Small Spacecraft Technology State of The Art 2014 PDF
Small Spacecraft Technology State of The Art 2014 PDF
Small Spacecraft Technology State of The Art 2014 PDF
July 2014
CONFERENCE PUBLICATION.
Collected papers from scientific and
technical conferences, symposia,
seminars, or other meetings
sponsored or co-sponsored by
NASA.
SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,
technical, or historical information
from NASA programs, projects, and
missions, often concerned with
subjects having substantial public
interest.
TECHNICAL TRANSLATION.
English- language translations of
foreign scientific and technical
material pertinent to NASAs
mission.
Specialized services also include
creating custom thesauri, building
customized databases, and organizing
and publishing research results.
For more information about the NASA
STI Program, see the following:
Access the NASA STI program
home page at
http://www.sti.nasa.gov
E-mail your question via the Internet
to [email protected]
Fax your question to the NASA STI
Help Desk at 443-757-5803
Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at
443-757-5802
Write to:
NASA STI Help Desk
NASA Center for AeroSpace
Information
7115 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD 210761320
NASA/TP2014216648/REV1
July 2014
Acknowledgments
This report has been based largely on desk research and published documents on
small spacecraft technology. Helpful suggestions and comments were also received
from numerous people at NASA Ames Research Center, and in particular the authors
wish to acknowledge the contributions from Aaron Cohen, Cyrus Foster, Brian Lewis,
David Mauro, Matthew Nehrenz, Matthew Sorgenfrei, and Michael Soulage.
The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report is for accurate reporting and
does not constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or
manufacturers by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Available from:
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information
7115 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD 21076-1320
443-757-5802
Abstract
This report provides an overview of the current state of the art of small
spacecraft technology. It was commissioned by NASAs Small Spacecraft Technology Program (SSTP) in mid-2013 in response to the rapid
growth in interest in using small spacecraft for many types of missions
in Earth orbit and beyond. For the sake of this assessment, small
spacecraft are defined to be spacecraft with a mass less than 180 kg.
This report provides a summary of the state of the art for each of the
following small spacecraft technology domains: Complete spacecraft,
Power, Propulsion, Attitude Determination and Control, Structures, Materials and Mechanisms, Thermal Control, Command and Data Handling, Communications, Integration, Launch and Deployment, and Ground
Data Systems and Operations. Due to the high popularity of cubesats,
particular emphasis is placed on the state-of-the-art of cubesat-related
technology.
Form Approved
OMB No. 07040188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports
(0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
01-07-2014
Technical Publication
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
NASA
11. SPONSOR/MONITORS REPORT
NUMBER(S)
NASA/TP2014216648/REV1
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Unclassified-Unlimited
Subject Category
Availability: NASA CASI (443) 757-5802
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This report provides an overview of the current state of the art of small spacecraft technology. It was commissioned by NASAs
Small Spacecraft Technology Program (SSTP) in mid-2013 in response to the rapid growth in interest in using small spacecraft
for many types of missions in Earth orbit and beyond. For the sake of this assessment, small spacecraft are defined to be
spacecraft with a mass less than 180 kg. This report provides a summary of the state of the art for each of the following small
spacecraft technology domains: Complete spacecraft, Power, Propulsion, Attitude Determination and Control, Structures,
Materials and Mechanisms, Thermal Control, Command and Data Handling, Communications, Integration, Launch and
Deployment, and Ground Data Systems and Operations. Due to the high popularity of cubesats, particular emphasis is placed
on the state-of-the-art of cubesat-related technology.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
b. ABSTRACT
c. THIS PAGE
17. LIMITATION OF
ABSTRACT
UU
18. NUMBER
OF
PAGES
(443) 757-5802
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
Disclaimer
The document lists or describes many specific products and technologies as examples
and references but their inclusion does not imply any endorsement by NASA. Failure to
include any specific products or technologies that might be considered relevant under
a particular topic was unintentional.
Contributing Authors:
David Biggs, John Conley, Andres Dono Perez, Nicolas Faber, Anthony Genova, Andrew
Gonzales, Alessandro Grasso, James Harpur, Steven Hu, Luke Idziak, Sarah Jolitz, Jonas
Jonsson, John Love, Yosuke Nakamura, Andrew Nuttall, Robin Reil, Vibha Srivastava,
Travis Swenson, and Sasha Weston
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE(SUMMARY(.........................................................................................................................................(2!
1.!
INTRODUCTION(...........................................................................................................................................(9!
2.!
SPACECRAFT(..............................................................................................................................................(13!
3.!
POWER(......................................................................................................................................................(17!
4.!
PROPULSION(.............................................................................................................................................(30!
5.!
ATTITUDE(DETERMINATION(AND(CONTROL(SYSTEM(..................................................................................(45!
6.!
STRUCTURES,(MATERIALS(AND(MECHANISMS(...........................................................................................(66!
7.!
THERMAL(CONTROL(SYSTEM(.....................................................................................................................(80!
8.!
COMMAND(AND(DATA(HANDLING(............................................................................................................(98!
9.!
COMMUNICATIONS(.................................................................................................................................(117!
10.!
INTEGRATION,(LAUNCH(AND(DEPLOYMENT(.........................................................................................(131!
11.!
GROUND(SYSTEMS(AND(OPERATIONS(.................................................................................................(164!
12.!
CONCLUSION(.......................................................................................................................................(176!
APPENDIX:(TABLES(AND(ADDITIONAL(DATA(.....................................................................................................(177!
APPENDIX:(LIST(OF(ACRONYMS(........................................................................................................................(198!
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report was commissioned by NASA's Small Spacecraft Technology Program (SSTP)
in mid-2013 in response to growing interest in using small spacecraft with a mass less
than 180 kg for missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). This report summarizes the
current state of the art (SoA) in small spacecraft technology for each of the following
technology domains: complete spacecraft, power, propulsion, attitude determination
and control, structures, materials and mechanisms, thermal control, command and
data handling, communications, integration, launch and deployment, and ground data
systems and operations. Due to the high popularity of CubeSats, particular emphasis is
placed on CubeSat-related technology.
This report will be regularly updated as emerging technologies mature and become the
state of the art (SoA). Any current technologies that were inadvertently missed will be
identified and included in subsequent versions. The authors are soliciting reader input
in the comprehensive assessment of small spacecraft technology; please email [email protected] and include state of the art report in the subject line.
Spacecraft
State of the Art: In recent years small spacecraft have become more attractive due to
lower development costs and shorter lead times. There is a natural trade-off to be
made between spacecraft size and functionality, but advances in both miniaturization
and integration technologies have diminished the scope of that trade-off. An example
of the SoA in miniaturization technology is micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS),
i.e. components with microscale (m) features. In addition to their small size, in some
cases MEMS-based devices can provide higher accuracy and lower power consumption
compared to conventional spacecraft systems. Some small spacecraft are assembled
and integrated with the same rigor as their larger counterparts, while others are
integrated within a university laboratory. Effectively integrating individual components
can substantially increase the systems functionality and density, thereby reducing
unnecessary mass and volume. As such the SoA in small spacecraft integration
techniques is as advanced, if not more, than those used for larger spacecraft. It is also
worth mentioning that commercial off the shelf (COTS) components and consumer
electronics are commonly used to build small spacecraft at the lower end of the cost
range.
On the Horizon: There is a trend towards further miniaturization and higher levels of
integration
(such
as
observed
in
pico- and
femtosats). Fractionated
mission
Power
State of the Art: Small spacecraft are currently using advanced power generation and
energy storage technology, with 29% efficient triple-junction, lightweight solar cells
(weighing about 85 mg/cm2) and high specific energy lithium ion batteries (averaging
200 Whr/kg). The early adoption of flat lithium polymer battery packs is unique within
the space industry because of the higher risk tolerance of mission designers and more
stringent mass and volume requirements. Power distribution systems are reliable and
robust, even to single event upsets. All spacecraft systems can benefit from technology
advances and component miniaturization in the consumer electronics market.
On the Horizon: There are flexible solar cells under development allowing new
concepts for solar panel deployment. Another technology on the horizon is the
CubeSat-scale Radioisotope Thermal Generator (RTG).
Propulsion
State of the Art: Small spacecraft propulsion is a rapidly growing, albeit immature
technology domain. The SoA in this field consists of cold gas thrusters (specific
impulse, Isp, of 70 sec), solid rocket motors (Isp of 270 sec), and pulsed plasma
thrusters (Isp of 830 sec). Green monopropellant systems (Isp of 300 sec) will soon be
demonstrated.
On the Horizon: Both chemical and electric propulsion options are on track to mature
within the next five years. Hydrolytic systems using water are also under development,
along with integrated primary thrusters and reaction control systems.
Communications
State of the Art: Current satellite communication transmission strategies use VHF,
UHF, microwave, and infrared/visible frequency spectra. Selecting a frequency
spectrum depends on a number of factors including expected data throughput,
available power and mass, and licensing issues. Due to these reasons, technology
development is still underway on all of these frequency spectra.
Current SoA technology shows a trend of increasing carrier signal frequency and
increasing data transfer speeds.
frequency and the power and mass requirements of the transmitter. Using transmitter
technology appropriate for small satellites in LEO, UHF/VHF transmitters have a
maximum data transfer rate of around 38 kbps, S-band transmitters have a maximum
data transfer rate around 10 Mbps, X-band transmitters around 500 Mbps, and
K/Ku/Ka band transmitters around 1.2 Gbps. The Infrared communication system
used on NASA Ames LADEE mission has a maximum data transfer rate of 2.88 Gbps.
Developments have been made in deployable high gain antennae to facilitate high
volume data transfers. There are currently a number of deployable high gain antennae
for CubeSats and larger applications. They offer maximum gains around 15-20 dBi.
Uplink to the spacecraft via the Iridium constellation has also been demonstrated.
On the Horizon: CubeSat scale laser communications is a field of current interest. The
use of Iridium or Globestar for bi-directional communications is also under
investigation.
Technology Gaps: There is a need for deep space communication technology for small
spacecraft.
capability for small satellite missions. EELV rockets (United Launch Alliances Atlas V
and Delta IV) are currently the most frequent launchers, especially after the
development of the ESPA ring. However current launch vehicles are often unable to
meet demands for missions that need very specific science orbits, interplanetary
trajectories, precisely timed rendezvous, or special environmental considerations.
Launching as a secondary payload also limits advantages of small satellites such as
quick iteration time and low total capital costs.
On the Horizon: Several promising small launch vehicles, orbital maneuvering systems
(space tugs), and large CubeSat deployers are currently under development.
Technology Gaps: Dedicated launch vehicles are needed to take full advantage of
rapid iteration and mission design flexibility.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Objective+
The objective of this report is to assess and give an overview of the SoA in small
spacecraft technology. It was commissioned by NASA's Small Spacecraft
Technology Program (SSTP) in mid-2013 in response to the rapid growth in
interest in using small spacecraft for missions beyond LEO. In addition to
reporting on what is currently available, we also look ahead towards technologies
on the horizon.
Information in this report has been collected essentially through desk research
and is not meant to be exhaustiveno such assessment can be comprehensive,
especially in its first release. New technology is developed continuously, and
emerging technologies will mature to become the SoA. The authors intend to
regularly update this report, and current technologies that were inadvertently
missed will be identified and included in the next version. The valuable input of
readers is solicited at [email protected] please include state of the
art report in the subject line.
1.2
Scope+
A spacecraft is herein called a small spacecraft when its dry mass is below 180
kg. This definition adopts the terminology set out by NASAs Small Spacecraft
Technology Program (SSTP)1. Figure 1 gives an impression of the variety of
spacecraft that fall into the small spacecraft category.
At the upper mass limit there are minisatellites like FASTSAT (Fast, Affordable,
Science and Technology Satellite), NASAs first minisatellite mission launched in
2010 with a weight slightly below 180 kg. On the lower mass end, there are
future projects such as KickSat, with a mere size of a large postage stamp and
with a mass well below 1 kg. Spacecraft are generally grouped according to their
mass, where small spacecraft include minisatellites with a mass of 100-500 kg,
See http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/crosscutting_capability/edison/Smallsat_tech.html
microsatellites with a mass of 10-100 kg, nanosatellites with a mass of 1-10 kg,
and picosatellites with a mass below 1 kg.
FASTSAT
Figure 1: Overview of the variety of spacecraft that fall into the small spacecraft category.
CubeSats are a type of small spacecraft that weigh only a few kilograms and are
built using a standard form factor relying on a 10 cm3 cube. CubeSats can be
composed of a single cube (nicknamed a 1U unit) or several cubes combined
forming, for instance, 3U or 6U units (see Figure 2). Due to their high popularity
and their increased usage in recent times, particular emphasis is put on the SoA
of CubeSat technology in this report (see also Figure 2).
A table of the small spacecraft missions that have been studied to assess the
state of the art of small spacecraft technology is provided in Appendix I.
Although the list gives a good overview of current endeavors it is not meant to
be exhaustive. Along the same line of thought the technology tables shown in
subsequent Sections are not meant to be comprehensive. Their goal is to
illustrate the current SoA based on what could be found through desk research
in a limited amount of time.
10
180.0
160.0
140.0
Mass.(kg)
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
07/24/1998
Jul.1998
04/19/2001
01/14/2004 10/10/2006 07/06/2009 04/01/2012 12/27/2014
Apr.2001.........Jan.2004..........Oct.2006............Jul.2009.............Apr.2012.......Jan.2014
Figure 2: (Left) Launch dates vs mass of the small spacecraft studied in this report (see
Appendix I for more detail). Spacecraft below the red line are essentially CubeSats with 15 kg
or less. The recent trend in the increased use of CubeSats is visible (along with a depletion of
launches in the 15 kg-100 kg). (Right) CubeSats with a form factor of 1U, 3U, and 6U,
respectively. The volume of the 1U base unit is 10 cm3.
1.3
Assessment+
The
SoA
performed
assessment
using
of
NASAs
technology
TRL
is
scale
11
1.4
Overview+
This report is laid out as follows: in Section II the SoA of small spacecraft
technology is addressed by focusing on the spacecraft system as a whole. The
current best practices of integration are presented. Then, in Sections 3-11, the
SoA of the spacecraft subsystems are presented in turn:
Power
Propulsion
Attitude Determination and Control System (ADCS)
Structures, Materials and Mechanisms
Thermal Systems
Command and Data Handling (C&DH)
Communications
Integration, Launch and Deployment
Ground System and Operations
Conclusions on the overall SoA of small spacecraft are given in Section 12.
Appendix 1 shows a number of tables that have not been inserted earlier for the
sake of readability.
12
2. SPACECRAFT
2.1
Introduction+
In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to smaller spacecraft enabling
low-cost missions through the utilization of COTS technology, consumer
technology, rapid prototyping, and ride shares. In order to drastically reduce
mission costs, the objective is to have one or more small spacecraft complete the
same tasks as their larger counterparts.
2.2
Small
State+of+the+Art+
spacecraft
missions
are
made
possible
through
miniaturization
13
Figure 4: Integration of various spacecraft. (Left) large spacecraft clean room (Intelsat 10-02,
image credit: EADS Astrium); (Right) Integration environments for small spacecraft FASTSAT
(Top) and Phonesat (Bottom). The blue and green rectangles highlight the differences in size
compared to Intelsat 10-02.
14
Figure 5: A miniaturized 3-dimensional magnetometer with MEMS sensors and electronics (left,
credit ASTC), which was flown on the Vietnamese CubeSat F-1 (right), one of three CubeSats
deployed from the ISS in 2012.
2.3
On+the+Horizon+
Current research focuses on further reducing the time and cost of building and
integrating a satellite. This may be enabled through a number of approaches,
such as reinforced usage of COTS and consumer electronics for which highly
miniaturized and integrated components are readily available. Plug-and-play
technology will allow rapid assembly of a specific satellite using a collection of
general
subsystems.
Rapid
prototyping
and
3-D
printing
of
structures,
15
components, and even complex subsystems will enable faster and much more
flexible manufacturing processes.
On the lower mass limit, the future may see the arrival of standardized ChipSats,
built out of highly integrated components fulfilling all the needs of a satellite on
a single chip (Johnson & Peck, 2012).
2.4
Conclusion+
2.5
References+
Johnson, M. I., Peck, M. A.: KickSat, an Open Source ChipSat Dispenser and Citizen
Space Exploration Proof of Concept Mission. 4th European CubeSat Symposium.
Bussels, Belgium, 2012.
Moore, G. E.: Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Proceedings of
the IEEE, 86(1), p. 4, 1998.
16
3. POWER
3.1
Introduction+
3.2
State+of+the+Art+
3.2.1 Power+Generation+
Solar cells generate electricity by harvesting Sunlight using the photovoltaic
effect. Solar intensity varies as the inverse square of the distance from the Sun.
The amount of energy converted varies as a cosine function of the angle between
the cell and the Sun. Solar cells degrade during their mission lifetime. This is
characterized by the End of Life/Beginning of Life (EOL/BOL) ratio, which can be
as high as 96% and low as 60%. The solar cell output at EOL will determine size
requirements for the particular mission. A protective coverglass material over
the cell resists light-reflection, darkening, and ultraviolet radiation damage.
Triple junction solar conversion efficiency is about 29% in production while
research cells approach 38%. The cells usually include protective diodes to stop
reverse current flow when the cells are in partial shadow while in space. Solar
panels are assembled from individual cells. State of the art panels suitable for
CubeSats can provide more than 50 W according to kit manufacturers. Spectrolab
Inc., produces a Triangular Advanced Solar Cell (TASC), which has the advantage
of fitting odd form factors on small satellites without the need to custom cut
individual solar cells. Other issues with turning cells into panel arrays involve
matching individual cells in terms of current and voltage (Kalman, 2012).
17
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Solar cell
Triangular shape,
Im proved Triple
Junction (ITJ),
Efficiency 27%
SpectroLab
(USA)
9
On orbit
Solar cell
SpectroLab
(USA)
9
On orbit
Solar cell
Em core
(USA)
9
On orbit
Solar cell
AzurSpace
Solar
(Germ any)
9
On orbit
Solar panel
Panel of SpectorLab or
AzurSpace cells
Clyde
(UK)
9
On orbit
Solar panel
Pum pkin
(USA)
9
On orbit
Figures
3.2.2 Energy+Storage+
During eclipse periods or peak power needs, batteries use chemically stored
energy as the source of power. Primary one-time-use batteries can have a long
mission life; however their chemistry differs from that of rechargeable batteries.
Battery technology is at TRL 9 and includes 3.7 V Lithium Ion batteries, usually in
cylindrical form factor of 18.4 x 65.1 mm, and the latest lithium polymer
batteries in a flat form factor such as used in modern mobile phones. Table 2
and Table 3 illustrate the general characteristics of different battery types for
small spacecraft.
18
Battery
Chemistry
Mission
Specific
Energy
(Wh/kg)
Energy
Density
(Wh/l)
Operting
Temp. Range
(C)
Cycle Life
Mission Life
(yrs)
Issues
Primary
Ag-Zn
Li-SO2
Li-SOCl2
Launch
vehicles,
Cassini, MER
lander,
Sojourner
Rover
90-250
130-500
-20 to 60
1-9
Limited temp.
range &
voltage decay
Rechargable
Ni-Cd
Ni-H2
ToPex, HST,
Space Station
24-35
10-80
-5 to 30
>50,000 @ 25%
DOD
>10
Heavy/bulky
& temp. range
Advanced
Li-Ion
Li-Polymer
MER rovers,
Cubesat
100
250
-20 to 30
>400 @ 50%
DOD
>2
Cycle life
19
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
6
Not flown on sm all
satellite
6
Not flown on sm all
satellite
Rechargable
battery
Yardney
(USA)
6
Not flown on sm all
satellite
Advanced
battery
ABSL Space
Products
(UK / USA)
6
Not flown on sm all
satellite
Advanced
battery
Clyde Space
Ltd.
