial market that benefits from small satellite capabilities. Several new companies plan to leverage the simplicity, modularity and affordability of cubesats to create satellite constellations. (Bandyopadhyay, Subramanian, Foust, Morgan, & Chu, 2015) One such constellation already includes over 100 operating 3U cubesats. From low Earth orbit, these satellites may provide Earth imaging at the maximum resolution allowed under U.S. export law. Government cubesat mission costs vary from $3 to $30 million and are typically determined by the scope of scientific capability, complexity, propulsion, control system type, and radiation tolerance requirements. A summary of selected NASA cubesat missions is provided in Table 2. Table 2 Example NASA Cubesat missions Figure 5 illustrates the quickly growing number and diversity of missions utilizing nano and micro satellites. Earth observation and science areas have grown significantly since 2013. Overall, the number of cubesat launches have seen large increases, as shown in Figure 6. The rate has remained high since 2013—a record 103 small satellites were launched simultaneously on an Indian Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle in Feb. 2017. The increased cubesat launch rate reflects the expanding viability of these platforms for research and commercial activities, aided in part
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quality and Reliability: APL's Key to Mission Success
    W. L. EBERT AND E. J. HOFFMAN Quality and Reliability: APL’s Key to Mission Success Ward L. Ebert and Eric J. Hoffman APL’s Space Department has a long history of producing reliable spaceflight systems. Key to the success of these systems are the methods employed to ensure robust, failure-tolerant designs, to ensure a final product that faithfully embodies those designs, and to physically verify that launch and environmental stresses will indeed be well tolerated. These basic methods and practices have served well throughout the constantly changing scientific, engineering, and budgetary challenges of the first 40 years of the space age. The Space Department has demonstrated particular competence in addressing the country’s need for small exploratory missions that extend the envelope of technology. (Keywords: Quality assurance, Reliability, Spacecraft, Spaceflight.) INTRODUCTION The APL Space Department attempts to be at the and development is fundamentally an innovative en- high end of the quality and reliability scale for un- deavor, and any plan to carry out such work necessarily manned space missions. A track record of nearly 60 has steps with unknown outcomes. On the other hand, spacecraft and well over 100 instruments bears this out conventional management wisdom says that some de- as a success. Essentially, all of APL’s space missions are gree of risk and unpredictability exists in any major one-of-a-kind, so the challenge is to get it right the first undertaking, and the only element that differs in re- time, every time, by developing the necessary technol- search and development is the larger degree of risks.
    [Show full text]
  • Orion First Flight Test
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration orion First Flight Test NASAfacts Orion, NASA’s new spacecraft Exploration Flight Test-1 built to send humans farther During Orion’s flight test, the spacecraft will launch atop a Delta IV Heavy, a rocket built than ever before, is launching and operated by United Launch Alliance. While into space for the first time in this launch vehicle will allow Orion to reach an altitude high enough to meet the objectives for December 2014. this test, a much larger, human-rated rocket An uncrewed test flight called Exploration will be needed for the vast distances of future Flight Test-1 will test Orion systems critical to exploration missions. To meet that need, NASA crew safety, such as heat shield performance, is developing the Space Launch System, which separation events, avionics and software will give Orion the capability to carry astronauts performance, attitude control and guidance, farther into the solar system than ever before. parachute deployment and recovery operations. During the uncrewed flight, Orion will orbit The data gathered during the flight will influence the Earth twice, reaching an altitude of design decisions and validate existing computer approximately 3,600 miles – about 15 times models and innovative new approaches to space farther into space than the International Space systems development, as well as reduce overall Station orbits. Sending Orion to such a high mission risks and costs. altitude will allow the spacecraft to return to Earth at speeds near 20,000 mph. Returning
    [Show full text]
  • Spacecraft & Vehicle Systems
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center Spacecraft & Vehicle Systems Engineering Solutions for Space Science and Exploration Marshall’s Spacecraft and Vehicle Systems Department For over 50 years, the Marshall Space Flight Center has devel- for assessment of the orbiter’s thermal protection system prior oped the expertise and capabilities to successfully execute the to reentry and for debris anomaly resolution. In addition, the integrated design, development, test, and evaluation of NASA Natural Environments group supported the day-of -launch I-Load launch vehicles, and spacecraft and science programs. Marshall’s Updates, provided the mean bulk propellant temperature forecast Spacecraft and Vehicle Systems Department (EV) has been a prior to each Shuttle launch, and performed radiation assessments major technical and engineering arm to develop these vehicles of Shuttle avionics systems. Members in the department also and programs in the areas of Systems Engineering & Integration co-chaired several propulsion SE&I panels including panels for (SE&I), flight mechanics and analysis, and structural design and Aerodynamics, Thermal, and Loads disciplines. analysis. EV has performed advanced research and development for future spacecraft and launch vehicle systems, and has estab- EV provides design and analysis support to numerous Science and lished technical partnerships and collaborations with other NASA Mission Systems projects, including the Environmental Control & centers, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, Life Support System (ECLSS), the Microgravity Science Research industry, technical professional societies, and academia in order Rack, and the Node elements for the International Space Station. to enhance technical competencies and advanced technologies The department also developed and maintains the Chandra for future spacecraft and vehicle systems.
