Towards Operating Standards for Cube Satellites and Small Spacecraft

ABSTRACT

The availability of low-cost, high-performance miniaturized electronics, and rocket ride-share capabilities and other factors, have generated a significant increase in the development of small spacecraft. Over a hundred entities and thousands of individuals are now working on numerous small satellites. However, these entities and individuals lack the operations legacy and risk posture of existing satellite manufacturers. Although these new entrants have much less to lose, small satellites may be in a position to damage other, more expensive spacecraft, including manned spacecraft. This article considers the need for and benefits of a community-generated set of small spacecraft operating standards. A prospective pathway to their refinement and adoption, specific elements in such a set of standards, the increased confidence this provides larger operators, and the additional opportunities advanced by standards are discussed.

Notes

^1. M. M. Micci and A. D. Ketsdever, Micropropulsion for Small Spacecraft (Reston, VA: AIAA, 2000).

^2. CubeSats are spacecraft that are designed to comply with launcher specifications, allowing them to be easily integrated onto rockets as secondary payloads or launched from the International Space Station. The launcher mechanisms protect and abstract the launch vehicle from the CubeSat and vice-versa. CubeSats can be built in multiple sizes. The 1-U variant is approximately 10 centimeter (cm) × 10 cm × 10 cm with a mass of under 1.33 kg. Two (2-U) and three (3-U) unit variants have sizes of approximately 10 cm × 10 cm × 20 cm and 10 cm × 10 cm × 30 cm with correspondingly larger masses. Some launch providers allow higher mass levels. For more details, see “CubeSat Design Specification, Revision 13” (San Luis Obispo, CA: California Polytechnic State University, 2015) and “6U CubeSat Design Specification, Provisional” (San Luis Obispo, CA: California Polytechnic State University, 2016).

^3. M. Swartwout, “The Long-Threatened Flood of University-Class Spacecraft (and CubeSats) Has Come: Analyzing the Numbers,” in Proceedings of the 27th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (Logan, UT: Utah State University, 2013).

^4. L. Alminde, M. Bisgaard, D. Vinther, T. Viscor, and K. Ostergard, “Educational Value and Lessons Learned from the AAU-Cubesat Project,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies (New York, NY: IEEE, 2003).

^5. M. Swartwout, “University-Class Satellites: From Marginal Utility to ‘Disruptive’ Research Platforms,” in Proceedings of the 18th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (Logan, UT: Utah State University, 2004).

^6. M. Taraba, C. Rayburn, A. Tsuda, and C. MacGillivray, “Boeing’s CubeSat TestBed 1 Attitude Determination Design and On-Orbit Experience,” in Proceedings of the AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (Logan, UT: Utah State University, 2009).

^7. J. London, M. Ray, D. Weeks, and B. Marley, “The First US Army Satellite in Fifty Years: SMDC-ONE First Flight Results,” in Proceedings of the AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (Logan, UT: Utah State University, 2011).

^8. J. Berk, J. Straub and D. Whalen, “Open Prototype for Educational NanoSats: Fixing the Other Side of the Small Satellite Cost Equation,” in Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Aerospace Conference (New York, NY: IEEE, 2013).

^9. PocketQubes are 5 cm × 5 cm × 5 cm small satellites or approximately 1/8 of the volume of a CubeSat. See R. A. Deepak and R. J. Twiggs, “Thinking Out of the Box: Space Science Beyond the CubeSat,” Journal of Small Satellites 1, no. 1 (2012).

^10. Boardsats do not have a defined standard; however, they are smaller than CubeSats and PocketQubes. Many are designed to be launched from within another small spacecraft, such as a CubeSat, and are constrained by their launching craft’s form factor. See Z. Manchester, M. Peck, and A. Filo, “KickSat: A Crowd-Funded Mission To Demonstrate The World’s Smallest Spacecraft,” in Proceedings of the AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (Logan, UT: Utah State University, 2013).

^11. Chipsats are even smaller than boardsats, PocketQubes, CubeSats, and virtually all other small spacecraft. Chipsats embed all of their limited functionality on a single small chip. This allows hundreds or even thousands to be packed within another small spacecraft container and launcher. See J. Janicik and J. Wolff, “CHIPSat Spacecraft Design: Significant Science on a Low Budget,” in SPIE’s 48th Annual Meeting on Optical Science and Technology (Bellingham, WA: SPIE, 2003); and M. Johnson, “ChipCube: an Open Source Open Access Generic Planetary Science and Exploration System,” in iCubeSat 2012 Conference (Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2012).

