Reliability of University-Class Spacecraft: A Statistical Look

1. Reliability of University-Class Spacecraft:A Statistical Look Michael SwartwoutSaint Louis University NASA Academy of Aerospace Quality Mini-WorkshopCape Canaveral, FL22 March 2012

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

3. The Numbers • Growth! • 10th: 1994 (13 years) • 50th: 2003 (9 years) • 100th: 2008 (5 years) • 150th: 2012 (4 years) • Is “steady state” 8 or 15 (or 25?)

4. Mission Lifetime

5. What Breaks? What Breaks? • Radiation: 1* • Launch interface: 1 • Launch thermal: 1 • ADCS: 2 • Mechanism: 3 • Communications: 5½ • CPU lockup: 2 • Power: 5½ • DOA: 11* 32 of 120 orbited spacecraft “failed” • What Doesn’t Break? • Structures • Thermal* • Commercial Electronics in Radiation Environment* Lifetime reduction Perhaps we should worry more about system-level functional testingand less (?) about the space environment…

6. It Helps to Be Somebody (but not as much, now) • Flagship School • Significant government sponsorship • Often a leading space education/technology program for that nation • Independent School • Self-funded or sponsored (at school’s initiative) • On their own for launches

7. To Grossly Oversimplify • Flagship schools • Build “real” missions that work (90% success) • Use CubeSats as stepping-stones • Sustain programs around a larger (20-100 kg) bus • Move up the “value chain” and out of the university class • Independent schools • Build one satellite that might work (58%), then fly no more (75% of schools) • BuildCubeSats and, if sustained, it’s a series ofE-class CubeSats

8. Repeat Business: Encouraging Trends! • Flagship Schools • 29 schools built 67 spacecraft (47%) • 8 schools built 46 spacecraft • 5 have graduated • Independent Schools • 54 schools built 76 satellites (53%) • 45 schools built 44 one-shot missions(but 23 launched in 2010-2011!) • 10 active, repeated-flight schools (up from 4 in 2009!) • 1 has graduated

9. Beyond the Beep?

10. Shortest-Ever Course on CubeSats • Twiggs (Stanford) and Puig-Suari (Cal Poly) defined a standard for carrying 10 cm, 1 kg cubes into space • [The real innovation was the P-POD] • Timeline • 1999 concept definition • 2003 first flight • 2010 70th flight • 2012 NASA selects 33 CubeSats to fly (backlog of 59)

11. Here Come the CubeSats (and Friends) 85 CubeSats in 12 years 79 in the “CubeSat Era” (2003-now) 30 Manifested for 2012 (or is it 50?) 2012

12. Not as International as You’d Think (yet)

13. CubeSat by Developer

14. Beepsat = No Mission (except beeping)

15. What happened? • Ten years of groundwork • Infrastructure and capabilities built up through the University Nanosat Program (AFOSR/AFRL) • Government/industry funding in CubeSat technologies (e.g., NRO/Colony) • Strategic government investment in university CubeSats • National Science Foundation (2008) • ESA Vega (2008) • NASA ELaNa (2010) • “Will this be on the final?”’ • NSF, ESA, NASA required missions • Suddenly, universities can find missions!

16. Conclusions & Recommendations • University-class spacecraft are real, in growing (ballooning) numbers • Thank you, NASA! • Thank you, AFRL! • A 25% failure rate isn’t great (but it’s better than 50%) • Flagships get all the breaks • Independents, well, break • Universities need help • External reviews • Emphasis on functional testing

17. Reliability of University-Class Spacecraft:A Statistical Look Michael SwartwoutSaint Louis University NASA Academy of Aerospace Quality Mini-WorkshopCape Canaveral, FL22 March 2012

18. It’s Not Just CubeSats! [Okay, it’s mostly CubeSats]