(UK)
6
Not flown on sm all
satellite
Advanced
battery
Saft SA
(France/
USA)
6
Not flown on sm all
satellite
Advanced
battery
Sony
(Japan)
6
Not flown on sm all
satellite
Advanced
battery
Yardney
(USA)
6
Not flown on sm all
satellite
Figures
3.2.3 Power+Management+and+Distribution+
Satellite power distribution architectures include voltages regulated centrally or
distributed along with Direct Energy Transfer (DET) or Peak Power Tracking
(PPT); small satellites follow the same power distribution architectures as well. A
study of 33 CubeSat power systems where data was available revealed 20
centralized and five distributed with 13 DET and 15 PPT, with DET favored in the
newer designs (Burt, 2011). In a DET architecture, the regulation mechanism
matches the solar power voltage to the load(s) and there are no intermediate
components to dissipate excess power, thus making it the most efficient power
20
regulation of the two available methods. A PPT design has a series regulation
device between the solar arrays and loads, which regulates how much current is
extracted from the array (Burt, 2011). Nanosatellite Electrical Power Systems (EPS)
typically have a main battery bus voltage of 8.2 V but can distribute a regulated
5.0 V and 3.3 V to various subsystems. The EPS also protects the electronics and
batteries
from
non-nominal
current
and
voltage
conditions.
The
main
commercial CubeSat EPS suppliers are Pumpkin Inc., GomSpace ApS., Stras Space,
and Clyde Space Ltd. The manufacturers datasheets generally mention quality
and acceptance component testing as well as flight qualified heritage. SpaceMicro
Inc.,
lists
commercially-available
radiation-hardened
systems
and
testing
3.3
On+the+Horizon+
3.3.1 Power+Generation+
There are new technologies for power generation that are currently being
assessed for smaller spacecraft applications. The areas include improved solar
efficiencies, regenerative fuel cells, space tethers, and numerous methods to
harvest the heat from radioactive decay. Four-junction solar cells are on a
roadmap to reach 50% efficiency, but currently research laboratory cells are at
43% under concentrated solar conditions. Specification sheets are not available
so it is unknown if the addition of another layer on the solar cell (the fourth
junction) results in an equivalent powerto-weight-ratio.
Fuel cells might be a more effective technology to generate power during long
eclipse periods when compared to photovoltaics and battery power; however, no
fuel cell has advanced beyond laboratory tests. In addition to system lifetime, the
obstacles to overcome include minimizing mass, volume, and the parasitic power
requirement. One development program by Boeing/Saint Louis University called
BillikenSat-II was a CubeSat that was powered by beer, but the status of the
program is unknown (Pais, et al., 2007). Figure 6 shows the relative energy
densities of fuel cells (Pais et al., 2007). It should be noted that fuel cells cannot
21
Figure 6: Relative stored energy for candidate fuel cells (Pais, et al., 2007).
22
of
radioactive
decay.
Small
(RTG)
have
been
used
for
Radioisotope
Heating
Units
circuits
and
rechargeable
batteries
above 0C.
A full size RTG, such as on New Horizons mission to Pluto (Radioisotope Power
Systems, New Horizons 2012), has a mass of 56 kg and can supply 300W (6.3%
efficiency) at the beginning of its life. Future developments on Advanced Stirling
Radioisotope Generators (ASRG) are looking to increase efficiency to 28% with a
mass of 20 kg to generate 143 W, but are only at TRL 5 (Vining & Bennett, 2010).
Radioactive
heat
sources
are
mainly
23
24
energy via a piezoelectric thin-film. A miniature cell has been tested to produce
15 W with dimensions 4.5 mm 2 mm 1 m.
NASA Glenn is developing both the Small Radioisotope Power System (SRPS). An
example of the ASRG convertor developed by Sunpower, Inc. is shown in Figure
9. These utilize linear Stirling actuators and a 30% efficient thermodynamic cycle
using a piston to convert thermal and mechanical energy to electrical energy. A
single SRPS device is aimed at producing 80 W of power with a specific power of
7 W/kg. Table 4 shows future technologies in power generation for small
satellites. The table is heavily weighted to using radioisotope heat sources and
advanced mechanical or photovoltaic harvesting methods. NASA Glenn is the
lead center in space power generation research.
Table 4: Future technologies in power generation for small satellites.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Piezoelectric
power
conversion
Sm all
radioisotope
power system
Figures
N/A
A m iniature cantilever
beam is bom barded
with radiation from a University of
2
radioisotope source,
Toronto
Analysis and laboratory
and the vibrational
(Canada)
testing
energy is converted
via piezoelectrics
Stirling
therm odynam ic cycle
power conversion
from a radioisotope
NASA Glenn
(USA)
2
Analysis and laboratory
testing
25
3.3.2 Energy+Storage+
There is nothing to indicate new battery technology developments for small
satellite systems. One issue may be that large firms are not actively marketing to
the small satellite manufacturers. COTS batteries are put through quality
assurance testing and then custom integrated into products intended for the
small satellite market.
3.3.3 Power+Management+and+Distribution+
There is a general need to miniaturize and radiation-harden electronic
components for single event upsets. No evidence of progress in that direction
(focused on small satellite technology) could be found during the limited amount
of time assigned to this study.
3.4
Conclusion+
Small spacecraft are using advanced power generation and energy storage
technology, namely 29% efficient triple-junction solar cells and lithium ion
batteries. Todays small spacecraft mission designers are faced with stringent
mass and volume restrictions and requirements and have a higher risk
tolerancewhich has led to the industrys early adoption of flat lithium polymer
battery packs. All the power subsystems benefit from technology advances and
component miniaturization in the consumer electronics market. Figure 10:
Advances in solar cell efficiency by cell type (National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, 2013). shows the general trend of solar cell efficiency over the last
three decades. Figure 11 shows energy storage density by volume and mass
versus battery chemistry.
26
Figure 10: Advances in solar cell efficiency by cell type (National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, 2013).
Figure 11: Comparison of energy storage density by volume and mass versus battery chemistry
(Wagner, 2006 Woodbank Communications, Ltd).
27
3.5
References+
28
Landis, G. et al.: Non-solar photovoltaics for small space missions. Austin, s.n., p.
2819 2824, 2012.
Lange, R., Carroll, W.: Review of Recent Advances of Radioisotope Power Systems.
Energy Conversion and Management Journal, 49(3), pp. 393-401, 2008.
Lyons, V. J., Gonzalez, G. A., Houts, M. G., Iannello, C. J.: Space Power and Energy
Storage Roadmap, Technology Area 03. s.l., NASA, 2012.
Otting, W., Gard, L., Hammel, T. E., Bennett, R.: Preparation of the MMRTG for the
Mars Science Laboratory Mission. Atlanta, s.n., 2012.
Reinhard, W.: Electropaedia. [Online], 2006.
Available at: http://www.maximintegrated.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/3958!
Rockwell International. Dynamic Isotope Power Systems (DIPS) for Space
Exploration Technical Information, BC92-68, Rocketdyne Division, Canoga Park,
California, 1992.
Sunpower, Inc. [Online], 2013. Available at:
http://sunpowerinc.com/services/applications/asc.php [Accesses October 2013].
Vega, P.: JPL-Developed Clean Energy Technology Moves Forward [Online], 2011.
Available at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-163
[Accessed August 2013].
Vining, C., Bennett & Gary, L.: Power for Science and Exploration: Upgrading the
General Purpose Heat Source Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. Nashville,
s.n., pp. 1-15, 2010.
Woodbank
Communications,
Ltd
[Online]
2013
Available
at:
29
4. PROPULSION
4.1
Introduction+
30
4.2
State+of+the+Art+
4.2.1 Cold+Gas+Thrusters+
The simplest propulsion system available to small spacecraft vents a cold,
pressurized gas through a nozzle. The specific impulse of a cold nitrogen gas
system is less than 75 sec and thrust levels are less than 5 N. The system does
not have a pump and is referred to as a blow down system, where the pressure of
the system decreases with time. It is possible to have a high-pressure tank with a
regulator to vent the gas at a lower pressure for a longer amount of time, but the
total impulse delivered is the same since it is a function of the pressure force
over time. Many cold gas systems used on larger satellites are theoretically
usable on small satellites, however their use on CubeSats may be limited due to
valve power requirements even if sufficiently low in mass and volume. While no
CubeSat has yet flown a cold gas thruster, Surrey Space flew SNAP-1, a 6.5 kg
small satellite with a 450 g butane cold gas system from Polyflex Aerospace, Ltd,
which performed proximity operations on orbit.
Different gases are available as propellants; nitrogen and helium are popular for
pressurization because they do not chemically react, but they may require a
pressure regulator to function with an on/off valve. Propellants with a critical
temperature above the ambient exist only in the gas phase, while those below the
critical temperature are liquid. Propellants below the critical temperature such as
propane, sulfur hexafluoride, and butane are self-pressurizing, negating the need
for a pump, and they have a higher storage density in liquid form. Because
operational safety is of primary importance in CubeSats, there is active
development of cold gas systems for small satellites. Butane has the lowest vapor
pressure at room temperature, as shown in Table 5. Because butanes low
pressure allows for non-spherical or flat-wall tank designs, 3D-printers can
manufacture conforming tanks.
31
Table 6 shows the SoA in cold gas systems. Currently, several nitrogen cold gas
systems are available, yet many systems may prove to be ineffective on a small
satellite due to limitations of valve power, volume, and mass requirements.
Table 6: List of a few small satellite cold gas propulsion systems.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Cold gas
thruster
n-Butane, 0.025 N
Isp 70 sec
VACCO
Space
(USA)
7
Tested, not flown
Cold gas
thruster
Polyflex
Aerospace
LTD
(UK)
9
Flown on SNAP-1
Cold gas
thruster
VACCO
Space
(USA)
9
Flown on Can X-2
Moog
(USA)
9
NASA CHAMP
Cold gas
thruster
58E143/144/145/146
Nitrogen, 0.016-0.04 N
Isp 65 sec
Figures
4.2.2 Chemical+Propulsion+
Chemical propulsion systems use a chemical reaction to produce a high-pressure,
high-temperature gas that accelerates out of a nozzle. Chemical propellant can
32
Table 8 show monopropellant and solid systems available for use on small
spacecraft. It is important to note that, at the time of this study, virtually no
bipropellant systems were suitable for small spacecraft.
33
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Monopropellant
thruster
NASA
Glenn, Ball
Aerospace
(USA)
6
GPIM datasheet, Falcon
Heavy launch 2015
Monopropellant
thruster
ECAPS, SSC
Group,
(Sweden)
6
PRISMA satellite
dem onstration
Monopropellant
thruster
MR-140, Hydrazine,
1 N, Isp 202 sec
Aerojet
(USA)
7
Cham ps system
Solid rocket
m otor
ATK
(USA)
7
Two test, 0 flights
Solid rocket
m otor
ATK
(USA)
9
Six tests, 3 flights
Figures
In recent years, there has been more of a push to move from toxic propellants
(hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide) to greener, less-toxic propellants such as
hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) or nitrous oxide fuel blend (NOFB), and ionic liquids
such as hydroxyl ammonium nitrate (HAN), hydrazinium nitroformate (HNF) and
ammonium di-nitramide (ADN). One such program for small satellites is NASA
Glenns Green Propellant Infusion Mission (GPIM) using HAN, which plans to fly
on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch in 2015. OHB-Swedens PRISMA project has a
high-performance green propellant ADN 150 kg satellite demonstration called
Tango.
4.2.3 Electric+Propulsion+
Electric propulsion systems produce thrust generally by producing plasma and
accelerating it electromagnetically out of the thruster. The plasma can be
produced through various discharge mechanisms such as with electrodes or
antennas, and can use a variety of propellants ranging from solids to gasses. The
advantage of an electrical propulsion system over chemical propulsion systems
is that the propellant is separated from the power source (typically solar
34
photovoltaic arrays) and as such the thruster is not limited by the energy of a
chemical reaction. Plasma thrusters are capable of high specific impulse and long
burn durations, thus allowing for high delta-V maneuvers.
Electric propulsion systems have a long flight heritage on satellites, with
hundreds of ion thrusters and Hall effect thrusters being flown since the 1970s.
Similarly to chemical thrusters, miniaturized plasma thrusters for small satellites
are a relatively new technology and development is currently underway.
Nevertheless, there are pulsed plasma thrusters (PPT) that have flown on
missions, and should be considered SoA.
Pulsed plasma thrusters produce plasma by ablating solid Teflon with an arc
discharge across electrodes. The plasma is then accelerated electromagnetically
to produce thrust. Busek Company, Inc., has developed the Micro Propulsion
Attitude Control System (MPACS, see Figure 12), which has flown on the Air
Force Academy CubeSat FalconSat-3. MPACS provided attitude control for the
CubeSat with 80 Ns impulse bits at 830 sec Isp. Aerojet also has a similar EO-1
PPT that flew on NM EO-1, and the thruster has similar specifications (650-1400
sec Isp, 90-860 Ns impulse bit, at 5 kg thruster mass).
35
4.3
On+the+Horizon+
4.3.1+Chemical+Propulsion+
Monopropellant hydrazine thrusters have a long heritage as ADCS thrusters
since as early as 1966 (Mueller, et al., 2008). Recently JPL has developed a
CubeSat scale hydrazine thruster, the Hydrazine Milli-Newton Thruster shown
below in Figure 13, capable of 150 sec Isp and 129 mN thrust at 40 g of thruster
mass and 8 cm3 volume. The power requirements of the thruster are low at an
instantaneous 8 W for valve opening and a continuous 1 W during the burn.
has
an
equivalently
long
flight
heritage
(1960s)
as
hydrazine.
36
Bipropellants
offer
the
capability
of
higher
specific
impulse
than
37
4.3.2+Electric+Propulsion+
As there currently are numerous electric propulsion technologies being
developed for small satellites, this section will be limited to a selection of several
different candidates. These include vacuum arc, hall effect, gridded ion,
electrospray, and helicon thrustersall of which are at various TRL designations
of 5 or below.
NASA JPL is developing a vacuum arc thruster (see Figure 16) that creates plasma
from an arc discharge between two solid electrodes. The plasma then expands
and accelerates out of a magnetic nozzle, creating thrust. The laboratory
demonstrated specifications are 125 N thrust and 1500 sec Isp at 40 g mass and
10 W power. The plasma emitted from the thruster is quasi-neutral and thus
does not require a neutralizer to prevent spacecraft charging.
38
JPL is also producing a RF plasma discharge gridded ion thruster called the
Miniature Xenon Ion Thruster (MiXI, shown in Figure 18). MiXI is capable of 1.5
mN thrust and 3200 sec Isp, uses 50 W of power and has a mass of 200 g. The
plasma in RF discharge is formed by accelerating electrons in an oscillating
electromagnetic field and causing ionization upon neutral particle bombardment.
The ions are then accelerated out of the thruster via electrostatic potential grids,
and thus a neutralizer is also required.
Figure 18: JPL Miniature Xenon Ion thruster (Mueller, et al., 2008).
39
1300 sec Isp, while consuming 8.5 x 8.5 x 6 cm and 10 W power. The electrospray
thruster also requires a neutralizer to prevent spacecraft charging and spacecraft
contamination.
Two new plasma thrusters being developed are the CubeSat Ambipolar Thruster
(CAT, Figure 20) at University of Michigan and the mini Heated Helicon Thruster
(mH2T) at Stanford University. Both thrusters form plasma with a radiofrequency
discharge in an axial magnetic field specifically to develop a helicon wave within
the plasmathis has been shown to efficiently produce high-density, lowpressure plasma. CAT then accelerates the plasma out of a magnetic nozzle via
an ambipolar electric field. CAT is predicted to produce 1 mN thrust at 2000 sec
Isp while consuming 10 W of power. mH2T further heats the electrons after
ionization before accelerating the plasma similarly out of a magnetic nozzle.
This is predicted to produce 1.5 mN thrust at 3000 sec Isp while consuming 50 W
power.
40
4.3.3 Solar+Sails+
Solar sails offer a propellant-less option for satellites by harnessing momentum
of the solar flux with reflective sails. This is an attractive alternative that also
complies with the CubeSat standard prohibiting the use of high pressure storage
tanks. University of Surrey in the United Kingdom is developing a 3 kg solar sail
CubeSat called CubeSail (Figure 21), with a sail surface area of 5 x 5 m.
Figure 21: Engineering and CAD models of CubeSail (Lappas, et al., 2011).
41
Technology
Name
MPACS
Miniature
hydrogen
peroxide
thruster
Description
Pulsed plasm a
thruster flown on
FalconSat-3
Green
m onopropellant
thruster using
hydrogen peroxide
Hydrazine
m onopropellant
thruster
Pulsed plasm a
thruster that erodes
its cathode via an arc
to produce propellant
Miniature Hall effect
Cylindrical hall
thruster using a
thruster
cylindrical (instead of
anular) geom etry
Vacuum arc
thruster
Miniature
xenon ion
thruster
PUC
electrospray
thruster
CAT
m H2T
RF discharge gridded
ion thruster
Electrostatically
accelerates charged
liquid particles from
an ionic liquid
Thruster with a
helicon plasm a
discharge accelerated
out of a m agnetic
nozzle
Thruster with a
helicon plasm a
discharge with
electron heating stage
and m agnetic nozzle
Developer
TRL Status
Busek Corp
(USA)
9
Flight tested
ARCS
(Austria)
4
Com ponent laboratory
testing
Tethers
Unlim ited
(USA)
4
Com ponent laboratory
testing
JPL
(USA)
3
Proof of concept,
laboratory developm ent
JPL
(USA)
4
Com ponent laboratory
testing
Princeton
(USA)
4
Com ponent laboratory
testing
JPL
(USA)
3
Proof of concept,
laboratory developm ent
Busek Corp.
(USA)
5
Subsystem laboratory
testing
University
of Michigan
(USA)
3
Proof of concept,
laboratory developm ent
Stanford
University
(USA)
2
Technology concept
and application
form ulated
CubeSail
25 square m eter
CubeSat solar sail
University
of Surrey
(UK)
3
Proof of concept,
laboratory developm ent
Sunjam m er
NASA L'Garde
(USA)
5
Schedule for launch
2015
Figures
42
4.4
Conclusion+
Figure 22: Plot detailing the spectrum of small satellite propulsion options.
4.5
References+
43
CubeSat Technology: Current SoA and Future Needs. Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Hruby, Vlad, Busek Corp.: High Isp CubeSat Propulsion. iCubeSat Conference at
MIT, 2012.
Lappas, Vaios, et al.: CubeSail: A low cost CubeSat based solar sail demonstration
mission. Advances in Space Research 48.11, 1890-1901, 2011.
Mueller, J. et al.: A survey of micro-thrust propulsion options for microspacecraft
and formation flying missions. 5th Annual CubeSat Developers Workshop. San
Luis Obispo, CA, 2008.
Mueller, J., Hofer, R. and Ziemer, J. Survey of propulsion technologies applicable to
CubeSats. 2010.
Tethers Unlimited, Inc.: Hydros, Powerful Propulsion and Precision Pointing for
CubeSats. [Online] 2013. Available at: http://www.tethers.com
http://pepl.engin.umich.edu/thrusters/CAT.html
Tajmar1, M. and Scharlemann, C. A. Development of Electric and Chemical
Microthrusters.
International
Journal
of
Aerospace
Engineering,
Hindawi
44
Introduction+
The SoA of ADCS for small spacecraft relies on miniaturizing technology without
significant degradation of performance. Despite the fact that ADCS algorithms
used on small spacecraft are essentially the same as those flown on conventional
spacecraft, small spacecraft are good platforms to test new algorithms and
advanced software. Benefits of using small spacecraft include low cost and rapid
development; research to decrease the development cost of ADCS software is
addressed below.
5.2
State+of+the+Art!+
5.2.1+Reaction+Wheels++
The performance of reaction wheels is described by maximum angular
momentum, maximum output torque, electrical power, and the level of microvibrations produced by the wheels. Current research focuses on increasing
angular momentum and maximum output torque, and decreasing electrical
power and micro-vibrations. For CubeSats, which may not have sufficient volume
to accommodate three independent wheels, integrated three-axis wheel systems
are considered a SoA option4.
Wheel performance, in terms of maximum angular momentum and output
torque, is proportional to wheel volume (Larson & Wertz, 2004). One convenient
way of describing the SoA of wheels is by mapping the ratio of maximum angular
momentum to volume against the mass of the wheel, as depicted in Figure 23.