    [Show full text]
  • The Space Race
    The Space Race Aims: To arrange the key events of the “Space Race” in chronological order. To decide which country won the Space Race. Space – the Final Frontier “Space” is everything Atmosphere that exists outside of our planet’s atmosphere. The atmosphere is the layer of Earth gas which surrounds our planet. Without it, none of us would be able to breathe! Space The sun is a star which is orbited (circled) by a system of planets. Earth is the third planet from the sun. There are nine planets in our solar system. How many of the other eight can you name? Neptune Saturn Mars Venus SUN Pluto Uranus Jupiter EARTH Mercury What has this got to do with the COLD WAR? Another element of the Cold War was the race to control the final frontier – outer space! Why do you think this would be so important? The Space Race was considered important because it showed the world which country had the best science, technology, and economic system. It would prove which country was the greatest of the superpowers, the USSR or the USA, and which political system was the best – communism or capitalism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvaEvCNZymo The Space Race – key events Discuss the following slides in your groups. For each slide, try to agree on: • which of the three options is correct • whether this was an achievement of the Soviet Union (USSR) or the Americans (USA). When did humans first send a satellite into orbit around the Earth? 1940s, 1950s or 1960s? Sputnik 1 was launched in October 1957.
    [Show full text]
  • The SKYLON Spaceplane
    The SKYLON Spaceplane Borg K.⇤ and Matula E.⇤ University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA This report outlines the major technical aspects of the SKYLON spaceplane as a final project for the ASEN 5053 class. The SKYLON spaceplane is designed as a single stage to orbit vehicle capable of lifting 15 mT to LEO from a 5.5 km runway and returning to land at the same location. It is powered by a unique engine design that combines an air- breathing and rocket mode into a single engine. This is achieved through the use of a novel lightweight heat exchanger that has been demonstrated on a reduced scale. The program has received funding from the UK government and ESA to build a full scale prototype of the engine as it’s next step. The project is technically feasible but will need to overcome some manufacturing issues and high start-up costs. This report is not intended for publication or commercial use. Nomenclature SSTO Single Stage To Orbit REL Reaction Engines Ltd UK United Kingdom LEO Low Earth Orbit SABRE Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine SOMA SKYLON Orbital Maneuvering Assembly HOTOL Horizontal Take-O↵and Landing NASP National Aerospace Program GT OW Gross Take-O↵Weight MECO Main Engine Cut-O↵ LACE Liquid Air Cooled Engine RCS Reaction Control System MLI Multi-Layer Insulation mT Tonne I. Introduction The SKYLON spaceplane is a single stage to orbit concept vehicle being developed by Reaction Engines Ltd in the United Kingdom. It is designed to take o↵and land on a runway delivering 15 mT of payload into LEO, in the current D-1 configuration.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Practices for Human Space Flight Occupant Safety
    Recommended Practices for Human Space Flight Occupant Safety Version 1.0 August 27, 2014 Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation 800 Independence Avenue, Room 331 7 3 Washington, DC 20591 0 0 - 4 1 C T Recommended Practices for Human Space Flight Page ii Occupant Safety – Version 1.0 Record of Revisions Version Description Date 1.0 Baseline version of document August 27, 2014 Recommended Practices for Human Space Flight Page iii Occupant Safety – Version 1.0 Recommended Practices for Human Space Flight Page iv Occupant Safety – Version 1.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Scope ................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Development Process ....................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Level of Risk and Level of Care ...................................................................................... 2 4.1 Level of Risk ................................................................................................................ 2 4.2 Level of Care ................................................................................................................ 3 5.0 Structure and Nature of the
    [Show full text]
  • Build a Spacecraft Activity
    UAMN Virtual Family Day: Amazing Earth Build a Spacecraft SMAP satellite. Image: NASA. Discover how scientists study Earth from above! Scientists use satellites and spacecraft to study the Earth from outer space. They take pictures of Earth's surface and measure cloud cover, sea levels, glacier movements, and more. Materials Needed: Paper, pencil, craft materials (small recycled boxes, cardboard pieces, paperclips, toothpicks, popsicle sticks, straws, cotton balls, yarn, etc. You can use whatever supplies you have!), fastening materials (glue, tape, rubber bands, string, etc.) Instructions: Step 1: Decide what you want your spacecraft to study. Will it take pictures of clouds? Track forest fires? Measure rainfall? Be creative! Step 2: Design your spacecraft. Draw a picture of what your spacecraft will look like. It will need these parts: Container: To hold everything together. Power Source: To create electricity; solar panels, batteries, etc. Scientific Instruments: This is the why you launched your satellite in the first place! Instruments could include cameras, particle collectors, or magnometers. Communication Device: To relay information back to Earth. Image: NASA SpacePlace. Orientation Finder: A sun or star tracker to show where the spacecraft is pointed. Step 3: Build your spacecraft! Use any craft materials you have available. Let your imagination go wild. Step 4: Your spacecraft will need to survive launching into orbit. Test your spacecraft by gently shaking or spinning it. How well did it hold together? Adjust your design and try again! Model spacecraft examples. Courtesy NASA SpacePlace. Activity adapted from NASA SpacePlace: spaceplace.nasa.gov/build-a-spacecraft/en/ UAMN Virtual Early Explorers: Amazing Earth Studying Earth From Above NASA is best known for exploring outer space, but it also conducts many missions to investigate Earth from above.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Nano/Microsatellite Market Forecast, 9Th Edition
