1 / 18

Reliability of University-Class Spacecraft: A Statistical Look

Reliability of University-Class Spacecraft: A Statistical Look. Michael Swartwout Saint Louis University NASA Academy of Aerospace Quality Mini-Workshop Cape Canaveral, FL 22 March 2012. “University-Class Satellite”. Working definition

makana
Download Presentation

Reliability of University-Class Spacecraft: A Statistical Look

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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]

More Related