SSC04-II-5 University-Class Satellites: From to 'Disruptive' Research Platforms Michael Washington University in St. Louis 18 th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites Logan, UT 10 August 2004
Student Satellites Have Not Changed The World (!) Students (by definition) don t know how to build satellites Professional payloads & launch providers don t trust studentbuilt satellites (and shouldn t) Missions constrained by the academic cycle (and turnover) Student-built satellites are usually low-capability, highmargin spacecraft without compelling payloads
The Hypothesis Advances in electronics technology could enable universities to serve (or disrupt) the satellite community by demonstrating new components and missions on short-development-cycle, highrisk university-class spacecraft. Universities have not exploited their inherent strengths: enthusiasm, inexperience and tolerance for risk (e.g. freedom to fail ).
The Hypothesis Advances in electronics technology could enable universities to serve (or disrupt) the satellite community by demonstrating new components and missions on short-development-cycle, highrisk university-class spacecraft. Universities have not exploited their inherent strengths: enthusiasm, inexperience and tolerance for risk (e.g. freedom to fail ).
Def. 1: 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 or disruptive value!
Def 2: Disruptive Technology Definition (courtesy our conference organizers) Fundamentally alters the way in which a task is performed Examples: cell phones & electronic mail For spacecraft: not only a shift in mission from big to small, but a shift in how a mission is approached at all How do you find disruptive technologies? Test bold and risky ideas Impose unreasonable constraints Why bother to be disruptive? Altruistic: Enable new kinds of missions and services Self-serving: Move universities from the margins
Def. 3: Freedom to Fail Experimental failure is a fundamental (necessary?) element of the university experience Universities have the freedom to try bold or risky concepts Main mission objectives: learning & training A failed vehicle is not a failed mission Not a freedom to be stupid!
Review of University-Class Missions 50 university-class spacecraft since 1981 30 since 2000 12 more by the end of 2004 (mostly CubeSats) 28 universities in 15 countries Only 9 schools have flown multiple missions That number may grow in the next two years Most (40) were under 55 kg About 1/4 (13) experienced significant failures Only half (24) were technology/science missions 16 of those built by 10 universities with significant government sponsorship
So Why Aren t University-Class Spacecraft Disruptive? They can t afford (or don t want) to be disruptive Education goals can be met without a real payload Want to fly? Then design & build it the normal way! They can t compete with the big boys Traditionally-built student satellites should always underperform compared to professional spacecraft Universities can afford to fail, but mission sponsors cannot They burn out Most education-only missions are the school s first (and last) Successful programs become professional (e.g. Surrey) The rest stick with standard practice to win launches
The Things You Do For Launch: Two Schools of Thought CubeSat approach: Go tiny, use collective bargaining Hordes of 1-kg spacecraft in 3-pack launchers Launch costs: about $100,000/Cube If these next few work, there will be a lot more CubeSats (there may be a lot more, regardless) Everyone else: Government sponsorship In the U.S. (civilian): University Nanosat class (30 kg, AFRL/NASA) Outside the U.S.: Flagship universities (Tsinghua, Technical University of Berlin, University of Rome, KACST, etc.)
Recipe for a Disruptive University-Class Spacecraft Good Mission = Credible Spacecraft + Disruptive Idea Objectives Very Small Spacecraft Common Launch Interface Ingredients Common Comm. Protocols / Stations Very Short Duration Mission Large Operational Margins Fast & Easy to Build Easy to Launch Easy to Operate Compelling, Risky/Novel Mission
Disruptive: OPAL (Stanford) Stanford SSDL Cal Poly Orbiting Picosat Automated Launcher Started 1995, Launched January 2000 23 kg mothership for 6 picosats Operational until June 2002 Disruptive Act #1: Proof-of-concept for DARPA/Aerospace picosats Led to PICOSAT flights on MightySat 2.1 Led to DARPA MEPSI Disruptive Act #2: CubeSat Program 10 cm 3, 1 kg spacecraft Cal Poly P-POD (3-CubeSat launcher) Explosion of school spacecraft building 25 schools launched university-class spacecraft (1981-2003) 15 schools will launch CubeSats by the end of 2004; 14 first-timers About 50 university CubeSat programs internationally
Not Disruptive: Sapphire (Stanford) Stanford SSDL Sapphire Started 1994, Finished 1998 Launched September 2001 (USNA/STP) 20 kg Still operational Traditional University-Class Mission Student selected payloads: THD detectors, digital camera, voice synthesizer After-the-fact payloads: autonomous operations, amateur radio digipeating, student training
Might Be Disruptive: Bandit WUSTL WUSTL Inspector spacecraft Experiment on Akoya (University Nanosat 3 - AFRL/NASA) 1 kg flying camera Repeatable docking Autonomous operations Image-based navigation Possible disruption Autonomous operations Useful missions on extremely small platforms Useful space engineering research on university-class spacecraft
Conclusions University-class spacecraft Excellent teaching tools, occasional research tools Short-cycle, disposable spacecraft are an opportunity for universities to exercise their freedom to fail Suggestion: choose and choose wisely! Manage flight-safety risk, tolerate mission risk Predicting the future Most likely disruption: the small satellite industry itself Keep an eye on CubeSats This was an engineering discussion; what about universities on the science side?