The Figure gives an overview of the current SoA techniques by comparing a
number of benchmark wheels presented in detail in Table 10.
Traditionally CubeSats did not require precise attitude stability and micro-vibrations have not
been considered problematic for these spacecraft, but recent CubeSat missions require more
precise observations, and thus recent miniature wheel research focuses both on improved pointing,
and on being able to deal with micro-vibrations.
45
Mass[g]
SoA$Wheels
(TRL$$7)
1000
TRL$$6
100
10
0
200
400
600
800
1000
46
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
100SP-O
SSTL
(UK)
9
TechDem oSat-1
Kazakhstan
10SP-M
SSTL
(UK)
RW90
Astro- und
Feinwerktechnik
(Germ any)
8
BIRD, TET-1
RW-0.03-4
Sinclair
Interplanetary
8
UniBRITE
BRITE-Austria
MAI-200
Maryland
Aerospace
7
QbX1, QbX2
RW1
Astro- und
Feinwerktechnik
(Germ any)
7
BEESAT
Figures
9
UK-DMC-2,
Deim os-1,
NigeriaSat-2,
& ExactView-1
5.2.2+Magnetorquer+
The purpose of magnetorquers is to develop a magnetic field that interfaces with
Earths magnetic field so that the counter-forces produced provide useful torque.
Whereas large spacecraft usually do not rely on magnetorquers (their size would
47
be prohibitive), magnetorquers for small spacecraft are built around two types of
technology: air core coils and metal core coils (also known as torque rods). The
performance of metal core coil magnetorquers depends on the material used:
materials with high magnetic permeability allow higher magnetic moment; miniand micro satellites are adapted to having a redundant coil inside their
magnetorquer in case of contingency. Table 11 gives an overview of some SoA
technology for magnetorquers.
Table 11: Examples of the SoA of magnetorquer technology for small spacecraft.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Magnetorquer
ZARM
(Germ any)
9
Num erous flight
dem onstrations
Magnetorquer
ZARM
(Germ any)
9
Num erous flight
dem onstrations
Magnetorquer with
redundancy
SSBV
Aerospace
&
Technology
Group
(UK)
! 9
Flight heritage on the
BADR B, Fedsat and
MicroLabSat
Magnetorquer
rod
Figures
5.2.3 Other+Actuators+
For active, high-agility missions such as side-looking slew maneuvers in Earth
observation, gamma ray burst observation, or observation of asteroid fly-bys,
higher output torque actuators are required. In these cases, Control Moment
Gyros (CMGs) are usually the technology of choice.
Technologies for passive attitude stabilization using the ambient space
environment include aerodynamic wing technologies (taking advantage of
48
Table 12: Examples of the SoA of other actuators for small spacecraft.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
CMG
SSTL
(UK)
8
Flown on BILSAT-1
Aerodynam ic
wing
Pum pkin
(USA)
7
Flown on QbX
Figures
5.2.4+Star+Trackers+
Currently, star trackers are the most important attitude sensor for small
spacecraft. The performance of star trackers is measured by accuracy, data
output rate, first tracking time, and maximum allowable slew rate (attitude
maneuver rate). The accuracy of a star tracker is proportional to the size of its
field of view. Figure 24 maps the in-plane accuracy of a number of benchmark
star trackers against their mass and power requirements. A subset of the data
used is given in Table 13.
49
Power[W]
Mass[g]
10
Altair#HB+
DTU4STT
SoA'STT
(TRL''7)
1000
VF#ST
VST#41M
BCT4Nano
ST#16#28
100
TRL''6
STELLA
ST200
0.1
10
10
100
0.001
0.01
Accuracy [arcsec]
Accuracy [deg]
Figure 24: SoA of small spacecraft star trackers. The performance of eight star trackers,
expressed through the accuracy achievable, is plotted against mass and power requirements.
The blue surface highlights the SoA technology at TRL higher than 7, and the red surface
highlights technology at TRL lower or equal to 6. A subset of the data used to draw the graph is
given in Table 13.
Table 13: Examples of SoA star trackers for small spacecraft.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
ASC (Micro
Advanced
Stellar
Com pass)
World's highest
accuracy star tracker
for m ini satellites
(accuracy=1 arcsec)
Technical
University
of
Denm ark
(DTU)
9
Proba series, Myriade
series
VST-41M
Figures
9
TUBSAT series, SDS
series
50
5.2.5+Sun+Sensors+
There are two types of Sun sensors for small spacecraft: fine- or mediumprecision Sun sensors and coarse Sun sensors. Traditionally, fine-precision Sun
sensors have combined two orthogonally arranged solar cells with narrow slits
over the cells, and measured the analog current from the cells to detect the
direction of the Sun. More recently, fine-precision sensors use two line array
sensors or an area sensor to obtain a digital value for the Suns direction. Coarse
Sun sensors basically consist of a solar cell or a photo diode. Currently the most
advanced Sun sensor technology for small spacecraft is the SS-411 from Sinclair
Interplanetary, as shown in Table 14.
Table 14: Examples of SoA fine-precision Sun sensors.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
SS-411 Digital
Sun Sensor
Sinclair
Interplanetary
(Canada)
DSS
TNO
(Netherlands)
TRL Status
Figures
7
PROBA-2, Delfin3Xt(2013)
5.2.6+Earth+Sensors+
Most recent miniature Earth sensors use thermopile sensors or photodiodes to
locate the curve of the Earth without the use of scanning mechanisms. Since the
temperature of the Earths contour differs significantly between polar regions
and the equator, a set of thermopile arrays measures both the temperature of the
limb of the Earth and space, and a CPU calculates the difference to determine the
displacement from nadir. The process is illustrated in Figure 25, with an example
of current TRL in Table 15.
51
Figure 25: The use of thermopiles to detect the limb of the Earth has enabled Earth sensors to
be miniaturized.
Table 15: An Example of a SoA Earth sensor for small spacecraft.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Earth nadir
sensor
SoA m iniature
European Space
Agency for cubesat
Aerospace
(USA)
7
PSSCT-2
Figures
5.2.7+Angular+Rate+Sensors+
Gyroscopes can be ranked as follows, in decreasing order of precision and
system resource requirements: mechanical and ring laser gyroscopes, fiber
optical gyroscopes, and MEMS vibrating structure gyroscopes. Microsatellites
tend to use fiber optical gyroscopes, while nano- and picosatellites generally use
MEMS-based gyroscopes. The precision of gyroscopes is measured by bias
instability and angle random walk. Figure 26 shows an overview of the SoA
gyroscopic technology available to small spacecraft by mapping system resource
requirements against precision. Note that the values for power and mass need to
be multiplied by three if the angular rate is required to be measured along the
52
three axes of the spacecraft. Some of the raw data used in Figure 26 is specified
in Table 16.
Power[W]
Mass[g]
1000
MEMS Gyro
10
0.1
TRL$$6
0.01
SoA$MEMS$Gyros
(TRL$$7)
0.1
0.00015 0.0015
0.015
0.15
1.5
15
150
1500
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
FORCE-1
Northrop
Grum m an
LITEF Gm bH
(USA/
Germ any)
VSGA
AES
(Japan)
Analog
Devices
(USA)
TRL Status
Figures
7
Flown on SDS-4
53
5.2.8+GPS+Receivers+and+Antennas+
GPS receivers are used not only for orbit control but also for ADCS purposes, in
particular to determine of the direction of a ground target. The best way to make
GPS receivers smaller is to develop high-end Application Specific Integrated
Circuits (ASIC). Examples of these current technologies are listed in Table 17. In
order to use COTS GPS receivers in space, the Doppler frequency range and the
ionospheric delay correction must be modified accordingly. To do so, developers
must have access to the firmware of the receiver.
Table 17: Example SoA GPS receivers for small spacecraft.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
SGR-10
SSTL
(UK)
9
Flown on NigeriaSat-2
GPS-12-V1
GPS receiver
(L1, 1 antenna,12ch,
10m )
SGR-05P
Figures
SpaceQuest
9
(USA)
Flown on AprizeSat-1,-2
SSTL
(UK)
8
Flown on UKDMC
Phoenix-S
OEM4-G2L
NOVATEL
(Canada)
7
Flown on CanX-2 &
CASSIOPE
54
5.3
On+the+Horizon++
5.3.1+Reaction+Wheels+
Table 18 presents a number of wheel technologies currently under development.
Table 18: On the horizon technologies for small spacecraft wheels.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Type SSS
Mitubishi
Precision
(Japan)
6
Not flown yet
RW-0.060
Sinclair
Interplanetary
(Canada)
6
Not flown yet
Micro reaction
wheel
Blue Canyon
Technologies
(USA)
6
Not flown yet
Figures
5.3.2+Magnetorquer++
Three-axis integrated magnetorquer systems for nano- and picosatellites are in
development, as shown in Table 19.
55
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
TU Delft MTQ
Sytem
Delft
University
(Netherlands)
5
DELFI-N3XT
ISIS
Magnetorquer
The ISIS
MagneTorQuer (iMTQ)
is a PCB based 3-axis
m agnetorquer system
ISIS
(Netherlands)
5
Not flown yet
Figures
5.3.3+Other+Actuators+
Research focuses on CMGs and aerodynamic wings for CubeSats. For missions
beyond-GEO and near-Earth environment, magnetorquers such as thrusters and
electrochromic vanes for solar pressure control cannot be used. However, all are
promising technologies as shown in Table 20.
Table 20: Examples of future technologies for other actuators for small spacecraft.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
CMG
CMG for
m icrosatellite
Tam agawa
Seiki
(Japan)
6
Dem onstrated on
TSUBAME
JPL
(USA)
Electrochrom ic
Electrochrom ic vanes
vanes for solar
for solar pressure
pressure
control
control
Figures
5.3.4+Star+Trackers++
Areas of research include fast and effective star identification algorithms, and
low-reflection small (or deployable) baffles, as shown in Table 21.
56
Table 21: On the horizon technologies of star trackers for small spacecraft.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
BCT Nano
Tracker
Blue Canyon
Technologies
(BCT)
(USA)
6
To be flown on JPL's
INSPIRE 3U CubeSat,
pl anned for launch 20142016
ST-16 Star
Tracker
Sinclair
Interplanetary
(Canada)
6
17 Flight units
delivered. First launch
Q4 2013
Berlin Space
Technologies
(BST)
(Germ any)
5
Not flown yet
Berlin Space
Technologies
(BST)
(Germ any)
6
Flying on LAPAN-A2 and
LAPAN-ORARI
m icrosatellites,
launching m id-2013
Figures
5.3.5+Sun+Sensors+
Research is ongoing as can be noted from
Table 22.
Technology
Name
Miniature
CubeSat Sun
Sensor
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Figures
SSBV
6
Aerospace & To be flown on Ukube-1
Technology
and TechDem oSat-1
Group
(a.k.a. TDS-1), both of
(Netherlands/ which are launching in
UK)
Sep. 2013
57
5.3.6+Earth+Sensors++
Table 23 shows an example of an Earth sensor for small spacecraft currently
under development.
Table 23: Example of an Earth sensor for small spacecraft under development.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
MESA
Meisei
Electric
(Japan)
6
Not flown yet
(planned in 2013 on
SOCRATES)
Figures
5.3.7+Angular+Rate+Sensors+
Recent R&D has enabled MEMS gyros to be on par with fiber optic solutions in
terms of precision. As shown in Table 24, a number of microsatellites have
already adopted MEMS gyros. MEMS gyros are small, lightweight, low power, and
fit the needs of small spacecraft.
Table 24: Examples of gyroscopes under development for small spacecraft.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
STIM300
Sensonor
(Norway)
5
Not flown yet
CRS39
Silicon
sensing
(UK)
5
Not flown yet
SAR500
Sensonor
(Norway)
5
Not flown yet
Figures
58
5.3.8+GPS+Receivers++
Current research areas that look to be advantageous are: multi-antenna inputs,
multi-Global Navigation Spacecraft Systems (GNSS) decoders, L1/L2 dualfrequencies, internal Kalman filtering (only very few GPS receivers for small
spacecraft currently have an internal Kalman filter), GPS constellation spacecraft
initial acquisition & search algorithms, precise positioning using carrier-wave
phase information, and open source software GPS receivers. An example of this
is the FOTON subsystem under development by University of Texas, Austin (as
shown in Table 25).
Table 25: Example of a GPS receiver under development for small spacecraft.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
FOTON
University
of Texas
Austin
(USA)
Figures
Table 25A: ADCS accuracies achievable for mini-, micro-, nano- and picosatellites. The overall
accuracy is the root mean squared value of the three preceding values.
Mini/Microsatellites
Nano/Picosatellites
Attitude
Determination
Ground Target
Position
Attitude
Control
Overall
Accuracy
~0.1
~0.01
~0.8
~0.01
~1.8
~0.04
~2
~0.1
5.3.9+Reaction+Control+System+Thrusters+++
No small spacecraft in LEO have used RCS thrusters in past missions. Currently,
there are only limited efforts going in this direction. An example of a current
project is the STRaND-2 mission by SSTL developing a cold gas thruster based
RCS for nanosatellite rendezvous and docking. A large number of thrusters have
been developed for small spacecraft but all of these systems have been built for
the purpose of orbit correction and not for attitude control. The reasons for this
lack of development are the limitations in size, mass and power of small
spacecraft. In LEO, magnetorquers are typically used to unload angular
momentum and no RCS thrusters are necessary.
59
The
situation
changes
for
interplanetary
missions
beyond
Earth
orbit.
Magnetorquers cannot be used any more since Earths magnetic field is not
available to provide the torque. There is a need to develop RCS thrusters for
interplanetary missions. Cold gas thrusters are the most likely candidate
technology since chemical thrusters are too complex to mount on small
platforms. Electric thrusters are not a likely option either since the net thrust
force of such systems is not sufficient for RCS purposes. Electric systems also
require significant power that is usually not available for typical small spacecraft.
5.4
Conclusion+
60
100(180kg
10(100kg
(10kg
100
10
QbX
TUDelft
Pointing'accuracy'[deg]
Can(X2
RF'/'Communication
CXBN
Myriade JAXA
0.1
SSTL(100
SSTL Earth'science''
Myriade SSTL(150
TUB
Sich
Proba
Reconnaissance
DLR
Proba
Proba
0.01
MIT
Myriade
Astronomy
0.001
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Year
Figure 27: Pointing accuracy of spacecraft below 180 kg as a function of time. The two arrows
depict the trend through the last decade for mini/microsatellites and nano/picosatellites. The
SoA is 0.1 for mini/micro and 2 for nano/pico, respectively. The requirement for typical small
spacecraft EO missions is on the order of 0.1. Higher accuracy below 0.1 can be achieved
using a mission related sensor (i.e., a payload instrument) in the attitude control loop. CubeSats
are part of the nano- and picosat category. Their pointing accuracy has improved rapidly
thanks to miniaturized ADCS components. The data used to plot the graph is shown in Table
26.
61
Table 26: Examples of the SoAs for small spacecraft with improved pointing accuracy
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
SSTL150 bus
SSTL
(UK)
9
Flown on Beijing-1 &
RapidEye
Astro200 bus
Com tech
AeroAstro
(USA)
9
Flown on STPSat-1 &
STPSat-2
Myriade bus
(Astrosat-100)
CNES /
Astrium
(France)
9
Flown on Parasol,
Dem eter & Picard
Proba bus
ESA /
QinetiQ
(UK)
9
Flown on PROBA-2 &
PROBA-V
SSTL100 bus
SSTL
(UK)
9
Flown on Alsat &
NigeriaSat-X
SDS bus
JAXA
(Japan)
8
Flown on SDS-4
Cubesat bus
Morehead
State
University
(USA)
7
Flown on CXBN
Figures
62
Table 27 shows design approaches for achieving higher pointing accuracy. Most
of the current research in ADCS can be related to the steps denoted. The SoA
design level for nano- and picosatellites deals mostly with Steps 1 to 3 and is
highlighted in italics. The development of miniature star trackers and miniature
wheels is especially important. For micro- and minisatellites, the design level can
go up to Step 14. End-to-end in-orbit calibrations and systematic micro-vibration
management are an area of importance here.
Table 27: Design strategies and approaches in order to achieve higher pointing accuracy for
small spacecraft. The steps highlighted in italics show the current SoA for nano- and
picosatellites (including CubeSats). The ADCS of mini- and microsatellites can be refined to
include all the design steps presented.
Advanced
frequency.
12. Flexible structure analysis and design.
13. Apply in-orbit calibration and parameter modification in the attitude
control software.
14. Apply
highly
autonomous
fault
detection,
isolation
and
63
There are two main ways to address ADCS software development: model-based
development and open-architecture development.
In the case of model-based development the ADCS flight software uses an
overarching model from conceptual design to system level test. At conceptual
design level, the Matlab and Simulink tools are usually used to model the ADCS.
The same model, with partial refinements, is then used in the preliminary and
critical design phases (where C++ flight code can be generated from Matlab).
Even during final ADCS flight software testing, the model is used to simulate
attitude dynamics and to create test cases. Some merits of applying model-based
development are overall consistency between design phases, cost savings
achieved with a decrease in labor, and rapid development cycles. Proba-V (ESA),
Myriade (CNES, EADS) and LADEE (NASA ARC) ADCS are examples of current
software development projects using model-based development.
Open-architecture development relies on a different philosophy to address
ADCS software development. This environment enables multi-national and multiinstitutional projects: anybody can join and contribute to the development of
ADCS software modules. The development of proprietary code is avoided. This is
often the option of choice for ADCS software developed in an academic setting.
The SoA for small spacecraft ADCS subsystems is based on miniaturizing
existing technology without performance degradation. Miniaturizations are
achieved for many technologies. Examples include:
new imaging devices such as the high resolution CMOS image sensor for
star trackers, and thermopile sensor for Earth sensors;
64
5.5
References+
65
Introduction+
The structure is what holds the different components of the spacecraft together
and provides the necessary interfaces for each subsystem. The selection of the
structure depends on the accommodation of the payload devices and circuitry,
material properties, stability, and protection reliability. The structure should
dually minimize the complexity of the design and minimize the cost. In addition,
it must support significant loads encountered during launch while still providing
an easily accessible power and data bus.
Different materials can be used for the construction of the main frame, providing
desirable protection against radiation as well as taking into account the
temperature gradients and the vacuum conditions in space. Mechanisms and
actuators are a key component to guarantee the functionality of various
subsystems (a prominent example is power and the related deployment of solar
panels).
6.2
State+of+the+Art+
6.2.1 Structures++
Structures have to meet various needs such as stiffness, stability, low mass, low
price, ease of manufacture, and ability to support deployable mechanisms. The
primary frame can be machined out of a single block of material, or it can be
assembled from separate parts. There is no consensus on the typical structure
mass for small spacecraft as many different configurations were represented.
The assembly techniques differ greatly, however, and use screws to fasten
separate pieces together still seems to be the most common technique. Computer
Numerical Controller (CNC) techniques are very efficient since they minimize
material losses and internal stresses during fabrication. Spacecraft developers
can purchase prefabricated structures or make their own custom designs.
SSTL, Pumpkin, and Incorporated and Innovative Solutions in Space (ISIS) are the
most popular commercial vendors of CubeSat structures. Pumpkins designs
range from 0.5 to 3 U and are based on precision sheet-metal fabrication. They
66
are made of 5052-H32 aluminum sheet metal that is hard anodized and alodined
in order to comply with CubeSat guidelines. An advanced version is fabricated
from 7075-T6 billet aluminum and is one of the lightest and strongest structures
available due to the ability to resist both compression and twist forces.
The CubeSat frame was proposed in 1999 at CalPoly and Stanford University. The
typical dimensions for a 1U unit are shown in Figure 28 (CalPoly, 2013).
ISIS CubeSat structures comply with CubeSat standards. Avionics and payload
modules are mounted onto the primary load-carrying components. The package
includes the following components:
Primary Structure:
2x side frames, black hard anodised
Ribs, blank alodined
2x kill-switch mechanisms
Supplied with inserted phosphor bronze helicoils
Fasteners
Secondary Structure:
67
6.2.2 Custom+Designs+++
Several institutions and universities have created their own spacecraft designs
(NASA 3U designs). SwissCube, launched in 2009, was a project undertaken in
Switzerland that machined an entire block of aluminum by adapting the wire
electrical discharge machining (EDM) method. This technique consists of a fast
series of single electrical discharges that make precision shapes without
exceeding cutting tool pressure. As a result, SwissCube had a structure of just 95
g of mass, one of the lightest frames ever produced.