    2019 NANO/MICROSATELLITE MARKET FORECAST, 9TH EDITION Copyright 2018, SpaceWorks Enterprises, Inc. (SEI) APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. SPACEWORKS ENTERPRISES, INC., COPYRIGHT 2018. 1 Since 2008, SpaceWorks has actively monitored companies and economic activity across both the satellite and launch sectors 0 - 50 kg 50 - 250kg 250 - 1000kg 1000 - 2000kg 2000kg+ Custom market assessments are available for all mass classes NANO/MICROSATELLITE DEFINITION Picosatellite Nanosatellite Microsatellite Small/Medium Satellite (0.1 – 0.99 kg) (1 – 10 kg) (10 – 100 kg) (100 – 1000 kg) 0 kg 1 kg 10 kg 100 kg 1000 kg This report bounds the upper range of interest in microsatellites at 50 kg given the relatively large amount of satellite development activity in the 1 – 50 kg range FORECASTING METHODOLOGY SpaceWorks’ proprietary Launch Demand Database (LDDB) Downstream serves as the data source for all satellite market Demand assessments ▪ Planned The LDDB is a catalogue of over 10,000+ historical and Constellations future satellites containing both public and non-public (LDDB) satellite programs Launch Supply SpaceWorks newly updated Probabilistic Forecast Model (PFM) is used to generate future market potential SpaceWorks PFM Model ▪ The PFM considers down-stream demand, announced/planed satellite constellations, and supply-side dynamics, among other relevant factors Expert Analysis The team of expert industry analysts at SpaceWorks SpaceWorks further interprets and refines the PFM results to create Forecast accurate market forecasts Methodology at a Glance 2018 SpaceWorks forecasted 2018 nano/microsatellite launches with unprecedented accuracy – actual satellites launched amounted to just 5% below our analysts’ predictions. In line with SpaceWorks’ expectations, the industry corrected after a record launch year in 2017, sending 20% less nano/microsatellites to orbit than in 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Benefits of Reusable Launch Vehicles for Space Debris Removal
    68th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Adelaide, Australia, 25-29 September 2017. Copyright ©2017 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved. IAC-17-A6.8.5 Economic Benefits of Reusable Launch Vehicles for Space Debris Removal Matthew P. Richardsona*, Dominic W.F. Hardyb a Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan 113- 8656, [email protected] b Nova Systems, 53 Ellenborough Street, Ipswich, Queensland, Australia 4305, [email protected] * Corresponding Author Abstract An analysis of cost savings which could be realized on active debris removal missions through the use of reusable launch vehicles has been performed. Launch vehicle price estimates were established for three levels of reusable launch vehicle development, based on varying levels of technological development and market competition. An expendable launch vehicle price estimate was also established as a point of comparison. These price estimates were used to form two separate debris removal mission cost estimates, based on previously-proposed debris removal mission concepts. The results of this analysis indicate that reusable launch vehicles could reduce launch prices to levels between 19.6% and 92.8% cheaper than expendable launch vehicles, depending on the level of RLV maturity. It was also determined that a reusable launch vehicle could be used to realize total active debris removal mission cost savings of between 2.8% (for a partially reusable launch
    [Show full text]
  • Cubesat Mission: from Design to Operation
    applied sciences Article CubeSat Mission: From Design to Operation Cristóbal Nieto-Peroy 1 and M. Reza Emami 1,2,* 1 Onboard Space Systems Group, Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Space Campus, 981 92 Kiruna, Sweden 2 Aerospace Mechatronics Group, University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies, Toronto, ON M3H 5T6, Canada * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-416-946-3357 Received: 30 June 2019; Accepted: 29 July 2019; Published: 1 August 2019 Featured Application: Design, fabrication, testing, launch and operation of a particular CubeSat are detailed, as a reference for prospective developers of CubeSat missions. Abstract: The current success rate of CubeSat missions, particularly for first-time developers, may discourage non-profit organizations to start new projects. CubeSat development teams may not be able to dedicate the resources that are necessary to maintain Quality Assurance as it is performed for the reliable conventional satellite projects. This paper discusses the structured life-cycle of a CubeSat project, using as a reference the authors’ recent experience of developing and operating a 2U CubeSat, called qbee50-LTU-OC, as part of the QB50 mission. This paper also provides a critique of some of the current poor practices and methodologies while carrying out CubeSat projects. Keywords: CubeSat; miniaturized satellite; nanosatellite; small satellite development 1. Introduction There have been nearly 1000 CubeSats launched to the orbit since the inception of the concept in 2000 [1]. An up-to-date statistics of CubeSat missions can be found in Reference [2]. A summary of CubeSat missions up to 2016 can also be found in Reference [3].