Acknowledgments Christopher Kitts, Freddy Pranajaya, James Cutler, Brian Engberg, Jonathan Chow The design teams for all 50 university-class spacecraft (and counting!) Launch providers (e.g. Space Test Program) Any errors in university-class satellite descriptions or classification are mine
SSC04-II-5 University-Class Satellites: From to 'Disruptive' Research Platforms Michael Washington University in St. Louis 18 th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites Logan, UT 10 August 2004
University-Class Missions, 1981-2000 Mission Primary Mass Duration Mission Launch Spacecraft Primary School(s) (kg) (months) Type 1981 UoSAT-1 (UO-9) University of Surrey (UK) 52 98 Science 1984 UoSAT-2 (UO-11) University of Surrey (UK) 60 249 Comm 1985 NUSAT Weber State, Utah State University (USA) 52 20 Tech 1990 WeberSAT (WO-18) Weber State (USA) 16 97 Comm 1991 TUBSAT-A Technical University of Berlin (Germany) 35 159 Comm 1992 KITSAT-1 (KO-23) Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 49 78 Tech 1993 KITSAT-2 (KO-25) Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 48 98 Comm 1994 TUBSAT-B Technical University of Berlin (Germany) 40 1 Tech? 1994 BremSat University of Bremen (Germany) 63 12 Science 1996 UNAMSAT-B (MO-30) National University of Mexico 10 0.03 Comm 1997 Falcon Gold US Air Force Academy 18 1 Tech 1997 RS-17 Russian high school students 3 2 Edu 1998 TUBSAT-N Technical University of Berlin (Germany) 9 46 Tech 1998 TUBSAT-N1 Technical University of Berlin (Germany) 3 20 Tech 1998 Techsat 1-B (GO-32) Technion Institute of Technology (Israel) 70 52 Science 1998 PO-34 PANSAT Naval Postgraduate School (USA) 70 68? Comm 1998 SO-33 SEDSAT University of Alabama, Huntsville (USA) 41 12? Tech 1999 Sunsat (SO-35) University of Stellenbosch (South Africa) 64 23 Comm 1999 DLR-TUBSAT Technical University of Berlin (Germany) 45 63 Science 1999 KITSAT-3 Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 110 63 Tech 2000 ASUsat 1 Arizona State University (USA) 6 0.03 Edu 2000 Falconsat 1 US Air Force Academy 52 1 Edu 2000 JAWSAT (WO-39) Weber State, USAFA 191 1? Tech 2000 Opal (OO-38) Stanford University (USA) 23 29 Tech 2000 JAK Santa Clara University (USA) 0.2 0 Edu 2000 Louise Santa Clara University (USA) 0.5 0 Science 2000 Thelma Santa Clara University (USA) 0.5 0 Science Still operational Semioperational Nonoperational Premature loss of operations (or severely degraded operations)
University-Class Missions, 2000-2004 2000 Tsinghua-1 Tsinghua University (China) 50 48? Edu 2000 SO-41 Saudisat 1A King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology (Saudia Arabia) 10 40? Comm 2000 SO-42 Saudisat 1B King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology (Saudia Arabia) 10 40? Comm 2000 UNISAT 1 University of Rome "La Sapienza" (Italy) 12?? Edu 2000 TiungSAT-1 (MO-46) ATSB 50 40 Edu/Science 2000 Munin Umeå University / Luleå University of Technology (Sweden) 6 3 Science 2001 PCSat 1 (NO-44) US Naval Academy 12 35 Comm 2001 Sapphire (NO-45) Stanford, USNA, Washington University (USA) 20 35 Edu 2001 Maroc-TUBSAT Technical University of Berlin (Germany) 47 34 Science 2002 Kolibri-2000 Space Research Institute (Russia) 21 2 Edu 2002 SO-50 Saudisat 1C King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology (Saudia Arabia) 10 17? Comm 2002 UNISAT 2 University of Rome "La Sapienza" (Italy) 17 18? Edu 2003 AAU Cubesat University of Aalborg (Denmark) 1 2 Edu 2003 CanX-1 University of Toronto (Canada) 1 0 Edu 2003 CUTE-1 Tokyo Institute of Technology (Japan) 1 13 Edu 2003 DTUsat Technical University of Denmark 1 0 Edu 2003 XI-IV University of Tokyo (Japan) 1 13 Edu 2003 MOST University of Toronto (Canada) 60 13 Science 2003 QuakeSat Stanford University (USA) 3 13 Science 2003 STSAT-1 Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 100 9? Tech 2004 Naxing-1 (NS-1) Tsinghua University (China) 25 4 Tech 2004 UNISAT 3 University of Rome "La Sapienza" (Italy) 12 1 Tech 2004 SaudiSat 2 KACST (Saudia Arabia) 15? 1 Comm? Still operational Semioperational Nonoperational Premature loss of operations (or severely degraded operations)