6.2.3 Materials+
Materials have to be lightweight and conduct electricity, since radiation can
induce potential charge accumulation in the satellite electronics. Various
conductive lightweight metals are the most commonly used materials for small
spacecraft structures.
The California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (CalPoly) writes a
yearly report with updated basic standards for CubeSat design and integration.
In their latest release (CalPoly, 2009), they establish general rules governing
materials:
6.2.3.1
Aluminum!
Aluminum is the most common material of choice in most recent small satellite
missions. Aluminum offers reliability and lightweight support at low cost. It is
thermally and electrically conductive, chemically resistant and non-sparking. In
68
Mission
EST-1
PROBA V
e-St@r
Techedsat
Hermes
Materials
Launch Date
Aluminum AW 6061-T6
and AW 7075
Aluminum (AA2024T3) and Aluminum
(AA7075-T7351
Aluminun 5005 H16
Aluminum 6061
Aluminum 7075-T73
2013
2013
2012
2012
2011
Aluminum
Type
Density
(g/cm^3)
Modulus of
Elasticity
(Gpa)
Fatigue
Strength
(MPa)
Ultimate
Tensile
Strength
(MPa)
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m!K)
Electrical
Resistance
(ohms!cm)
2024-T3
7075-T73xx
5005 H16
6061
2.78
2.81
2.7
2.7
73.1
72
69
68.9
138
150
N/A
62.1
483
505
180
124
121
155
205
180
5.82E-06
4.30E-06
N/A
3.66E-06
6.2.3.2
Other!Metals!
69
Composites!
Composite materials are made of two or more materials with different physical
and chemical properties. The main advantage of composites is that they can be
designed for the necessities of the mission. Composites are usually made from a
matrix material and a reinforcement material. The material used for the matrix is
usually a cured resin, and it supports the reinforcement materialsusually
carbon fiber. Cyanate resin exhibits very convenient performance characteristics
for space applications due to low moisture absorption, low microcracking and
low outgassing (Ozaki, 2008). Composites are anisotropic; hence the properties
are beneficially different in each part of the material, depending on the direction
of the loads. However one potential problem is that shock forces can separate
the laminates between layers. Due to various potential outcomes, manufacturing
is expensive and time consuming.
Small spacecraft manufacturers are employing composite structures with more
frequency. For example, SSTL is developing a series of low-cost, multifunctional,
high-performance, lightweight composite structures of TRL 6 or more. They are
made from a cyanate-ester and
epoxy based polymer resin with
various fiber reinforcements (see
Figure 29). Another example is
the NASA ARC Common Bus that
has been used for the recent
LADEE mission.
6.2.3.4
Additive!Manufacturing!
Materials!
70
Internal cavities
materials
used
in
additive
manufacturing
of
small
spacecraft
components.
6.2.3.5
Windform!Materials!
71
Material
Density
(g/cm^3)
Elongation
at Break
Tensile
Modulus
(MPa)
Tensile
Strength
(MPa)
Windform
1.097
3.80%
8928.2
83.84
179.3
Applications of Windform:
Figure 31: Satellite skeleton prototyped using Windform material (CRP Technology).
72
6.2.4 Mechanisms+
Satellite mechanisms include one shot devices (such as release mechanisms
and deployment systems), and continuous operation systems (such as solar array
drives, momentum wheels and antenna pointing mechanisms).
73
6.2.4.1
Antenna!Pointing!Mechanisms!(APM)!
6.2.4.2
Electronics module
Deployment!and!Release!Mechanisms!
CubeSats and small spacecraft are typically launched into space as piggyback
or secondary payloads. For this reason, pyrotechnic release devices are typically
avoided to minimize the chance of damaging the launcher's primary payload.
Industry is actively working to develop non-pyrotechnic devices to comply with
specifications. The following paragraphs show three examples of SoA release
devices available to small spacecraft.
6.2.4.3
HoneyComb:!Solar!Panel!Deployment!Hinges!
Flight Proven on USAF's STPSat-1 in 2007, and currently at TRL 9, Honeybee has
developed multiple precise locking deployment hinges for solar panels and other
appendages. The hinges exhibit stiffness and strength, which requires agile
maneuvering of the spacecraft attitude control system to compensate for
structural flexibility of the solar arrays.
6.2.4.4
CTERA!(Johns!Hopkins!Applied!Physics!Laboratory)!
74
the release mechanism relies on two parts that have complementary thermal
expansion coefficients (Aplanel, et al., 2012).
6.2.4.5
Solar!Array!Drive!Mechanisms!(SADM)!
The Solar Array Drive Mechanism (SADM) is a flight-tested mechanism that has
flown for many years, and is SoA on many different spacecraft. All the major
spacecraft manufacturers produce SADMs.
6.3
On+the+Horizon++
Santa
Barbara
(UCSB),
Department
of
Mechanical
Engineering
developed the Roll-Out Solar Array (ROSA). ROSA is an innovative missionenabling solar array system that offers enhanced performance for NASA's Space
Science & Exploration missions. ROSA will aid NASA's emerging Solar Electric
Propulsion (SEP) Space Science & Exploration missions through its ultraaffordability, ultra-lightweight, ultra-compact stowage volume, high strength and
stiffness, and its high voltage and high/low temperature operation capability
within many environments (see Figure 33). It is currently at TRL 3-5.
75
The
ultra-lightweight
microcellular
nanocomposite
foam
and
sandwich
structures originating from Wright Materials Research Co. will have high specific
mechanical properties, do not involve or release any toxicity and are currently at
TRL 5-6. Potential commercial markets for this ultra-low density nanocomposite
foams and sandwich structures may include electronic housing for satellites and
telecommunication systems (Tan, 2012).
6.4
Conclusion+
In comparison with other subsystems of the satellite, the SoA for structures and
mechanisms is well developed and at high technology readiness levels. The trend
in CubeSats is to use commercial products from 1U to 6U. Companies such as
Pumpkin and ISIS are leading the market. However, some developers choose to
create their own design from a solid block of material, thereby establishing
additive manufacturing as a promising future technology.
Properties of materials are standardized. Metals are valuable for their high
strength and protection against radiation. Various types of aluminum are the
most popular option for most missions. A few have used titanium or
experimented with other metals such as beryllium. Composite materials offer
good performance but their high cost is an important downside for small
76
6.5
References+
77
Inge, Kai Rokstad, Midtgrd. Birkeland, Roger. Vedvik, Nils: Investigation on the
use of Composite Material for CubeSat Primary Structure. Norwegian University of
Science and Technology (NTNU), Department of Engineering Design and
Materials.
International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought
Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys (Revised: February 2009).
ISIS: Innovative Solutions In Space. [Online] 2013. Available at: www.isispace.nl
[Accessed 08/02/2013]
Jun, Wei: Opportunities and Applications of 3D Additive Manufacturing. Singapore
Institute of Manufacturing Technology. 2013.
Mojica, Michelle A.: Structural subsystem design, analysis and optimization for a
nanosatellite. San Jose State University, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering. San Jose, CA, 2012.
Ozaki, T.: Advanced Composite Parts and Structures for Space Satellites. 52nd,
International SAMPE symposium. 2008.
Passaretti, M., Hayes, R.: Development of a Solar Array Drive Assembly for
CubeSat. 40th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium. Cocoa Beach, Florida, 2010.
Pumpkin Incorporated: [Online] 2013. Available at: http://www.pumpkininc.com
[Accessed 04 August 2013]
Sandvik, Kim: Development of Composite and Polymer Material CubeSat Structure
with focus on Materials. Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Department of Engineering Design and Materials. 2012.
SSTL: [Online] 2013. Available at: http://www.sstl.co.uk/Products [Accessed
08/01/2013]
Tan, Seng: Ultra-Lightweight Nanocomposite Foams and Sandwich Structures for
Space Structure Applications. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. Huntsville, AL,
2012.
78
Available at:
http://courses.ae.utexas.edu/ase463q/design_pages/spring03/CubeSat/w
eb/Paper Sections/6.0 Structural Subsystem.pdf. [Accessed 25 July 2013].
http://www.windform.it [Accessed 30 July 2013]
79
Introduction+
control
is
accomplished
using
additional
power
requirements.
While PTCS are simpler and more reliable, ATCS are associated with higher
precision and have been shown to be more effective for regulating thermal
control (Hogstrom, 2013). However, for temperature sensitive devices such as
batteries, cameras, etc., engineers are able to equip spacecraft with electric
heaters and coolers to maintain operational temperatures. Until spacecraft
designers are able to miniaturize current ATCS techniques, small satellites will
not be able to efficiently use that technology.
7.2
State+of+the+Art+
7.2.1 Passive+Thermal+Control+Systems+
7.2.1.1
Thermal!Insulation!!
80
are 1-2 mm of aluminized Kapton (Baturkin, n.d.), but can be made for particular
layer densities, as shown in Figure 34. MLI material consists of a series of either
gold- or aluminum-plated layers divided by vacuum. Depending on the number
of layers used, MLI has low effective emissivity values (0.002 0.05) due to
neighboring layers radiating heat to one another (Hogstrom, 2013).
In Figure 35, Hogstrom (2013) illustrated the effective emittance compared to the
number of layers of aluminized mylar, where the lowest number of layers is
proportionate to highest emittance. The ratio of the solar absorptance to the
emittance of the materials bombarded by the Sun is the deciding factor in the
desired amount of solar energy that reaches the spacecraft (Sheldahl, 2013).
While the concept of using a thermal blanket in space can be appealing to
satellite engineers, the delicacy of the material and manufacturing costs may
outweigh the benefits of using thermal blankets on small spacecraft (Hengeveld,
et al., 2010).
81
DelfiC-3, a CubeSat mission, was equipped with MLI for eclipse durations, and
excess heat was successfully dissipated into space via COMM power amplifiers
(Rotteveel, et al., n.d.). FASTRAC was also covered in Kapton thermal blankets to
assist the passive thermal system. Examples of thermal insulation SoA methods
are described further in Table 31.
82
Table 31: Applications of SoA thermal insulation techniques for small spacecraft.
Technology
Description
Company
MLI blanket
Materials include
polyim ide film s,
Nom e threads, and
PTFE im pregnated
glass cloth
Aerospace,
Fabrication
and
Materials,
(USA)
9
Sucessfully used on
SCISAT I and ISS*
MLI blanket
Dunm ore
(USA)
9
Sucessfully flown on
CASSINI/HUYGENS
PROBE, ISS, and FUSE*
MLI blanket
SHELDAHL
(USA)
9
Sucessfully applied on
BIRD
Chem fab
(USA)
9
Sucessfully used on
Apollo/Skylab7 space
suits, ISS, & MISSE
m ission*
type of fireproof
Beta Cloth 500F
silica fiber cloth, used
PTFE
in addition to MLI
TRL Status
Figure
*This technology has been flight proven on larger spacecraft. No specific small spacecraft
demonstration flight could be found for specific MLI Company.
7.2.1.2
Thermal!Coating!
Another PTCS method changes the optical characteristics (solar absorptance and
emittance) of the surface material simply by applying matte paint. In Figure 36,
Anvari and colleagues (2009) illustrated the spectral absorptance/emittance ratio
of white and black coatings. While black paint will absorb all incident heat, white
paint limits how much heat is absorbed from the surrounding environment due
to its low absorption/emittance ratio (Anvari, et al., 2009).
83
Figure 36: Absorptance/Emittance vs. wavelength for different paints (Anvari, et al., 2009).
The majority of satellite radiators in space are coated in white, or shades of grey
with a range of solar absorptive values, to maximize heat rejection. For example,
on small spacecraft PICARD (150 kg), SG12FD (white) paint was used, where the
absorptivity and emissivity for SG121FD is 0.2+/- 0.02 and 0.88 +/-0.03 (MAP,
2013), which is similar to the absorptivity (0.25-0.5) and emissivity ranges (-.30.9) for AZ Technology white paints. Although this is an inexpensive method to
alter the optical properties of the surface, the application of paint on a CubeSat
requires an onsite professional, curing time, and has a relatively short usable
lifetime (1-2 years). Figure 37 illustrates the appearance of black and white paint
used for thermal coating on a small spacecraft and an optical instrument.
84
Figure 37: ANDE minisatellite with Aeroglaze276 white paint (Anon., 2013) (left) and CorMASS
Optical Bench with AeroglazeZ306 black paint (University of Virginia) (right).
85
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Figures
SG121FD
MAP
(France)
9
Successfully flown on
OUTSat and Dem etre
m issions
N/A
PSG 120 FD
Akzo Nobel
Aerospace
Coatings
(Netherlands)
9
Successfully used on
BIRD m ission
N/A
Aeroglaze A276
Lord
Techm ark, Inc
(USA)
AZW/LA-II
Inorganic ceram ic
white paint, using
silacate binder
AZ tech
(USA)
Aeroglaze Z306
Lord
Techm ark, Inc
(USA)
9
Succesfully used on
ANDE m ission
9
Sucessfully flown on
MISSE*
9
Used on BLUEsat
m ission, and on
CorMASS optical bench
*This technology has been flight proven on larger spacecraft. No specific small spacecraft demonstration
flight could be found for specific paint type.
7.2.1.3
Heat!Pipes!
86
spacecraft during orbit (heat pipes from KPI, National Technical University of
Ukraine).
Similar to a heat pipe, a loop heat pipe is a passive, two-phase heat transfer
device, in which a capillary wick moves heat from one location to a condenser, or
radiator. Loop heat pipes are more advantageous than conventional heat pipes
because they can operate for longer periods of time, are much more flexible in
heat transfer lines, and can operate independently of gravitational forces
(Baturkin, 2004). For example, on microsatellite TacSat-4, the thermal control
system relied solely on a loop heat pipe to maintain thermal stability, see Figure
39 (Dussinger, et al., 2009).
87
Figure 40: SDS-4 minisatellite thermal control system using flat heat pipe design (Nakamura, et
al., 2013).
Technology
Heat pipe
Description
Close loop
heat transfer
system ,
either via
capillary
action or
gravity
Two-phase
heat transfer
device, using
capillary
Loop heat pipe
action to
m ove heat to
a radiator
Flat
rectangular
shape using
capillary
action to
m ove heat to
a radiator
Company
TRL Status
Advanced
Cooling
Technology,
Inc.
(USA)
9
Sucessfully used on
BIRD m ission
Figure
Advanced
Cooling
9
Technology, Sucessfully used as TCS
Inc.
on TacSat-4
(USA)
Advanced
Cooling
Technology,
Inc.
(USA)
9
Successfully flown on
SDS-4
88
7.2.1.4
Bolts!and!Washers!
To limit heat transfer, materials with low thermal conductivity such as titanium
bolts, washers, and spacers can be incorporated into the satellite structure.
These items reduce the thermal path to sensitive areas on the spacecraft, such as
the payload or battery. In one instance, Pharmasat mission engineers used
titanium bolts and Ultem washers to help limit the heat transfer from the solar
panels to the pressurized payload chamber (Hogstrom, 2013).
7.2.2 Active+Thermal+Control+Systems+
7.2.2.1
Electrical!Resistance!Heaters!
ThermoRElectric!Coolers!
Similar to devices that need to be kept warm during spaceflight, there are also
pieces of equipment that require low operational temperatures to function. A
thermoelectric cooler is made up of semi-conductor-based components that
function as small heat pumps (Farison, et al., 2010). This device is able to
maintain cool temperatures for sensitive devices, such as cameras and sensors,
even when surrounded by a spacecrafts heated constituents.
89
For
instance,
CloudSat
(3kg)
required
the
which
allows
for
more
precise
temperature control.
7.2.3 Integration+and+Modeling+
In the early production stages, thermal calculations can be performed by treating
the system as a basic sphere with uniform optical properties representative of
the spacecrafts average thermal control, using only solar flux and internal power
dissipation (Hogstrom, 2013). Once general thermal characteristics are known,
computer software is used to evaluate detailed thermal transfer in the system.
Thermal Desktop and ANSYS are known products for simulating the generated
external and internal heat flux.
7.3
On+the+Horizon+
7.3.1 Passive+Thermal+Control+Systems+
7.3.1.1
Thermal!Insulation!
90
7.3.1.2
Heat!Pipes!
While heat pipes have been a resourceful method of heat transfer for numerous
small spacecraft missions, ongoing work continues to improve this technique.
Inventors Youssef Habib, Lyman Rickard, Bryan John, and John Steinbeck have
patented a nano-structured wick for a heat pipe that would improve upon several
current technological limitations. By altering the length and spacing of the
bristles and material of the internal wick, there have been several advancements
in weight, size, thermal resistance, and heat flux capacity of the heat pipe. These
modifications have shown a ten-fold increase in the transfer capacity in current
heat pipes. In comparison to the current sintered powdered configuration, the
condensed array of packed-together bristles produces high capillary pressure,
increases the fluid flow in the wick, and the aligned configuration of the bristles
supply clear paths for vapor venting, thus reducing thermal resistance 35-50%
(Steinbeck, et al., 2010), as shown in Figure 43.
91
Figure 43: Nano-structured wick comparison to current sintered powder (Steinbeck, et al.,
2010).
7.3.2 Active+Thermal+Control+Systems+
7.3.2.1
Fluid!Loops!
A pumped fluid loop achieves sufficient heat transfer between multiple different
locations via forced fluid convective cooling. Currently, mechanically pumped
fluid loops are not attractive to small spacecraft engineers due to the heavy
power consumption and small spacecraft mass limitations. However, there is a
single- and two-phase mechanically pumped loop concept that is being
investigated for microspacecraft thermal management (Birur, n.d.).
A single-phase pump circulates the fluid while a two-phase heat transfer takes
place in the evaporator and condenser (Birur, n.d.). For the single-phase pump
loop, the current mass and power targets for this fluid loop system are less than
92
CryoRManagement!
Variable!Emissivity!Surfaces!
By simultaneously altering the optical surface properties and the path of heat
transfer, variable emissivity surfaces can be used as a potential method for
thermal balance modulations (Hengeveld, et al., 2010). A radiator with variable
emittance capability offers comparable thermal control potential to a mechanical
louver
(see
following
subsection),
including
decreased
mass,
cost,
and
Micro+Louvers+
93
covering over the spacecrafts surface, which can be curled up to expose the
spacecraft to the Sun, or uncurled over surface to protect it (Trimmer & Mead,
2001). The orientation of the reflective material will influence whether or not
heat will be absorbed (warmed) or emitted (cooled) from the satellite. This idea is
advantageous to the small spacecraft community as a basic lightweight structure.
7.3.2.3.2++
Electrochromatics+
7.4
Conclusion+
94
7.5
References+
95
Farison, M., Hicks, K., Schmidt, M., Yang, S.: Cloud CubeSat Thermoelectric Cooler
Controller. Baltimore, MD, s.n., 2010.
Hengeveld, D., Braun, J. E., Groll, E. A., Williams, A. D.: Review of Modern
Spacecraft Thermal Control Technologies. West Lafayette, s.n., 2010.
Hogstrom, K.: SoA Thermal Analysis Methods and Validations for Small
Spacecraft. s.l.:s.n., 2013.
Horvth, G., Marosy, G., Glisics, S. & Czifra, D.: Battery characterization for
CubeSat missions with battery tester application. Tallinn, Electronics Conference
(BEC). 13th Biennial Baltic, pp. 97 - 100, 2012.
Inc., T.: Loop Heat Pipe for High Density Small Satellite Thermal Control. [Online]
1995. Available at: http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/successes/ss/5-043text.html
[Accessed August 2013].
Ku, J., Ottenstein, L., Pham, T., Douglas, D.: Miniature Loop Heat Pipe with Multiple
Evaporators. Greenbelt, MD, s.n., 2007.
Lam, T. T., Birur, G. C., Bhandari, P.: Pumped Fluid Loops. Spacecraft Thermal
Control Handbook, Volume I: Fundamentals Technologies. s.l.:s.n., pp. 405- 471,
2002.