    [Show full text]
  • Satellite Trends
    Satellite trends Technical and business technology and regulatory challenges Attila MATAS [email protected] WRC-15 GFT Decision Seamless satellite based ADS-B – GFT - world wide coverage 2 © ITU WRC-15 – UAS Decision Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) – Use of FSS bands for control and non- payload communications (CNPC) of UAS in non-segregated airspaces LOS Out-LOS 3 Non-GSO satellites Advantages – Less booster power required – Less delay in transmission path – Suitability for providing service at higher latitude – Lower cost per satellite to build and launch satellites Disadvantages – Satellite system and ground segment are expensive – Less expected life of satellites due to ionizing radiation effects, requires frequent replacement – Requirements for deorbiting Non-GSO satellite projects Nowadays – Space science missions, navigation (GPS, Galileo, Glonass, Compas) and mobile-satellite systems (Iridium, Globalstar) – First non-GSO broadband from O3B Satellite technology – Era of microsats, nanosats – Mass production brings down the cost – Technological advancements • Satellites terminals are smaller and cheaper • Ka-band applications • New technologies – optical links, electronic propulsion How it is non-GSO different? 1990s 2016 Cost per kg to LEO >10 000 [1 600] – 4 000 (USD) (Dnepr-1) (FH projected) Teledesic OneWeb Cost per sat. (USD) 20mil/35mil [0.5mil] Project cost (USD) 9bn 1.5-2bn How is the satellite communication different? Investments More IT/TECH - companies ready to invest (Google, Facebook) Launch Costs Launch costs are down, new entrants in the market SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Orbital ATK etc Market Internet is very different There are millions without access Big Data requires more users to mine data Mobile is the next market to win New applications – ADS-B, UAS, IoT, ESiM Competition More players Support from satellite operators High Throughput Satellite (HTS) Improved capacity, higher throughput rates, lower space segment cost per MB through frequency reuse and multiple spot beams 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Small Satellite Technology and the Role of the NASA Small Spacecraft Technology Program
    Trends in Small Satellite Technology and the Role of the NASA Small Spacecraft Technology Program Final Update to the NASA Advisory Committee Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee March 28, 2017 Bhavya Lal, Asha Balakrishnan, Alyssa Picard, Ben Corbin, Jonathan Behrens, Ellen Green, Roger Myers Reviewers: Brian Zuckerman, Mike Yarymovych, Iain Boyd, Malcolm MacDonald Project Goal Given investments outside STMD, and NASA’s mission needs, what is the “the appropriate, discriminating role for STMD vis-à-vis all the other organizations that are developing small satellite technology?” 2 Overall Approach • Examined smallsat developments • Scope – State-of-the-art and activities outside – STMD’s Small Spacecraft Technology STMD Program (SSTP) supplemented by other – Evolution of the ecosystem: players STMD efforts and markets – Did not conduct an evaluation – Drivers of future activities: • No comment on adequacy of funding infrastructure, policies, investment levels • Analyzed STMD’s current and • Definition of a small spacecraft or emerging smallsat portfolio smallsat • Identified NASA’s small spacecraft – Considered several metrics – mass, cost, innovation approach (“lean needs, both user driven (tech satellite”) pull) and technology driven (tech – Settled on mass with upper limit ~200 push) kg • Identified gaps and made • With exceptions up to 500 kg as needed recommendations 3 Data Sources • Reviewed the literature • Conducted 57 stakeholder – National Academy of Sciences discussions CubeSat Report (2016) – Industry representatives
    [Show full text]