Small Satellites Bite-sized Space Projects

1. Nano-Satellites 1 Small Satellites � Bite-sized Space Projects

2. Nano-Satellites 2 Miniature Satellite Technology, or Microspace New inexpensive way to design, launch, and track small-scale satellites Educational tool for learning about space missions Not generally within the scope of large government / industrial players Currently the lowest tier of spacecraft technology Smaller Simpler Cheaper In some cases more effective than larger counterparts

3. Nano-Satellites 3 Small Satellites Compared to Larger Satellites Typically weighs less than 200 kg Has shorter mission lifetime Quickly assembled by smaller team Less expensive Uses commercial off the shelf technology (COTS) Less mass ? less cost to orbit Can piggy-back on larger launches Can be launched in multiples Easier to engineer Newer technology can be used Reliability achieved by simplicity rather than redundancy

4. Nano-Satellites 4 Small Satellite Nomenclature Large Satellite - > 1,000 kg Medium Satellite � 500 -1,000 kg Small Satellites: Mini Satellite � 100 - 500 kg Micro Satellite � 10 - 100 kg Nano Satellite � 1 - 10 kg Pico Satellite � 0.1 - 1 kg Femto Satellite � < 100 g

5. Nano-Satellites 5 Microspace Economics Range of Cost Regions

6. Nano-Satellites 6 Microspace History Space mission payloads were small in the early days Payload size increased as technology improved Re-entry of small inexpensive satellites after 1985 due to: Low-cost access to space Power efficient, low weight, and reliable digital communications systems Digital store and forward systems NASA developed the Get Away Special Provided inexpensive orbital insertion of < 68 kg self-contained payloads for < $50k Use declined, however, after Challenger disaster

7. Nano-Satellites 7 Microspace Programs The European Space Agency (ESA) developed the Ariane Structure for Attached Payloads (ASAP) ASAP ring carried up to 6 satellites of up to 50 kg each. Popular for several Amsat and University satellites. Small satellite launches can fly small simple payloads with quick turn-around suited to specific needs. Example users: an educational institution or perhaps country that can�t afford a large space program

8. Nano-Satellites 8 Designing Small Satellites Do not have normal satellite system requirements New design-to-volume methodology However, severe restraints on: Volume Mass Power Complexity Trade-offs are made early on in design, e.g.: More computer processing vs. larger memory storage capacity More versatile sensors vs. attitude control

9. Nano-Satellites 9 Designing Micro Satellites � Cont. Typically passive attitude stabilization by: Gravity gradient Magnets to align spacecraft Limited power generation conserved by duty cycles Must use omni-directional antenna Low data rate downlinks

10. Nano-Satellites 10 Small Satellite Extras Small inter-disciplinary teams work very effectively Every member has direct contact with all others Unexpected innovations result with every team member exposed to all of the project Large institutions have difficulty in designing such small projects within budget Sequential task engineering too complex Engineers and managers with too narrow a specialty not able to see holistically Micro-space projects help teach system engineering principles and project management in an educational setting

11. Nano-Satellites 11 Recent Examples OSCAR 10 & UoSat 2 / OSCAR 11 Amateur (Ham) radio group design Reliable digital communication Overcame typical LEO limited and quickly passing field of view (FOV) by digital store and forward communications Messages could be uploaded at one footprint, and downloaded at another This overcame the need for more ground stations This feature provided global mail service, not possible with even a GEO satellite OSCAR proved with volunteer expertise that, in certain cases, micro-satellites could do as much as larger ones (if not more).

12. Nano-Satellites 12 Recent Example: FireSat Proposed LEO series of forest fire detecting satellites Forest fires detected through multi-spectral images Once fire detected, notification to GEO satellite, then to ground stations

13. Nano-Satellites 13 CubeSat Designed at Stanford, and further developed at CalPoly. Becoming an inexpensive nano-satellite standard Approximately $60k - $80k Small - 10x10x10(cm) Lightweight Versatile Mostly for LEO experiments and studies

14. Nano-Satellites 14

15. Nano-Satellites 15 QuakeSat

16. Nano-Satellites 16 QuakeSatTheory Behind Earthquake Signature Detection

17. Nano-Satellites 17

18. QuakeSat Structure & P-pod Launcher

31. Nano-Satellites 31

32. Nano-Satellites 32 MAST This three-section CubeSat will split in into three pieces in orbit The end cubes (Ted & Ralph) will be joined by a tether with the center cube (Gadget) moving between the two The middle cube will inspect the tether for micro-meteor shears

34. Nano-Satellites 34

35. Nano-Satellites 35

36. Nano-Satellites 36

37. Nano-Satellites 37

38. Nano-Satellites 38

39. Nano-Satellites 39

40. Nano-Satellites 40

41. Nano-Satellites 41

42. Nano-Satellites 42

43. Nano-Satellites 43

44. Nano-Satellites 44

45. Nano-Satellites 45

46. Nano-Satellites 46

47. Nano-Satellites 47

48. Nano-Satellites 48

49. Nano-Satellites 49

50. Nano-Satellites 50

51. Nano-Satellites 51

52. Nano-Satellites 52

53. Nano-Satellites 53

54. Nano-Satellites 54 References and Credits CubeSat Community Website, CalPoly, http://cubesat.calpoly.edu/ NCUBE, Norwegian Student Satellite, http://www.ncube.no/ Quakefinder, http://ssdl.stanford.edu/lm-cubesat/team_4http://www.earthquaketracker.com Prof. Robert Twiggs, Stanford University Russian Space Web, http://www.russianspaceweb.com/dnepr_007_belka.html Space.Com, http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060726_dnepr_failure.html Wertz, J.R., & Larson, W.J. (eds.) (1999). Space mission analysis and design (3rd ed.). El Segundo: Microcosm Press. Wickman Spacecraft and Rocketry, Casper, WY