Lura, F. et al.: Thermal Design and Pre Flight Thermal Test Program of Satellite
BIRD Micro. San Antonio, TX, s.n., 2002.
Lyon, R., Sellers, J., Underwood, C.: Small Satellite Thermal Modeling and Design
at USAFA: FalconSat-2 Applications. s.l., Aerospace Conference Proceedings. IEEE,
pp. 3391 - 3399, 2002.
Nakamura, Y. et al.: Small Demonstration Satellite-4 (SDS-4): Development, Flight
Results, and Lessons Learned in JAXA's Mircosatellite Project. s.l., s.n., 2013.
NOL, J.: Thermal issues settlement and test procedure investigation of OUFTI-1
nanosatellite. Lige, Belgium, s.n., 2010.
96
Olivia, A., Schaalman, G., Stanley, S.: Design and Analysis of Subsystems for a
CubeSat Mission. Worchester Polytechnic Institute, Mechanical Engineering
Department. s.n., 2011.
Paris, A. et al.: Electrochromic Radiators for Microspacecraft Thermal Control. s.l.,
s.n., 2005.
Pendleton, S., Basile, J., Fowler, E., n.d.: Low-Cost Flat Plate Adapters for Dual
Primary Payload Missions. CSA Engineering Inc. Mountain View, CA.
Rotteveel, J. et al., n.d.: Delfi-C3: A Student Nanosatellite Test Bed for in-orbit
Demonstration of Micro Systems Technology. s.l.:s.n.
Sarda, K. et al.: Canadian Advanced Nanosatilllite Experiment 2: On-Orbit
Experiences with a Three-Kilogram Satellite. Logan, UT s.n., 2008.
Selva, D., Krejci, D.: Survey and Assessment of the Capabilities of CubeSats for
Earth Observation. Journal of Acta Astronautica, Volume 74, pp. 50-68, 2012.
Steinbeck, J. W., Habib, Y. M., John, B. G., Rickard, L. H.: Heat Pipe with
Nanostructured Wick. Patent No. US 2010/0200199 A1. PLEASANTVILLE, NY, USA,
2010.
Trimmer, W., Mead, B.: Micro Louvers for Cooling. Patent No. US 2002/0056790
A1. McLean, VA, USA, 2001.
University
of
Instrumentation
Virginia,
Department
Laboratory.
of
Astronomy.
[Online]
Virginia
2005.
Astronomical
Available
at:
https://www.astro.virginia.edu/research/instrumentation/cormass/photos.html
[Accessed November 2013].
97
Introduction+
98
Figure 45: Typical smallsat C&DH architecture and image of C&DH board (Space Systems
Laboratory).
8.2
State+of+the+Art+
current
state
of
small
satellite
capability.
The
survey,
while
not
comprehensive or exhaustive, should still yield good insight into the current
state of practice for small spacecraft. The goal of this effort is not only to convey
basic research on the SoA, but to solicit inputs and sources to be shared with the
greater community in future revisions.
While smallsats, especially in the nanosat class, have higher risk tolerance and
are able to rely more on COTS components, much of the aerospace industry still
relies heavily on stringent standards that ensure reliability. Using COTS
components has been explored and debated over the years. On one side, cost
savings can be demonstrated by using typical, more capable and less expensive
COTS components at the price of increased risk. On the other hand, as smallsat
capabilities increase, the functions that they support will have greater
99
8.2.1 Form+Factor+
Prior to 2000, the majority of spacecraft C&DH and on-board processing boards
were custom built. As commercial technology advanced, specific standards
emerged allowing collaborations across industries. Three form factors are
common in space applications and are listed with dimensions in Table 34.
Table 34: C&DH form factor.
C&DH Form Factor
Dimensions [mm]
6U cPCI
233 x 160 mm
3U cPCI
100 x 160 mm
PC/104
90 x 96 mm
While the dimensions in themselves are not restrictive for the larger class of
smallsats, volumetric constraints play a crucial factor in the smaller end of the
spectrum. The nanosats class typically uses the PC/104 backplane-less form
factor because of limited volume. Micro- and minisats use 3U-6U configurations
depending on the specific functional block needed with respect to the usable
area on the board. Custom configurations are still used for special cases. Beyond
volume, the next main limiting factor for smallsat C&DH is power.
8.2.2 Microprocessor/Computer/Microcontroller+
Spacecraft processing capability has followed the commercial market. The slow
development may be due to the rigors of qualifying operations in the space
environment and limited production volumes. Nonetheless, processing resources
are increasing while spacecraft processing requirements have stayed relatively
static. Typical C&DH systems need a processing throughput of ~30 MIPS. This
100
does not include payload and digital signal processing, which are driving the
industry towards greater processing capabilities, data throughput and storage.
Early spacecraft computers like the 32-bit RH32 and RICS/6000 provide <40
MIPS. The RAD6000 and RAD750, introduced in the 2000s timeframe, are more
capable rad-hard solutions providing up to 300 MIPS. These throughput values
satisfy typical C&DH functions but require a lot of power (~20 W). While this is
less of a concern for the typical 1,000+ kg satellites of the time, it poses a
challenge for smallsats. Typical orbit average power vs. spacecraft mass is shown
in Figure 46.
Figure 46: Orbit average power vs. satellite mass (Shimizu & Underwood, 2013).
The general trend improves with tracking arrays or pointable spacecraft, however
the linear fit shows power generation typically less than 1 W per kg spacecraft
mass. The smaller classes of smallsat are highly power constrained. Luckily for
smallsat
designers,
the
world
of
microprocessors,
computers
and
mobile
devices
are
driving
smaller
form
factors
with
low
power
101
The size of C&DH systems has scaled down over time, to the aforementioned
form factors. Performance, on the other hand has steadily increased more or less
in concert with Moores Law.
In terms of technology, there are microcontrollers (MCU), digital signal
processors (DSP), field programmable gate arrays (FPGA), and traditional
application specific integrated circuits (ASIC). For simple data processing, FPGAs
outperform DSPs with regards to computational speed, power consumption, and
volume. DSP are used for complex repetitive calculations (e.g. image processing
and data compression). Often the various technologies are mixed and matched to
meet specific requirements. Circa 2005, integrated RISC/DSP processors offered
102
higher performance and lower system power. For smallsats, power, thermal and
volume constraints are more apparent and various mixed technology solutions
have been used. Atmel and Xilinx are two of the main manufacturers of rad-hard
integrated circuits (IC) for space applications and their use can be seen
throughout the industry.
There are many differentiating factors (technologies, architectures, peripheral
interfaces etc.) surrounding the C&DH systems. While the goal is to be as
exhaustive and inclusive as possible in capturing the SoA of smallsat capabilities,
for brevity only some prominent and recent systems will be highlighted, see
Table 35, Table 36 and Table 37.
Table 35: Examples of SoA processing elements for small spacecraft (1/3).
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
RTU
AAC Microtech
(USA)
9
Flown on SPRITESAT, TechEdSat
AeroFlex - Gaisler
(Sweden)
9
Flown on
Chandrayaan-1,
ARGO, & PRIMSA
Rad-Hard 32-Bit
SPARC
V8 processor
Am tel
(USA)
9
Flown on ERNObox
(prototype
com puter payload)
on ISS in 2008 &
Proba-2 in 2009
8-bit
m icrocontroller
Am tel
(USA)
9
Flown on AAUSat-3
Am tel
(USA)
9
Flown on SRMSAT
LEON3FT-RTAX
AT697F
(LEON2-FT)
AVR8
AT91M40807
uses Actel
RTAX2000S/SL
FPGA
Sm art ARM
m icrocontroller,
flash-based, cortex
processor
Image
103
Table 36: Examples of SoA processing elements for small spacecraft (2/3).
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
RAD750
RAD750 is a radiation
hardened PowerPC
m icroprocessor. It replaces
RAD 6000 which is a hardened
version of IBM RS/6000 used
by 200+ spacecrafts
BAE System
Electronic
Solutions
(USA)
9
Flown on Curiosity,
Juno, WISE, LRO,
Kepler, & MRO;
first flown on Deep
Im pact (2005)
Mirideon
PPC440
BRE
(USA)
9
Flown on SB-Sat
Nanom ind
A712D
GOMSpace
(Denm ark)
9
Flown on STRAND 1
SH
Hitachi
(Japan)
9
Flown on PROITERES
(2012)
StrongARM
StrongARM SA1100/Xscale
processor; 88 MHz - 220 MHz
experim ental
Intel
(previously
Digital
Equipm ent
Corp, ARM
Lim ited)
(USA)
9
Flown on SNAP-1, XSat, FalconSat-2,
TacSat-1, & DMC-1G
SpaceCube II
JAXA
(Japan)
9
Flown on SDS-1 &
ASNARO
RT ProASIC3
Microsem i
(previously
Actel)
(USA)
9
Flown on X-Sat
NASA
Goddard
(USA)
9
Flown/Proposed on:
Intelligent Payload
Experim ent (IPEX),
TechCube, & SDS-1
SpaceCube 2M
Image
N/A
104
Table 37: Examples of SoA processing elements for small spacecraft (3/3).
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
STM32F103
N/A
STMicroelectonics
(Geneva)
9
Flown on
ESTCube-1
SBC
Sparc
v7(TSC695F),
21020 DSP, RTX2010,
PowerPC603e,
Sparc v8(TSC697)
SwRI
(USA)
9
Flown/Proposed on
Juno, WISE, Kepler,
GLAST, Orbital
Express, Deep
Im pact, Swift,
Coriolis, & DS1
Mongoose-V
R3000, 32-bit
m icroprocessor,
built for DOE
applications
Synova
(USA)
9
Flown on EO-1, MAP,
ST5, CONTOUR,
TIMED, New
Horizons, & IceSat
Glas
MSP430
Q6 processor
board
Image
9
Fam ily of low
Flown on CSSWE,
power
Delfi-C3, HawkSat-1,
m icrocontroller; Texas Instrum ents
ITU-pSAT1, AIS
(USA)
16-bit RISC, used
Pathfinder 2,
in Pum pkin
GOLIAT, e-st@r, &
FM430
Libertad-1
Based on Xilinx
Spartan 6
Xiphos
Technologies
(Canada)
9
First flew in 2011,
m any previous
flights with prior
version
Only some missions actually use the latest and most capable elements listed
above. Spacecraft missions have diverse processing requirements leading to the
use of various processors and technologies.
missions like PhoneSat, which used the newest technologies available in the form
of unmodified smartphones and Arduninos as the main processing element. On
the other hand, it can be seen that even recent missions use some of the older
processing elements. Outdated processors such as the RAD6000 and NSSC-1
105
(NASA Standard Spacecraft Computer-1) are not listed in Table 35, Table 36 or
Table 37, though they are still used from time to time.
With many capable processing elements in the market, one of the main decisive
factors
leading
to
processor
selection
(other
than
matching
functional
Figure 48: Trends for integrated circuits in space (ESA; Furano, 2012).
106
8.2.3 Memory/Data+Storage+
The range of on-board memory for smallsats is wide, typically starting around 32
kb and increasing with available technology. Again, for C&DH functions, onboard memory requires high reliability. Different memory technologies are
available, but SRAM is typically used. A comparative chart showing performance
of various memory types is shown in Table 38.
Table 38: RAM comparison.
107
Thanks to the commercial industries and advancing technology, data storage has
continued
to
increase
with
relatively
static
mass,
power
and
volume
The trend for the smaller class of smallsats to use more COTS components
remains true for data storage hardware. High heritage developers like SEAKR are
apparent
throughout
the
spacecraft
industry,
and
emerging
commercial
108
Technology
Name
Description
MRAM
Developer
TRL Status
AeroFlex
9
Flown on M 3, SpriteSat
(Rising), ALL-STAR,
SOMP, & GOLIAT
CASI
BRE
9
Flown on TacSat2, XSS11, AMS, Angels, &
LADEE
MR0A08B
Magetic polarization
storage MRAM
EverSpin
9
Flown on ALL-STAR &
Rising-2
Innoflight
9
Flown on RASAT,
TechDem oSat-1, & DMC1G,
HSSU
SEAKR
9
Flown on GeoEye-1 &
WorldView-1
SSDR
SEAKR
9
Flown on NEAR, ACE
HSDR
SSTL
9
Flown on Nigeriasat-2
Image
8.2.4 Bus+and+Interfaces+
The system bus connects major computer system components. Modern
computing systems have a variety of separate buses customized to specific
needs. Interfaces significantly vary from basic to extremely complex. MIL-STD1553 has been the standard for spacecraft and ESAs SpaceWire (SpW) is
becoming more prominent. For nanosats, ATK has developed the A100 bus,
especially designed for payloads less than 15 kg. These platforms are compatible
109
with most launch systems and a wide range of payload interfaces. The A100 bus
has flown on NASAs ARTEMIS mission.
While universal serial bus (USB) and controller area network (CAN) buses are
being used sporadically, the IC data protocol seems to be the most popular
standard bus system for nanosat missions, due to power reasons. IC consumes a
very small amount of energy and is already integrated in most microcontrollers,
avoiding the necessity of extra electronics. A singular and flexible interface for
different payload types is desirable. Some of the most common interfaces are
listed below with a brief description:
SerDes serializer/deserializer
110
8.2.5 Frequency+Source+
C&DH functions include maintaining spacecraft clock or time. Timing provided
by a frequency source enables controlled timing events, time-tagged data, and
navigation. Traditionally, spacecraft have employed quartz resonators for timing
(Norton & Cloeren, n.d.).
Recently, DARPA has made an effort to incorporate miniaturized and low power
Chip-Scale Atomic Clocks (CSAC) into small satellites. These tiny atomic clocks
fit into small satellites while improving frequency performance and time
references. In addition, the Integrated Micro Primary Atomic Clock Technology
(IMPACT) is a project that aims to improve the capabilities of CSAC by reducing
the power requirements while maintaining the accuracy and stability of the main
clock. It is on its second phase and the goal is to deliver a 20 cc, 250 mW
working clock that will have less than 160 ns time loss after one month (DARPA).
There are some series of cesium, rubidium, and quartz oscillators for frequency
sources with proven reliability in Space.
reliability and they meet NASA Grade 1 standards. They can function under
adverse temperature conditions and their output frequency ranges from 4 to 60
MHz.
Other options consider the problem of high exposure to radiation. A Radiation
Tolerant Low Power Precision Time Source (LPPTS-R) has a frequency of about 10
Mhz. Some of the most popular vendors are Symmetricom, Kernco and Rakon.
The classical resonators offer a reliable solution that has been used extensively
in the last few years. Nevertheless, it appears that there is an effort to improve
the capabilities of small satellites by adding the new micro-atomic clocks.
8.2.6 Power+Distribution+System+Electronics+
Depending on the bus disposition, different architectures can be implemented
for the power distribution on board. One of the most common interface
standards is the 28 V bus, which is linked with a distributed architecture. By
using distinct switchers, many components can be connected to the main core of
the electrical power system (EPS). Another option is to choose a centralized EPS
architecture which provides more than one power bus to manage different
111
devices. Regulators are needed in this architecture and engineers should take the
potential for overloads into account in order to avoid failures. Thus, there is a
trade-off between simplicity and performance, since having multiple components
will increase complexity. For nanosats, volume constraints often trump added
complexity. Table 40 illustrates a survey of nanosat missions with different EPS
architectures.
Table 40: EPS architecture (Burt, 2012).
Mission
Size
Architecture
Distributed/Centralized
#of
Buses
Bus Voltage
AAU
1U
MPPT
Centralized
5R
AtmoCube
1U
DET
Centralized
Colony 1
3U
PPT
Centralized
7.2bat, 3.3R, 5R
Compass One
1U
PPT
Centralized
3.3R, 5R
CP3
1U
PPT
Distributed
3R, 3.7bat
CP4
1U
PPT
Distributed
3R, 3.7bat
CUTE-1
1U
DET
Centralized
CUTE-1.7
2U
PPT
Centralized
Delfi-C3
3U
DET
Distributed
12 R
DICE
1.5U
PPT
Centralized
7.2bat, 3.3R, 5R
DTUsat
1U
Distributed
3.6R
e-st@r
1U
PPT
Centralized
Gollat
1U
DET
Centralized
>1
7.4bat, others
HAUSAT
1U
Centralized
Hermes
1U
Distributed
KUTEsat
1U
Centralized
KySat
1U
PPT
Centralized
MEROPE
1U
PPT
Centralized
OuFTl-1
1U
DET
Centralized
7.2bat, 3.3R, 5R
QuakeSat
3U
DET
Centralized
5R, -5R
Sacred
1U
Centralized
5R, 3.3R
SEEDS 1
1U
DET
5R
XI-IV
1U
DET
Centralized
5R
XI-V
1U
DET
Centralized
5, 3, 8bat
DET
112
8.3
On+the+Horizon++
While C&DH systems and on board processing both benefit from commercial
advances and suffer from subtleties like parts obsolescence, the overall trends
are promising. Companies like Texas Instruments and National Semiconductor
Corporation have taken note of the challenges facing spacecraft designers and
are proactively providing solutions, including guarantees of no obsolescence and
continual development. There are also a number of technologies on the horizon
that show good promise in advancing smallsat C&DH capabilities, illustrated in
Table 41.
113
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
Distributed
Com puting
Collection of
networked satellites to
perform parallel or
distributed com puting
N/A
Wireless bus
Wireless bus
(bluetooth, WiFi) to
reduce bus volum e
and design com plexity
SwRI
(USA)
3
Analysis perform ed on
critical functions to
characterize
perform ance
Northrop
Grum m an
(USA),
JAXA
(Japan)
3
Testbed introduced for
design, build and test of
wireless spacecraft bus
Nonvolatile
chalcogenide random
BAE (UK),
Phase change
access m em ory is
Micron (USA),
m em ory (PCM),
inherently radiation
Sam sung
aka CRAM or
hard utilizing
(South Korea),
PRAM
am orphous state to
Ovonyx (USA)
store bits
Xilinx Virtex5QV FPGA
Rad-hard
reconfiguration FPGA
Xilinx
(USA)
SpaceCube 2.0
On board data
processor, FPGA Xilinx
Virtex 5 (FX130T)
NASA
Goddard
(USA)
8.4
TRL Status
Image
N/A
N/A
5
Com pleted QML-Q
testing
5
testing perform ed in
relevant environm ent.
To be flown on COVE
(2013/2014)
5
Conclusion+
C&DH is a growing and rapidly advancing subsystem area for small spacecraft,
with increased processing power and reduced mass, power and volume. C&DH
subsystem components with the exception of memory storage devices are
typically small in size, thus are not a major driver of mass and volume. While
C&DH subsystem components draw considerable power, advancing technologies
in commercial areas are already providing promising solutions. One drawback to
fast evolving electronics is parts obsolescence (e.g. 80C32 microcontroller,
TSC21020 DSP).
114
8.5
Anon.:
References+
Xilinx
Virtex-5
Datasheet.
[Online]
2012.
Available
at:
http://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/data_sheets/ds192_V5QV_Devic
e_Overview.pdf
Bentoutou, Y.: A follow-up of in-orbit observations of radiation-induced effects in
commercial off the shelf memories on-board Alsat-1. Advances in Space Research,
Volume 48, pp. 1147-1154, 2011.
Bentoutou, Y.: A Real Time EDAC System for Applications Onboard Earth
Observation Small Satellite. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic
Systems, 48(1), pp. 648-657, 2012.
Bentoutou, Y., Mohammed, A. S.: A Review of in-orbit Observations of RadiationInduced Effects in Commercial Memories on-board Alsat-1. s.l.: World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology, 2012.
Bingcai, C., Haifeng, X., Wei, X.: The Architecture of Picosatellite Nodes in Satellite
Formation Network Based on Reconfigurable Distributed Computing. Wireless
Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing (WiCOM). Shanghai, 2012.
Burt, Robert: Distributed Electrical Power Systems in CubeSat Applications. Utah
State University, 2012.
Conde, R. F. et al.: Benefits and Lessons Learned from the use of the Compact PCI
Standard for Spacecraft Avionics. s.l., Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2002.
Furano, G.: Review of Rad Hard electronics activities at European Space Agency.
Topical Workshop on Electronics for Particle Physics (TWEPP). Oxford, UK, 2012.
115
Ibrahim, M. M., Asami, K., Cho, M.: Fault Tolerant Architecture Alternatives for
Developing Nano-Satellites Embedded Computers. AIAA Space Conference &
Exposition. Pasadena, CA, 2012.
Koizumi, H., Komurasaki, K., Arakawa, Y.: Development of the Miniature Ion
Propulsion System for 50 kg Small Spacecraft. 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference & Exhibit. Atlanta, Georgia, 2012.
MacLeod, T. C., Sims, W. H., Varnavas, K. A., Ho, F. D.: Results from on-Orbit
Testing of the Fram Memory Test Experiment on the Fastsat Micro-Satellite.
Integrated Ferroelectrics, 132(1), 2012.
Norton, J. R., Cloeren, J. M.: Precision Quartz Oscillators and their use in Small
Satellites. Small Satellite Conference. Logan, UT, 1992.
Norton, J. R., Cloeren, J. M., n.d.: Precision Quartz Oscillators and their use in
Small Satellites. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Laurel,
Maryland.
Odegaard, K. A., Skavhaug, A.: Simple Methods for Error Detection and Correction
for Low-Cost Nano Satellites. SAFECOMP. Toulouse, France, 2013.
Pingree, P. J.: Advancing NASA's on-board processing capabilities with
reconfiguratble FPGA technologies: Opportunities & Implications. IEEE - Parallel &
Distributed Processing. Atlanta, GA, 2010.
Sayyah, R., Macleod, T. C., Ho, F. D.: Radiation-Hardened Electronics and
Ferroelectric Memory for Space Flight Systems. Ferroelectrics, 413(1), pp. 170-175,
2011.
Shimizu, T. & Underwood, C. Super-capacitor energy storage for micro-satellites:
Feasibility and potential mission applications. Acta Astronautica, 2013.
Staehle, R. L. et al.: Interplanetary CubeSat Architecture and Missions. AIAA Space
Conference & Exposition. Pasadena, CA, 2012.
Wang, J. J.: Radiation effects in FPGAs. s.l., 9th Workshop on Electronics for LHC
Experiements, 2003.
116
9. COMMUNICATIONS
9.1
Introduction+
9.2
State+of+the+Art+
rate
while
minimizing
hardware
constraints,
price,
and
power
consumption. These factors among others dictate the frequency spectrum that is
appropriate for a mission. This review of the current SoA technology will provide
a general overview of the hardware behind current electricity & magnetism (E&M)
communication systems. It will also encompass SoA transmitters, receivers, and
antennas. In addition, a recent survey of communication systems for all cube
satellites launched between the years 2003-2012 was conducted by Bryan Koflas
(see Appendix I).
117
! = ! log ! 1 + !"#
(1)
9.2.1 Transmitters+
Transmitters are responsible for using an input signal to modulate a carrier wave
which is then sent to an antenna. Since regulations, project budget, and expected
data throughput are important factors in selecting a carrier frequency, the
current non-exhaustive listing of SoA transmitters for each commonly used
spectrum is identified below.
9.2.1.1
VHF/UHF!Transmitters!!!
VHF/UHF transmitters are a reliable, low cost solution for missions requiring
nominal amounts of data transfer. These systems are typically used in LEO with
omni-directional antennas, and therefore do not require a high level of pointing
accuracy. Transceivers/transmitters in this category can cost from hundreds to a
few thousand dollars. Some examples of current application of VHF/UHF
Transmitters can be seen in Table 42.
118
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Figures
(transm it/receive)
Power consumption: 1.7 W/0.2 W
Mass: 0.085 kg
Data rate: < 9600 bps / < 1200 bps
Astronautical
9
Developm ent Has successfully flown
(USA)
on m ultiple m issions
Innovative
Solutions in
Space
(Netherlands)
9
Over 24 units flown
Clyde Space
(UK)
9
Has successfully flown
on m ultiple m issions
UHF/VHF transceiver
UHF/VHF
transceiver
(transm it/receive)
Power consumption: 10 W/0.25 W
Mass: 0.090 kg
Data rate: < 9600 baud / < 1200 baud
9.2.1.2
SRBand!Transmitters!
119
Description
Developer
Clyde Space
(UK)
(high/low)
Power consumption: 38 W/6 W
Mass: 1.8 kg /0.60 kg
Data rate: < 10 Mbps / < 38.4 kbps
Figures
TRL Status
(Receive/Transm it)
Power consumption: 5W/25W
Mass: 2.6 kg
Data rate: < 2 Mbps / < 8 Mbps
Integrated in Ukube-1
and preparing for
launch. Sim ilar
com ponents can be
found at TRL 9
Surrey
Satellite
Technology
(UK)
9
Over 24 Units Flown
Thales
Alenia
Space
(France)
9
Has successfully flown
on m ultiple m issions
COM DEV
EUROPE
(UK)
9
Has successfully flown
on m ultiple m issions
9.2.1.3
(receive/transm it)
Power consumption: 4 W/14 W
Mass: 0.78 kg
Data rate: < 1 Mbps / < 6.25 Mbps
XRBand!Transmitters!
X-Band transmitters start to approach the high data transfer rates currently
available for fully vetted small satellite applications in the microwave frequency
spectrum. These systems represent a significant increase in data transfer rate
and system cost; this is a desirable class of transmitter for missions with large
amounts of scientific data. For examples of X-Band transmitter applications on
small spacecraft (see Table 44).
120
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Surrey
Satellite
Technology
(UK)
9
Has successfully
flown on multiple
missions
L-3 Cincinnati
Electronics
(USA)
9
Has successfully
flown on multiple
missions
Syrlinks
(France)
Figures
9.2.1.4
Power consumption: 10 W
Mass: 0.4 kg
Data rate: < 50 Mbps
KRBand/KaRBand/KuRBand!Transmitters!
The Ku-band spectrum is used primarily by fixed and broadcast services such as
satellite television. Space shuttle communication systems and the ISS also use
the Ku-band frequency for scientific ventures. Communication satellites most
commonly use the Ka-band frequency, and the Kepler Mission uses a Ka-band
transmitter to send scientific data. Table 45 shows some examples of SoA
K/KA/KU-Band transmitters that are space qualified.
121
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Space Micro
(USA)
3
Still scaling up
performance to meet
specifications
General
Dynamics
(USA)
9
Has flown succesfully
L-3 Telemetry
West
(USA)
6
Tested in similar
environment
(receive/transmit)
Power consumption: N/A
Mass: 2.7 kg
Data rate: < 3 Gbps
Power consumption: 47 W
Mass:2.26 kg
Data rate: < 150 Mbps
9.2.1.5
Power consumption: 30 W
Mass: 2.8 kg
Data rate: < 1.2 Gbps
Figures
Infrared/Visible!Spectrum!Transmitters!
122
Description
Developer
TRL Status
NASA/Loral
(USA)
6
Launched on LADEE;
Demonstrated in
2013
Figures
9.2.2 Antennae+
9.2.2.1
Deployable!Antennae!
High gain deployable antennae are of keen interest to many small spacecraft
missions. Table 47 is a sampling of standardized deployable antennae available
to small spacecraft.
123
Deployable
UHF/VHF
antenna
Deployable
high gain
antenna
Deployable
high gain
antenna
9.2.2.2
Description
A deployable antenna for
cube satellite missions. Can
deploy four monopole
antennae.
Max RF power: 2 W
Mass: 0.10 kg
A deployable high gain
antenna for cube satellites.
Max gain: 18 dBi
Mass: 1.0 kg
Developer
TRL Status
Innovative
Solutions in
Space
(Netherlands)
9
Flown on multiple
successful missions
BDS
Phantomworks
(USA)
Figures
USC's Space
9
Engineering
Launched succesfully
Research
on Aeneas CubeSat
Center (SERC),
(USA)
Integrated!Pointing!Systems!
Integrated
pointing high
gain antenna
Description
Developer
TL Status
Surrey
Satellite
Technology
(UK)
9
Flown on NigeriaSat-2
Figures
124
9.2.2.3
Microstrip/Patch!Antennae!
Description
Developer
TL Status
S-Band patch
antenna
Surrey
Satellite
Technology
(UK)
9
Over 70 units flown
9.3
Figures
On+the+Horizon++
9.3.1 KaXBand+Transmitters+
The Ka-band has the potential for even faster data transfer rates and products
are currently in development to tap the large bandwidth the Ka-band has to
offer. Table 50 is just one sample of upcoming Ka-band transmitters.
125
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Space Micro
(USA)
Figures
(receive/transmit)
Power consumption: N/A
Mass: 2.7 kg
Data rate: < 3 Gbps
9.3.2 Modulating+Retro+Reflectors+
In an effort to reduce the power and mass load requirements placed on small
spacecraft by their communication systems, research is being done to move
much of that load from the satellite to the ground station. A high-powered laser
from a ground station applies a pulse to a satellite; the satellite then modulates
the incoming pulse and reflects it back to a ground station. This scheme provides
two-way laser communication, but with all of the laser power provided by the
ground stationthe spacecraft communication subsystem, power, mass, and
volume are very small, consisting only of the laser receiver and modulating retro
reflector.
Table 51: Modulating retro reflector.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
NASA
(USA)
2-3
Figures
9.3.3 Integrated+Solar+Panel+Reflect+Arrays+
Integrated solar panel reflect arrays aim to increase the data downlink rate for
small spacecraft by several orders of magnitude by acting as a high gain antenna
(see Table 52). This technique can be incorporated with minimal additional cost,
126
Description
Developer
TL Status
NASA JPL
(USA)
2-3
Figures
9.3.4 XXRay+Communication+
Research is being conducted into communication systems using the X-ray
frequency spectrum. Among other benefits, X-ray communication systems could
overcome the re-entry communication blackout period (see Table 53). Lab
demonstrations have created a digital data link > 1 Mbps. Additional in-orbit
testing is currently being pursued
Table 53: X-Ray Communication.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
X-Ray
communication
NASA
(USA)
9.4
Figures
Conclusion+
127
The microwave spectrum however, is becoming quite congested and so the use of
other spectrums, such as visible, seems promising. Optical communication
systems are an area of heavy research and development at the moment and have
the potential to provide increased data transfer rates with nominal bandwidth
pollution compared to the microwave frequencies. Figure 50 below depicts the
maximum achievable data transfer rates for different frequency spectrums. In
spite of the early development stage, optical communication is already
surpassing traditional transmitters.
10000000!
Data(Rates((kbps)(
1000000!
100000!
10000!
1000!
Data!Rates!(kbps)!
100!
10!
1!
UHF/VHF!
S5Band!
X5Band!
K5Band!
Visible!
9.5
References++
128
http://mstl.atl.calpoly.edu/~bklofas/Presentations/DevelopersWorkshop2013/
Klofas, Bryan: CubeSat Developers' Workshop 2008. [online] 2008. Available at:
http://mstl.atl.calpoly.edu/~bklofas/Presentations/DevelopersWorkshop2008/
CubeSatshop.com: ISIS VHF downlink/UHF uplink Full Duplex Transceiver. [online]
2012. Available at:
http://www.CubeSatshop.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&category_id=5
&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=73&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=67 [Accessed:
26 Aug 2013].
Directory.eoportal.org: LADEE - eoPortal Directory - Satellite Missions - Earthnet
Online. [online] 2011. Available at:
129
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/l/ladee [Accessed: 26
Aug 2013].
Gendreau, K.: X-Ray Comm. [email] Sent August 15th, 2013.
General Dynamics: Ku/Ka/X-Band High Rate Transmitter (HRT150). [e-book] General
Dynamics, 2012.
http://www.gd-ais.com/Documents/High Rate Transmitter (HRT150).pdf [Accessed:
August 20th, 2013].
Innovative Solutions In Space: Deployable UHF and VHF antennas. [e-book] Innovative
Solutions In Space, 2013.
http://www.isispace.nl/brochures/ISIS_AntS_Brochure_v.7.11.pdf [Accessed: August
20th, 2013].
L3 Telemetry West: K-Band OQPSK Transmitter. [e-book] L3 Telemetry West, 2012.
http://www2.l-3com.com/tw/pdf/datasheets/ML601_Rev D.pdf [Accessed: August
20th, 2013].
NASA JPL. n.d.: ISARA - Reflectarray Antenna for High Bandwidth Communications.
[e-book] NASA JPL. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/706631main_sstp_3_projects.pdf
[Accessed: August 20th, 2013].
Salas, A., Stupl, J. and Mason, J.: Modulating Retro-Reflectors: Technology, Link
Budgets And Applications. 63rd International Astronautical Congress, 2013.
[Accessed: 27 Aug 2013].
Space Micro: Tx-300 Ka-Band Transmitter. [e-book] Space Micro, 2013.
http://www.spacemicro.com/pdfs/KA-Band v5.0.pdf [Accessed: August 20th, 2013].
Sstl.co.uk. n.d.: High Gain X-Band Antenna Pointing Mechanism. [online] Available at:
http://www.sstl.co.uk/Products/Subsystems/Communication/Antennas/High-GainX-Band-Antenna-
130
current
development
of
small
spacecraft
integration,
launch,
and
interplanetary
trajectories,
precisely
timed
rendezvous,
or
special
131
10.2 State+of+the+Art+
10.2.1 Launch+Vehicles
10.2.1.1
Primary!Payloads!
specifically
Since
the
for
small
growth
in
small launchers has not yet developed. Of the vehicles on the market, though,
the Super Strypi/SPARK (Spaceborne Payload Assist Rocket; see Figure 51) rocket
has TRL value of 9 and is a promising technology. Developed jointly by the
Innovative Satellite Launch Program at the University of Hawaii in cooperation
with Sandia National Laboratories and Aerojet, SPARK is an evolved version of
Sandias Super Strypi research rocket that is designed to deliver 250 kg to a 400
km Sun-synchronous orbit from Kauai, Hawaii. It is designed to integrate
payloads with the NASA Ames payload adapter and deployer. Launch of a 1U
spacecraft is anticipated to be only ~$40-60K, and launch of a 12U is ~$1.5M
(Taylor, 2013). The first launch is planned for October 2013 (David, 2013).
The Pegasus, an air-launched vehicle built by Orbital Sciences, is a small- to
medium-lift launcher that has already built a heritage of successful launches
since 1996. The system can deliver 450 kg to LEO with three solid stages. The
rocket has a record of 26 consecutive fully successful missions including the
recent NASA Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS) mission launched in
June 2013 aboard a Pegasus XL variant (NASA, 2013). This system allows greater
mobility and flexibility in launch since the rocket is launched from a carrier
aircraft (Orbital Sciences, 2013).
132
Another vehicle produced by Orbital Sciences, the Minotaur, is the last mediumlift launcher currently available to be considered as a SoA primary payload
launch vehicle. With a payload capacity of 580 kg to LEO, the Minotaur would be
overkill for most small satellite missions, but could still be valuable depending
on destination and number. Out of the entire rocket family, the Minotaur I is the
most applicable to small satellites since it has the lowest payload and cost, and
has conducted ten missions successfully. The Minotaur I is designed with four
solid stages from a converted Minuteman ballistic missile (Orbital Sciences,
2013).
Table 54: Examples of SoA primary launch vehicles for small spacecraft.
Technology
Name
Minotaur
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Pegasus
Orbital Sciences
(USA)
9
Launched successful
IRIS m ission; 26
consecutive fully
successful m issions
Satellite launch
vehicle VLS-1
Brazilian Space
Agency (AEB),
with Russian
assistance
(Foreign)
6
Multiple tests of
vehicle, but no
successfully flown
m issions yet
Super Strypi
NLSP nano-sat
launcher (NEXT
program )
Figures
15 kg to 425 km
m inim um specs
NASA Launch
6 or higher
Services;
Draft RFI prepared at
Contractor not http://prod.nais.nasa.go
yet selected
v/eps/eps_data/156837(USA)
DRAFT-001-001.pdf
N/A
133
10.2.1.2
Secondary!Payloads!
Secondary payload arrangements provide far more options for immediate launch
at high TRL. Workhorse vehicles like the Atlas V and Soyuz now carry secondary
payloads as regular course. Since almost any large launcher can fit a small
payload within mass and volume margins, there is no shortage of options for
craft that want to fly as a secondary. Even on small vehicles like the Super
Strypi/SPARK, there is often enough extra performance to squeeze in at least a
1U CubeSat.
The EELV programs boosters, the Atlas V and Delta IV, have been the most
common and capable secondary launchers for small spacecraft programs to date.
The EELV Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA ring) has flown everything from
larger payloads like the NASA LCROSS mission to several small CubeSats in Poly
Picosatellite Orbital Deployers (P-PODs). With a diverse family of launchers and a
fully developed integration and launch services scheme, the EELVs are the most
successful small spacecraft launchers currently available.
The Atlas V (see Figure 52) can deliver from approximately 9,800 kg to almost
19,000 kg into a 200 km LEO orbit at 28.7
depending
on
configuration.
The
Atlas
as
the
Atlas,
it
provides
good
extreme
payload
capability
(United
Figure 52: Atlas V with the LCROSS
and LRO payloads (Atkinson, 2009).
134
Table 55: Examples of SoA secondary launch vehicles for small spacecraft.
Technology
Name
Description
Antares
Two-stage launcher
with solid and liquid
stages for payloads
over 5,000 kg to LEO
Developer
TRL Status
Figures
9
Orbital Sciences
Launcher for successful
(USA)
PhoneSat m ission
Ariane 5
European civilian
launcher fam ily;
European Space
current Ariane 5 is
Agency
heavy lift vehicle
(Foreign)
capable of 20,000 kg to
LEO
9
Ariane 1 first
operational in 1979;
Ariane 5 first
operational in 1996
Atlas V
Evolved expendable
9,800-18,850 kg to LEO; United Launch
m ultiple secondary
Alliance
payloads aboard ESPA
(USA)
ring
9
Hot Bird 6 first launch;
has flown several
CubeSats and other
sm all satellites since
135
Delta II
2,700 kg - 6,100 kg to
LEO; two-stage liquid
with option third
stage
United Launch
Alliance
(USA)
9
First launch in 1989
Delta IV
United Launch
Alliance
(USA)
9
First launch in 2002
Dnepr-1
Yuzhny
MachineBuilding Plant
(Foreign)
9
First launch in 1999
Falcon 9
13,150 kg to LEO;
ongoing design for
reusability; LOX/RP1
two-stage booster
Space
Exploration
Technologies
(USA)
9
First launch 2010
Falcon heavy
53,000 kg to LEO;
ongoing design for
reusability; LOX/RP1
two-stage booster
Space
Exploration
Technologies
(USA)
7
Multiple Falcon 9 core
flights for NASA
COTS/CRS m issions
H-IIA/B
Mitsubishi
Heavy
Industries
(Foreign)
9
First launch of H-IIA in
2001
International
Space Station
Hand-launch or P-POD
deploym ent for
CubeSats
ISS Partners;
launcher for
CubeSats on
JEM (Japanese
Experim ent
Module) (Mixed)
9
J-SSOD deployed
m ultiple CubeSats on
Expedition 33
Kosm os-3m
1,500 kg to LEO;
IRFNA/UDMH-fueled
two-stage
Yuzhnoye/NPO
Polyot
(Foreign)
9
First flight in 1967
Long March
Widely varies;
currently 2,400 kg 11,200 kg to LEO
China Academ y
9
of Launch
First of fam ily launched
Vehicle
in 1970; m ost recent
Technology
launch of taikonauts in
(Foreign)
June 2013
136
Minotaur
9
Rocket fam ily
First launch of fam ily in
currently with 580 kg
Orbital Sciences
2000; launch of
to LEO (Minotaur I)
(USA)
Minotaur V in
and 437 kg to TLI
Septem ber 2013
(Minotaur V)
Pegasus
Orbital Sciences
(USA)
9
Launched successful
IRIS m ission; 26
consecutive fully
successful m issions
PSLV
3,250 kg to LEO
(standard)
Indian Space
Research
Organization
(Foreign)
9
First flight 1993
Rokot-KM
Soyuz
Space Launch
System
Super Strypi
Taurus
Vega
Eurockot
1,950 kg to LEO; threeLaunch Services
stage, liquid
(Foreign)
Initially 70,000 kg to
LEO, evolved to
130,000 kg
OKB-1, TsSKBProgress
(Foreign)
9
First flight in 1990
9
Large heritage of
m issions; currently
only m an-rated
launcher to ISS; first
flight in 1966
Boeing, ATK,
7
Pratt & Whitney
First flight scheduled
Rocketdyne,
for 2017; significant use
NASA, and
of shuttle-derived
others
com ponents
(USA)
9
Orbital Sciences
First launch in 1994, but
(USA)
notable recent failures
European sm all
launcher with 3009
2,500 kg prim ary
European Space
CubeSats flown in 2007
payload and up to 9
Agency
on m aiden flight of
CubeSats; reference
(Foreign)
vehicle
m ission is 1,500 kg to
700 km polar orbit
137
10.2.2 Payload+Adapters+and+Deployment+
Currently no launch vehicle dedicated to payloads less than 180 kg is available,
thus most small satellites must ride as secondary payloads. In order to
accommodate this class, and in order to fully use available payload space on
launch vehicles, adapters have been created to store, isolate and deploy
secondary payloads. A broad spectrum of adapters exists to serve payloads of
different sizes, as shown in Figure 53.
Figure 53: Examples of secondary payload adapters available to serve payloads of various
masses, ranging from nanosatellites to minisatellites (Image credit: United Launch Alliance).
10.2.2.1!Nanosatellites!0R10!kg!
The nanosatellite class is dominated by CubeSats. Although the CubeSat
architecture does not strictly limit spacecraft mass to be less than 10 kg, to-date
CubeSats missions have fit within this range. While nanosatellites exist outside
the form factor of the CubeSat, they require individualized adapters. Therefore
the focus of this section is on integration systems conforming to the CubeSat
architecture.
138
P-POD
is
rectangular
7075-T73
aluminum
between CubeSats are used to provide initial separation between payloads. The
interior is anodized with a Teflon-impregnated solution to ensure smooth
deployment. The tubular design of the P-POD prevents rotation of the CubeSats
during ejection, ensuring linear trajectories. The exit velocity of the CubeSat is
designed to be 1.6 m/s, though the central spring may be replaced to achieve
different exit velocities (Lan, 2007). Typically P-PODs are connected to a larger
secondary payload interface and not directly to the launch vehicle (see
Microsatellites and Minisatellites subsections for more information).
Other POD designs exist, though the systems are essentially the same as the PPOD. Such systems include T-POD, X-POD, ISIPOD, and EZPOD. Details on these
technologies may be found in Table 56. One should note these deployers are not
necessarily competitors to the P-POD, but rather exist to provide various
organizations rideshare opportunities when room for secondary payloads opens
on launch vehicles (Kramer, 2012).
139
Table 56: Examples of SoA 1-3U POD deployers for small satellites.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
P-POD
Tubular container
which deploys up to
3U CubeSats
Spaceflight,
Inc.
(USA)
9
Successfully deployed 4
CubeSats from
Eurockot in 2003
T-POD
Adapter used to
deploy a 1U CubeSat
University of
Tokyo
(Japan)
9
Successfully used to
deploy XI-V CubeSat in
2003
X-POD
UTIAS Space
Flight
Laboratory
(Canada)
9
Successfully used to
deploy CubeSats on
ISRO PSLV-C9 in 2008
ISIPOD
CubeSat launch
adapter capable of
carrying 1, 2 and 3 U
CubeSats
ISIS
(Netherlands)
9
3U ISIPOD successfully
deployed Cosm ogia's
Dove-1 and Dove-2
spacecraft in 2013
EZPOD
US version of ISIPOD,
6U and 12U versions
in developm ent
Andrews
Space, Inc. and
ISIS,
(USA and
Netherlands)
9
Successfully used to
deploy STRanD-1
CubeSat in 2013
J-SSOD
9
Japan
Successfully deployed
Aerospace
CubeSats including
Deploys up to 6 1U
Exploration
RAIKO, FITSAT-1, WE
CubeSats from the ISS
Agency (JAXA),
WISH, NanoRacks
(Japan)
CubeSat-1/F-1 and
TechEdSat
Rocket Pod
1U CubeSat deployer
based on RocketCam
system
Ecliptic
Enterprises
(USA)
Figures
8
System has been tested
on zero gravity and suborbital flights. First
m ission will be the
BarnacleSat Mission
140
to
interface
with
the
launch
vehicle.
The
capabilities
of
the
141
Technology
Name
Wallops 6U
CubeSat
deployer
Description
Developer
Goddard
Space Flight
CubeSat deployer
Center/
capable of holding 6U
Wallops Flight
CubeSats
Facility
(USA)
TRL Status
6
Vibration and
deploym ent testing in
relevant environm net
Planetary
System s
Corporation
(USA)
6
Qualified to MIL-STD1540 level
NLAS
Deploys 1, 3 and 6 U
CubeSats, up to a total
of 24U.
NASA Am es
Research
Center
(USA)
6
Qualified using the
General Environm ental
Verification Standards
NPSCul
Naval
Postgraduate
School
(USA)
9
Deployed 11 CubeSats
for OUTSat m ission
CubeSat dispenser
Canisterized
Satellite
capable of deploying
Dispenser (CSD) 3U and 6U payloads
10.2.2.2
Figures
Microsatellites!10R100!kg!
142
thruster, namely the secondary payload is completely isolated from the primary,
thereby relaxing electromagnetic interference and contamination concerns of the
primary payload. OSL designed the ABC (see Figure 55) to host payloads in this
space. The adapter carries up to 80 kg by utilizing the plate and struts previously
used to house the helium tank (Willcox, 2012).
Another adapter, originally used to house batteries, has been converted into
secondary payload volume. The C-Adapter Platform (CAP) is a cantilevered
platform capable of carrying up to 45 kg in a volume of 23 x 31 x 33 cm. The
platform is attached to a C-adapter ring via a 20.3 cm clampband and is
compatible with Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles (Szatkowski, 2013). C-rings,
mounted in the forward adapter of the Centaur upper stage, are essentially large
aluminum rings used as an interface between payload integration systems and
ground support equipment (ULA, 2010).
Table 58: Microsatellite secondary payload adapters.
143
10.2.2.3
Minisatellites!100R180!kg!
To use additional payload space on the EELV, the Air Force Research Laboratory
Space Vehicles Directorate (AFRL/VS) contracted Moog CSA Engineering to
develop what has become known as an ESPA ring, or EELV Secondary Payload
Adapter. The original ESPA was designed to carry a 6,800 kg primary payload and
up to six 180 kg secondary payloads (Goodwin & Wegner, 2001). Although
initially designed to be compatible with the Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles,
the adapter is also compatible with the Taurus II launch vehicle. Additionally,
SpaceX has recently made an agreement with Spaceflight Inc. to host secondary
payloads using Spaceflights Secondary Payload System (SSPS), which has at its
core an ESPA ring (Bergin, 2012).
ESPA is a ring of 7070 T7451 aluminum with six equally spaced 38 cm diameter
bolt circles used to attach six secondary payloads. ESPA sits between the launch
vehicle upper stage and the primary payload, where rings may be stacked to
accommodate more secondary payloads. Each secondary is allowed to occupy a
maximum volume of 61 x 61 x 96.5 cm with a 50.8 cm center of gravity
requirement (Goodwin & Wegner, 2001). The deployment is left to the payload
designers, but the ejection system and the payload together must fit within the
size and mass constraints. Any payload that fits within these constraints and is
compatible with the 38 cm bolt circles may ride as a secondary on ESPA,
including the CubeSat deployers discussed previously. In addition to providing a
physical link to the launch vehicle, the ESPA system also accommodates an
electrical interface between launch vehicle and payload to provide power.
Moog CSA also developed the ESPA Six Unit Mount (SUM), which allows for the
addition of up to 12 3U satellites. ESPA SUM makes use of the interior portion of
the adapter ring to house either two 3U P-PODs or one 6U deployer behind each
38.1 cm port, in addition to the six 180 kg payloads (Moog, 2013). CubeSat
deployers may be mounted internally or externally as shown in Figure 56. If
mounted externally, then a total of 24 3U CubeSats may be deployed from the
ESPA SUM, using CSD and P-POD deployers.
144
Figure 56: (Left) ESPA SUM with interior mounted CubeSats and (right) exterior mounted (Marin, n.d.).
To support payloads on
Corporation developed the Multiple Payload Adapter Plate (MPAP), a flat plate
adapter capable of holding up to four 180 kg payloads in a volume of 90.2 x 78.1
x 61 cm (Orbital Sciences, 2013). Plate adapters are
used in conjunction with other payload adapters to
increase the overall secondary payload space. Moog
CSA has developed a similar adapter, known as the
Spiderman Adapter, to interface with ESPA rings. The
adapter, seen in Figure , holds two 180 kg payloads
(Pendleton, et al., n.d.). MPAP, ESPA, and other
minisatellite payload adapter systems can be seen in
Table 59.
145
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
ESPA Ring
Moog CSA
(USA)
9
Enabled STP-1 m ission
in 2007
ESPA SUM
Moog CSA
(USA)
6
NASA LSP provided
guidance to qualify
prototype based on
generic space flight
param eters
Multiple
Payload
Adapter Plate
(MPAP)
Minotaur adapter
capable of holding up
to four 180 kg payloads
Orbital
Sciences
Corporation
(USA)
9
Successfully used on
STP-S26 m ission in 2010
Spiderm an flat
plate adapter
Moog CSA
(USA)
6
Successfully tested
under flight conditions
Secondary
Payload
Adapter and
Separation
System (SPASS)
Space Access
Technologies
and ATSB
(USA and
Malaysia)
9
Successfully flown on
Falcon 1, used to
deploy RazakSAT
Figures
10.2.3 Separation+Systems+
While many separation systems like the POD deployers make use of a
compressed spring mechanism, band systems are also quite common. Lightband
and Marman clamp separation systems are widely used, particularly for larger
spacecraft.
Lightband is a motorized separation system that ranges from 20.3 cm to 96.5 cm
in diameter. Smaller Lightband systems are used to deploy ESPA class satellites,
while larger variations may be used to separate the entire ESPA ring itself.
Lightbands motorized separation system eliminates the need for pyrotechnic
146
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Motorized
Lightband (MLB)
System used to
separate payloads
from launch vehicles
Planetary
System s
Corporation
(USA)
9
Has successfully flown
on over 30 m issions
Clam p band
Sierra Nevada
separation system for
Corporation
ESPA and ESPA Grande
(USA)
class satellites
6
Significant testing has
been conducted to
verify system
Qwksep
Figures
10.2.4 Launch+Integration+Services+for+Secondary+Small+Spacecraft+Payloads+
The sharing of a launch between a secondary small-satellite and a primary
payload is not considered to be standard and thus the services required for such
rideshare implementation are non-standard as well. Generally, the launch vehicle
(LV) customer (not the LV manufacturer) decides whether secondary smallsat
payloads will share a ride with a primary payload and if so, how these secondary
147
smallsats are dispensed. In most cases, the LV customer is the primary payload;
however, there are cases where a program or integration company can determine
rideshare possibilities (Sanchez, 2013). More flexibility may be available to
secondary payloads that are funded through such a program, although the
mission schedule is generally decided by the primary payload.
Typical standard rideshare integration services are general services provided
by these integration companies that focus on LV integrations and do not vary
due to mission requirements of the primary payload. Standardized services
include system testing, engineering development support, hardware of the
dispenser,
and
necessary
integration
such
as
smallsat-to-dispenser
and
dispenser-to-LV.
Rideshare integration services considered to be non-standard may depend
heavily on the primary payload and can include de-integration (e.g., executing a
separation maneuver), mission and science-specific services, special analyses
related to hardware and integration services, and isolated venting, shock,
vibration, and thermal environmental control.
Examples of launch integration companies include Spaceflight Services, Tyvak
Nano-Satellite Systems LLC, and TriSept Corporation.
Spaceflight Services provides routine access to space for deployed and hosted
smallsat payloads by using published commercial pricing, standard interfaces,
and frequent flight opportunities. They have launched payloads on multiple LVs
for NASA and industry (see Figure 58 for a visual representation of a smallsat
ejection from a dispenser). Specific integration services provided include
engineering analysis, smallsat-to-dispenser and LV integration, flight service,
coordination of launch and on-orbit services, safety audits, customer manifest
planning, and standard interface options for smallsats, including CubeSat (e.g.,
6U, 12U and 24U) from P-POD systems (Spaceflight Services LLC, 2013).
148
Figure 56: Spaceflight Services depiction of Smallsat ejections from dispenser in low-Earth orbit
(LEO) (Spaceflight Services LLC, 2013).
Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems LLC provides smallsat space vehicle products and
launch integration services such as engineering analysis, integration of complex
smallsat
(e.g.
CubeSat)
subsystems,
smallsat-to-LV
interface
control
thermal,
and
thermal
vacuum),
launch
and
general
mission
149
Figure 59: Example of primary payload integrated with smallsat secondary payloads stowed in
dispenser (TriSept Corporation, 2013).
10.2.5 Isolated+Environmental+Control+Possibilities+
Services and technologies related to isolating potentially critical environments
for secondary smallsat payloads (such as venting, shock, vibrations, and thermal)
should be considered. To date, there have not been enough missions to properly
define these environments for each combination of LV-to-smallsat dispenser
system and thus this environmental information provided by LV manufacturers
is applicable for the entire payload, not just the secondary. However, this does
not mean the aforementioned environments are not available for isolation on or
within a secondary payload. There are options for secondary payloads that allow
for reduced shock and vibrations; two examples are the aforementioned shock
ring from Spaceflight Services and Moog CSA's Softride products: Shock Ring and
a Tuned Mass Damper, respectively (Moog Inc., 2013; see Figure 60). These
features are independent of the primary payload and LV, meaning the secondary
150
payload must show up to the launch site equipped with such features. Another
service provided by Moog CSA is component isolation, which can be potentially
valuable to instruments that require lower vibrations compared to the rest of the
system. Isolated thermal control is perhaps more difficult to achieve, considering
secondary smallsat payloads are generally attached to the LV's upper stage,
located within the fairing with the primary payload. Isolated thermal control
options are discussed more in the next section.
Figure 60: Moog CSA's shock ring (left) and tuned mass damper (right), used for both shock
isolation and reduced vibrations for secondary smallsat payloads (Moog Inc., 2013).
10.3 On+the+Horizon+
10.3.1+Launch+Integration+Services+for+Secondary+Smallsat+Payloads+
As previously mentioned, the isolated thermal control appears to be a relatively
difficult service for launch integration companies to provide. There have been
paints in development, and some already developed (AZ Technology, Inc., 2008),
that coat the skin of a smallsat to effectively alter its thermal environment,
independent of the primary payload located within the same upper stage fairing.
Additionally, smallsats can take advantage of multi-layer insulation (MLI) to
create an isolated thermal environment. Many such MLI shielding combinations
exist such as aluminum and black Kapton, aluminum and glass cloth, gold and
polyimide, etc. (Multek Corporation, 2013) and can be used in conjunction with
the aforementioned paints, increasing the thermal control available to smallsats.
10.3.2 Launch+Vehicles+
10.3.2.1!Primary!Payload!
The future holds the most promise for primary payloads launched on small and
cheap boosters. Many of the prime advantages of a small satelliteincluding
151
152
Figure 61: Artist's conception of the Virgin Galactic LauncherOne and WhiteKnightTwo
NASA itself is also working to advance small launchers. NASA Launch Services
(NLS) at the Kennedy Space Center is currently soliciting information for a
potential Nano-Sat Launcher as part of its NLS Enabling eXploration &
Technology (NEXT) program. This launcher is meant to launch at least a 15 kg 3U
CubeSat into a 425 km orbit at inclinations between 0 and 98 no later than
December 15, 2016. This program is limited to companies with fewer than 1,000
employees to encourage small business innovation outside of traditional means
of procurement (Foust, 2013).
153
Technology
Name
Description
ALASA Program
Multiple contracts to
Lockheed Martin,
Boeing, Virgin
Galactic, Ventions
LLC, Space
Inform ation
Laboratories LLC
Boeing sm all
launch vehicle
Developer
TRL Status
DARPA;
contractor not
yet selected
(USA)
5
Current phase (design
risk reduction) focused
on system design and
technology
developm ent; Phase 2
will include build and
flight tests
Boeing
(USA)
5
Various com ponents
already flown, but no
larger scale integration
yet
Air-launched, singleGeneration
stage rocket
Orbit Launch
delivering ~45 kg (100
GOLauncher 2
Services, Space
lb) to LEO of up to 400
Propulsion
km with inclinations
Group
from 0 to 98.7 degrees
4
Two-year CRADA with
AFRL ongoing for
com putational and
experim ental tasks
5
WK2 carrier vehicle
developm ent largely
com plete; ongoing
testing of likely hybrid
rocket for SS2
suborbital m anned
LauncherOne
Long March
Micro Launch
Vehicle (LMMLV)
Lynx
Microsat
Launch Vehicle
(VLM)
Virgin Galactic
(USA)
China
Aerospace
Science and
Sm allest launch
Technology
vehicle planned of LM
Corporation,
fam ily; other details
China National
unknown
Space
Adm inistration
(China)
Suborbital space
plane with dorsallaunched sm all
orbital booster, 650
kg to LEO
150 kg to 300 km
orbit; 3 solid stages
XCOR
Aerospace
(USA)
?
Unknown
Figures
N/A
3
Mark I in developm ent,
but Mark III necessary
for orbital launch
would be a redesigned
new vehicle
Brazilian Space
Agency (AEB),
Germ an Space
4
Agency (DLR) Projected launch in 2015
(Brazil/
Germ any)
154
Minim um cost
launch vehicle
22.7 kg to LEO;
NO2/Rubber hybrid
rocket
Whittinghill
Aerospace
(USA)
5
NASA SBIR 08-2 S4.018692; will be at TRL 6 by
com pletion of contract
Nano launch
vehicle
Ventions
(USA)
4
NASA SBIR 12-1 E1.029215
Garvey
Spacecraft
(USA)
4
NASA SBIR 12-1 E1.029091
Interorbital
System s
(USA)
5
Multiple m issions on
m anifest for 2013, but
no test flight yet;
m ultiple com ponents
tested
NAMMO,
Norwegian
Space Centre,
ESA
(Norway)
3
First launch planned
for 2020
Swiss Space
System s (S3)
(Switzerland)
3
Com pany launched in
March 2013
Orbital nanosat
Nanosat launch
vehicle (a.k.a launcher with 10 kg to
250 km orbit
Garvey 10/250)
Neptune
Three-stage vehicle
with 30-50 kg
(variants 5 and 7,
respectively) to
circular polar orbit at
310 km
10 kg to 350 km polar
North Star
LEO; evolved
Launch Vehicle
sounding rocket
design
S3 vehicle
(unnam ed)
SWORDS
25 kg to 750 km orbit
at 28.5 degree
inclination; 24 hours
from storage to
launch ready; Tridyne
pressure-fed engine
with LOX/CH4
U.S. Arm y;
Contractor not
yet selected
N/A
5
Ground engine test,
suborbital flight test,
and orbital flight test
in sum m er 2014
10.3.2.2!Secondary!Payload!
One advantage of the secondary launch market is that market forces from both
small and large spacecraft can collectively drive development and cost-reduction.
Even advances in large, heavy-lift boosters like NASAs Space Launch System or
SpaceXs Falcon Heavy can help to open space to more parties. The Falcon Heavy
155
is one of the most promising in this area. Projected to cost just over $1K/kg, the
Falcon Heavy will be one of the cheapest vehicles on the market while throwing
53,000 kg into LEO. Innovative features like propellant cross-feed from the sidemounted boosters to the core for payloads over 45,000 kg help to maximize
performance and efficiency. Advances in reusability or Merlin rocket engine
enhancements will be shared across the Falcon line (Space Exploration
Technologies, 2013).
10.3.3 Payload+Adapters+and+Deployment+
10.3.3.1!CubeSat!Deployers!
Several CubeSat integration systems are under development to support increased
demand for CubeSat launches. Planetary Systems is developing 12U and 27U
versions of CSD allowing for larger, more complex CubeSat payloads (Williams,
2013). Spaceflight Services is developing DecaPOD to enable more CubeSat
secondary payloads per launch. DecaPOD holds up to ten 3U CubeSats and is
compatible with Spaceflights Secondary Payload System (SSPS). Two DecaPODs
fit on each of SSPSs five ports, allowing for a total of 100 3U CubeSats if fully
loaded (Spaceflight, 2012).
Table 62: Examples of on the horizon small spacecraft deployers.
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
Planetary
Canisterized
CubeSat dispenser
System s
Satellite
capable of deploying
Corporation
Dispenser (CSD) 12U and 27U Payloads
(USA)
DecaPOD
System capable of
transporting and
deploying 10 3U
CubeSats
TRL Status
Figures
3
Analyzed with finite
elem ent m odel under
relevant conditions
Spaceflight,
5
Inc.
Deploym ent subsystem
(USA)
has successfully flown
156
10.3.3.2
Adapter!Rings!
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Sm all Launch
ESPA
Moog CSA
(USA)
3
Analyzed with finite
elem ent m odel under
launch conditions
Spaceflight,
Inc.
(USA)
5
Adapter ring and
deploym ent
subsystem s have
successfully flown
Spaceflight
Secondary
Payload System
(SSPS)
Figures
157
10.3.3.2
Space!Tugs!
Technology
Name
Description
Developer
TRL Status
Orbital
Maneuvering
System
Propulsion system is
integrated into ESPA
ring allowing adapter
to act as an
independent
spacecraft
Moog CSA
(USA)
5
Adapter ring and
deploym ent
subsystem s have
successfully flown
SHERPA Tug
Orbital servicing
vehicle capable of
changing secondary
payload orbit and
host payloads for up
to one year
Spaceflight,
Inc.
(USA)
5
Adapter ring and
deploym ent
subsystem s have
successfully flown
Figures
158
10.3.4 Launch+Integration+Services+for+Secondary+Smallsat+Payloads+
As mentioned in this section's state of the art counterpart, isolated thermal
control appears to be a relatively difficult service for launch integration
companies to provide. There have been paints in development (and some already
developed) that coat the skin of a smallsat to effectively alter its thermal
environment, independent of the primary payload located within the same upper
stage fairing. Additionally, smallsat can take advantage of MLI to create an
isolated thermal environment. Many such MLI shielding combinations exist (e.g.,
gold-gold, platinum-glass, etc.) and can be used in conjunction with the
aforementioned paints, increasing the thermal control available to smallsats.
10.4 Conclusion+
A wide variety of integration and deployment systems exists to provide rideshare
opportunities for small satellites on existing launch vehicles. While leveraging
excess payload space will continue to be profitable into the future, dedicated
launch vehicles and new integration systems are needed to fully utilize the
advantages provided by small satellites. Dedicated launch vehicles may be used
to take advantage of rapid iteration and mission design flexibility, enabling small
satellites to dictate mission parameters. New integration systems will greatly
increase the mission envelope of small satellites riding as secondary payloads.
Advanced systems may be used to host secondary payloads on orbit to increase
mission lifetime, expand mission capabilities, and enable orbit maneuvering. As
we move into the future these technologies may yield exciting advances in space
capabilities and understanding.
10.5 References+
Ames, N.: NASA-Built Nanosatellite Launch Adapter System Ready for Flight.
[Online] 2013. Available at:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/2013/NLAS-ready-for-flight.html .Ug8RzZLVBsk [Accessed 16 August 2013].
159
Atkinson, N.: The Atlas V with LRO and LCROSS at the pad. [Online] 2009.
Available at: http://www.universetoday.com/32779/lrolcross-ready-for-launchto-the-moon/lro-left-vif1s/
Bergin, C.: SpaceX deal boosts Falcon 9s secondary payload manifest. [Online]
2012.
Available at: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/spacex-deal-falcon-9ssecondary-payload-manifest/ [Accessed 16 Aug 2013].
Brgge, N., n.d.: Super-Strypi >SPARK. [Online] Available at:
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_2/United_States_7/SPARK/Versions/SPARK
.htm
[Accessed 19 August 2013].
Caldwell, D., Ridenoure, R.: RocketPod: A Method for Launching CubeSat-Class
Payloads on ELVs and Spacecraft. North Logan, UT, s.n. 2005.
DARPA, n.d.: Airborne Launch Assist Space Access (ALASA). [Online]
Available at:
http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Airborne_Launch_Assist_Space
_Access_(ALASA).aspx [Accessed 18 August 2013].
David, L.: A Space Aloha: Hawaii Gears Up for First Satellite Launch. [Online]
2013.
Available at: http://www.space.com/20849-hawaii-small-satellite-launch.html
Foust, J.: NASA seeks to buy a dedicated nanosatellite launch. [Online] 2013.
Available at: http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/08/14/nasa-seeks-to-buy-adedicated-nanosatellite-launch/
Goodwin, J., Wegner, P.: Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Secondary Payload
Adapter. Albuquerque, NM, s.n. 2001.
IHI Aerosapce: JEM Small Satellite Orbital Deployer (J-SSOD) Fitch Check Case
Instruction Manual, Tomioka: IHI Aerospace co., Ltd. 2012.
160
161
Pendleton, S., Basile, J., Fowler, E., n.d.: Low-Cost Flat Plate Adapters for Dual
Primary Payload Missions. CSA Engineering Inc. Mountain View, CA.
PSC: 2000785 Rev D User's Manual for Mark II Lightband. Planetary Systems
Corporation. Silver Spring, MD, 2013.
Space Exploration Technologies: Falcon Heavy. [Online] 2013.
Available at: http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
Spaceflight, Inc.: Spaceflight, Inc. Secondary Payload Users Guide. Spaceflight, Inc.
Tukwila, WA, 2012.
Spaceflight: Spaceflight Unveils Its DecaPOD CubeSat Deployer. [Online] 2012.
Available at: http://spaceflightservices.com/spaceflight-unveils-its-decapodCubeSat-deployer/ [Accessed 23 August 2013].
Stavast, V., Lazansky, C., Helgesen, B., n.d.: SNC Qwksep - A Simple, Reliable, Stiff
and Low-Shock Separation System for Small Sat Missions. s.l.: IEEE Xplore.
Szatkowski, J.: ULA Rideshare Smallsat Missions for Lunar & Inter-Planetary
Exploration. Cal Tech, CA, s.n. 2013.
Taylor, B.: The University of Hawai'i Innovation Initiative. [Online] 2013.
Available at: http://www.hawaii.edu/offices/op/innovation/taylor.pdf
Technologies, Space Exploration: Falcon 9. [Online] 2013.
Available at: http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
ULA: Atlas V Launch Services User's Guide. Centennial, CO: ULA. 2010.
United Launch Alliance: Technical Summary. [Online] 2013.
Available at:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/product_cards/AV_product_card.pdf
Virgin Galactic, n.d.: Performance and Specification. [Online]
Available at: http://www.virgingalactic.com/launcherOne/performance-andspecification/ [Accessed 18 August 2013].
162
Willcox, T.: Atlas V Aft Bulkhead Carrier Rideshare System. AIAA/USU. North
Logan, UT, 2012.
Williams, R.: Containerized Satellite Dispenser (CSD) Data Sheet. Planetary
Systems Corp. Silver Spring MD, 2013.
163
Command'
Requests
Spacecraft'and'Payload'
Support
Command' &'
Tracking
Data
Telemetry
Data'
Users
Ground'System
Spacecraft
(='ground'stations'+'control'centers)
Mission
Data
Relay'of'Mission'Data
Ground'Segment
Mission
Data
Space'Segment
Figure 62: Functional relationship between space segment and ground segment (Larson &
Wertz, 2004)
164
11.1.2 Differences+with+small+spacecraft+ground+systems+
The ground systems architecture for small spacecraft missions often takes a
different form compared to the classical architectures used for large spacecraft
missions. The low-cost paradigm shift mentioned in Section 1 and the
accessibility of COTS technology for the space sector have not only changed how
designers think about a spacecraft but also how a ground systems architecture
can be conceived. Both the ground systems of small spacecraft missions and the
demographics of the data user community differ from the common scheme of
Figure 62. An overview of such potential differences (shown in Table 65)
highlights the extent to which CubeSat ground systems can differ from their
classical counterparts. Due to length limitations, the entries of Table 65 are not
discussed in detail: refer to Schmidt (2011) for an exhaustive treatise on the
characteristics of small spacecraft ground systems.
Table 65: Fundamental differences between a small spacecraft ground system and classical
ground systems for large spacecraft (see 2.2 of Schmidt [2011] for more information).
Legacy systems
New systems
165
Big dishes
Figure 63 illustrates the variety in ground system architectures that can be used
for small spacecraft missions. Image (a) shows an example of a classical ground
system setup, i.e. the Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN). The topology
of the AFSCN is hierarchical, with 12 nodes organized around a central master
node at Schriever AFB, CO. Image (b) depicts the distributed network of ground
stations used for the PhoneSat project (http://www.phonesat.org). PhoneSat was
supported by 1,343 volunteer nodes organized in a distributed topology. Image
(c) shows an example of a common small spacecraft ground segment topologya
single node consisting of a university ground station and control room.
166
Figure 63: Various ground system architectures encountered in small spacecraft missions. (a)
depicts the US Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) as an example of a conventional
hierarchical ground system setup (image credit: USAF). (b) shows the 1343 nodes that
participated on a voluntary basis in the distributed ground system architecture of Phonesat
(image credit: http://www.phonesat.org). (c) illustrates the case where a smallsat mission is
managed and operated using a single ground station only.
The principal driver for a small spacecraft ground system is cost. To lower costs,
a typical SoA ground system merges the three conventional control centers
MCC, SOCC, and POCCinto a single unit positioned in one geographical
location. The whole mission is often managed from a single lab room modified
for that purpose. The ground station is either a fixed or mobile COTS antenna
connected to mission control using standard cabling. Common frequency bands
are VHF, UHF and sometimes S-band at the higher frequency limit. Tracking,
Telemetry and Command (TT&C) for both platform and payload is managed by a
single desktop computer.
167
11.2 State+of+the+Art+
11.2.1+Ground+Systems+
Figure 64 compares the size and scope of typical large and small spacecraft
ground systems.
Figure 64: Differences in size and scope between large (left-hand side) and small spacecraft
ground systems (right-hand side). Top left: NASAs Deep Space Network (DSN) ground station in
Goldstone, CA. Top right: GENSO roof-top ground station at the International Space University,
Strasbourg, France. Bottom left: NASA MCC at JSC, Houston, TX. Bottom right: Student operating
the small spacecraft MCC at the University of Santa Clara, CA.
168
Technology
Name
Description
Com prehensive
ISIS Sm all
ground system setup
Satellite Ground for m icrosatellites
Station
and CubeSats (VHF,
UHF, S-band options)
Developer
TRL Status
Innovative
Solutions In
Space
(Netherlands)
9
Has been used
successfully in at least
one m ission: Delfi-C3
nanosat m ission (2008)
Espace, Inc.
(USA)
8
Successfully used in
2002 to operate the MIT
HETE-2 m ission. Can
accom m odate CubeSats
Open System of
Agile Ground
System s
(OSAGS)
Low-cost network of
three equatorial
S-band ground
stations
Satellite
Tracking and
Control Station
(STAC)
Com prehensive
ground system setup
for m icrosatellites
and CubeSats (VHF,
UHF, L-band and
2.4 GHz options)
Clyde Space
(Scotland)
8
Installed on the roof at
the University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow,
Scotland. Operational
for 2 years. No available
inform ation on
m issions
Mobile CubeSat
Com m and &
Control Ground
Station
(MC3)
Network of fully
autonom ous ground
stations supporting
the NROs Colony
Program
Naval
Postgraduate
School
(USA)
6
TRL assessm ent
supported by Griffith
(2011)
Figures
169
11.2.2+Operations+
From a regulatory point of view, small spacecraft missions must adhere to the
same radio spectrum regulations that apply to larger spacecraft. In the U.S., these
regulations are governed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Missions have the option to use amateur radio frequencies for communications,
for which licenses are simple and quick to obtain. Since this kind of license is not
available to governmental entities, whose missions are regulated by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a number of
partnerships have emerged between governmental players and academia. For
instance, a number of CubeSat missions developed by NASA Ames Research
Center are operated from the MOC at the University of Santa Clara. Similar radio
frequency regulations exist in other countries, and these regulatory issues can
make small spacecraft partnerships increasingly difficult. It is the responsibility
of the developers to ensure they follow the proper regulations as they build and
operate their satellites.
Traditionally, amateur radio bands have been the preferred means for CubeSats
to communicate with the ground. However, CubeSats are increasingly shifting
from low-performance missions to higher-complexity science or technology
missions. The larger amount of data produced by these higher-complexity
missions necessitates higher communication data rates than amateur bands can
provide. Recent CubeSat missions are indeed moving to higher, non-amateur
frequency bands to support their data requirements. For instance, the Dynamic
Ionosphere CubeSat Experiment (DICE), launched in 2011, used the 460-470 MHz
meteorological-satellite band with L3 Cadet radios to produce a 1.5 Mbps
downlink data rate to support its science mission (Klofas & Leveque, 2012). As
CubeSat missions abandon amateur radio bands for higher-speed frequencies,
their ground system requirements change. Unlike amateur radio licenses that
170
be
similarly
licensed.
Clearly,
as
CubeSats
shift
to
non-amateur
171
11.3 On+the+Horizon+
As the ground system and communication options for small satellites and
particularly CubeSats expand, project managers have to consider the trade-off
between data quality/size and cost. In the past, many missions depended entirely
on
amateur
radio
ground
stations
to
support
satellite
operation
and
communication, and the amateur radio community has indeed proved invaluable
to the CubeSat community. But as mission complexity and data requirements
increase, more projects are looking to non-amateur ground stations and other
options like inter-satellite communications with satellite-phone constellations to
meet their needs. These options, however, tend to present higher costs
associated with radio frequency licenses, software specific to a given service
provider, and sometimes the service itself based on data size or communication
duration. Many factors can affect the cost and data quality and size of each
communication method, and for some of these methods the factors are either
only beginning to be understood in the context of small satellite operations, or
they have yet to be encountered. The relationship between data quality, data
size, and cost for these communication methods must be studied over the
coming years as the various methods are analyzed by current and future small
spacecraft missions.
In light of the distributed and highly dynamic ground system topology for small
spacecraft missions (see Figure ), there is a need for coordination between the
ground stations involved. This coordination can be achieved through common,
openly available software for the management of a ground system. The Global
Educational Network for Satellite Operations (GENSO) system by ESA is an
example of this. GENSO is a software networking standard for universities which
allows a remote operator to communicate with their small spacecraft using
participating amateur radio ground stations around the globe. Data collection for
a given satellite could increase from minutes per day via one ground station to
many hours per day via the GENSO network. Unfortunately, the GENSO project is
currently on hold, with little expectation of resuming progress. While the
prospect of GENSOs future is unknown, the general concept of a distributed
network of amateur radio ground stations to support small spacecraft operations
172
is still a concept worth looking into. Planning & scheduling and data management
are two areas of ongoing research within the field of small spacecraft ground
systems software.
The future will see an increasing number of small spacecraft missions involving
not only single satellites but also swarms, constellations and formations of
spacecraft (see e.g., Raymond, et al., 2000). A distributed infrastructure of small
spacecraft made up of dozens, if not hundreds, of units is likely to become a
standard to conduct low-cost Earth observation and science missions. However,
the scalability of mission operations without significant automation is limited.
Siewert & McClure (1995) recall that the number of operators usually scales
linearly with the number of telemetry nodes needed to monitor the satellite. The
authors propose that, assuming a best case scenario in which a single small
satellite requires roughly ten operators to ensure mission success (not including
payload operators), a constellation of hundreds of satellites would require
thousands of operators and thus an inordinate operations budget. In the CubeSat
realm, where operations budgets are generally scarce, conventional operations
would require an unrealistic commitment from the academic and amateur
community. To keep costs low and allow for the emergence of next-generation
distributed small satellite platforms, it will therefore become necessary for the
spacecraft to perform certain operations autonomously in orbit or, automatically
from the ground. The challenges related to partially or fully autonomous
operations and multi-mission operations centers for small spacecraft clusters are
ongoing fields of research.
11.4 Conclusion+
The development of small satellite integration, launch, and deployment systems
to date has largely been focused on leveraging existing launchers for much larger
payloads. Many of these heritage vehicles are available with excess mass capacity
for secondary spacecraft, and a wide variety of integration and deployment
systems have been developed to provide rideshare opportunities. These
rideshares help to reduce costs but are often allocated only after the primary
mission defines most launch criteria. Integration and deployment mechanisms
are thus designed for minimal interference to the primary mission, usually by
173
precisely
timed
rendezvous,
or
special
environmental
11.5 References+
Cahoy, K. et al.: S-Band CubeSat communications with the Open System of Agile
Ground Stations (OSAGS). Cal Poly CubeSat Developers' Workshop. San Luis
Obispo, 2012.
Green, M.: PhoneSat Flight Demonstrations: Successful PhoneSat Mission
Completed. [Online] 2013.
Available at:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/small_spacecraft/phonesat.html
[Accessed 23 August 2013].
Griffith, R. C.: Mobile CubeSat Command and Control (MC3). Naval Postgraduate
School. Monterey, CA, USA, 2011.
Harding, P.: Japans HTV-4 launches supplies and science to the ISS. [Online] 2013.
Available at: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/japans-htv-4-launchessupplies-scienceiss/ [Accessed 23 August 2013].
Hsiao, F.-B., Liu, H.-P., Chen, C.-C.: The Development of a Low-Cost Amateur
Microsatellite Ground Station for Space Engineering Education. Global J. of Engng.
Educ., 4(1), pp. 83-88, 2000.
174
175
12. CONCLUSION
This report provides an overview and assessment of the SoA for small spacecraft
technology. After introducing small satellites, the SoA of spacecraft integration
was presented, and the SoA of each of the relevant subsystems was addressed in
turn. Conclusions are given at the end of each section of this report.
This report will be regularly updated as emerging technologies mature and
become SoA. Any current technologies that were inadvertently missed will be
identified and included in subsequent versions. Reader input is welcome; please
email [email protected] and include state of the art report in the
subject line.
The appendix that follows provides additional information and a set of raw data
collected while researching this report.
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
192
*The original version of this Table can be found on http://www.klofas.com/comm-table/ . The Table has been divided in two parts for better visualization.
XVIII.
XIX.
XX.
XXI.
XXII.
XXIII.
XXIV.
XXV.
XXVI.
193
194
XXVII.
XXVIII.
XXIX.
XXX.
195
196
197
ABC
ACT
ADCS
ADN
AFB
AFSCN
ALASA
AMPS
APM
ARC
ARCS
ASIC
ASRG
ATCS
BOL
C&DH
CAN
CAP
CAT
CDS
CMGs
CNC
COTS
CPU
CSAC
CSD
CTERA
DARPA
DET
DICE
DoD
DSS
E&M
EDM
EIRP
EMC
EOL
EPS
ESPA
198
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
FASTSAT
FCC
FPGA
GENSO
GEO
GNSS
GPIM
GS
HAN
hi-rel
HNF
IC
IMPACT
Isp
ISS
J-SSOD
JEM
LEO
LHP
LPPTS-R
LS
LV
MCC
MCU
MEMS
MEMS
MEO
MiXI
MLI
MMRTG
MOC
MPACS
MPAP
NEXT
NLAS
NLS
NOFB
NPSCul
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
NTIA
OMS
OSAGS
OSL
!
!
!
199
P-POD
POCC
PPT
PPT
PPUs
PTCS
RAMPART
RHU
ROSA
RTGs
S/C
SADM
SEP
SnR
SoA
SOCC
SpaceX
SpW
SRPS
SSO
SSPS
SSTP
SSTP
SUM
TASC
TBD
TCS
TID
TMR
TRL
TRL
TT&C
UCSB
USB
200
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!