^12. J. R.Wertz, “Space Mission Communities,” in Space Mission Engineering: The New SMAD, edited by J. R. Wertz, D. Everett, and J. J. Puschell (Hawthorne, CA: Microcosm Press, 2011).

^13. D. H. Martin, P. R. Anderson, and L. Bartamian, Communication Satellites (Reston, VA: Aerospace Press and American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2007).

^14. European Space Agency, Hubble Space Telescope Fact Sheet, http://www.spacetelescope.org/about/general/fact_sheet/ (accessed November 2013).

^15. Z. Manchester, M. Peck, and A. Filo, “KickSat: A Crowd-Funded Mission To Demonstrate The World’s Smallest Spacecraft,” in Proceedings of the AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (Logan, UT: Utah State University, 2013).

^16. J. R. Wertz, “Space Mission Communities,” in Space Mission Engineering: The New SMAD, edited by J. R. Wertz, D. Everett, and J. J. Puschell (Hawthorne, CA: Microcosm Press, 2011).

^17. M. Swartwout, “University-Class Satellites: From Marginal Utility to Disruptive Research Platforms,” in Proceedings of the 18th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (Logan, UT: Utah State University, 2004).

^18. M. Swartwout, “The First One Hundred University-Class Spacecraft 1981–2008,” IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine 24 (2008): A1–A24.

^19. M. Swartwout, “Twenty (Plus) Years of University-Class Spacecraft: A Review of What Was, an Understanding of What Is, and a Look at What Should be Next,” in Proceedings of the 18th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (Logan, UT: Utah State University, 2006).

^20. M. Swartwout, “Secondary Spacecraft in 2016: Why Some Succeed (And Too Many Do Not),” in Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference (New York, NY: IEEE, 2016).

^21. Ibid.

^22. M. Swartwout, “Twenty (Plus Years)” [note 19].

^23. Swartwout indicates that launch providers may see little difference in large mass changes (in the context of the satellite), which are small in the context of the rocket. For example, the doubling of a spacecraft’s mass may not change cost or require significant launch provider changes. However, increasing or decreasing the size of the spacecraft may change the way that it is integrated and even make integration impossible.

^24. M. Swartwout, “The First One Hundred University-Class Spacecraft 1981–2008”: A1–A24.

^25. Ibid.

^26. M. Swartwout, “Secondary Spacecraft in 2016: Why Some Succeed (And Too Many Do Not).” .

^27. M. Swartwout, “The First One Hundred University-Class Spacecraft 1981–2008”: A1–A24.

^28. M. Swartwout, “The Long-Threatened Flood of University-Class Spacecraft (and CubeSats) Has Come: Analyzing the Numbers,” in Proceedings of the 27th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (Logan, UT: Utah State University, 2013).

^29. Ibid.

^30. In later work, Swartwout no longer separates university-class missions. Secondary spacecraft are a larger class, which includes any craft, irrespective of developer type, that is not the primary spacecraft on a mission or is a co-primary on a multi-craft small spacecraft mission.

^31. M. Swartwout, “Secondary Spacecraft in 2016: Why Some Succeed (And Too Many Do Not).”

^32. Ibid.

^33. J. Bouwmeester and J. Guo, “Survey of Worldwide Pico- and Nanosatellite Missions, Distributions and Subsystem Technology,” Acta Astronautica 67 (2010): 854–862.

^34. R. A. Deepak and R. J. Twiggs, “Thinking Out of the Box: Space Science Beyond the CubeSat,” Journal of Small Satellites 1, no. 1 (2012): 3–7.

^35. G. Skrobot and R. Coelho, “ELaNa–Educational Launch of Nanosatellite: Providing Routine RideShare Opportunities,” in Proceedings of the 27th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (Logan, UT: Utah State University, 2012).

^36. E. Buchen, “Small Satellite Market Observations,” in Proceedings of the 27th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (Logan, UT: Utah State University, 2015).

^37. European Space Agency, Call for Proposals: Fly Your Satellite, http://www.esa.int/Education/Call_for_Proposals_Fly_Your_Satellite (accessed August 2013).

^38. J. Berk, J. Straub, and D. Whalen, “Open Prototype for Educational NanoSats: Fixing the Other Side of the Small Satellite Cost Equation” [note 8].

^39. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, Space Law Treaties and Principles, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html (accessed November 2015).

^40. United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs, Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/st_space_49E.pdf (accessed January 2017).

^41. United States Constitution, Article VI. Section 1787.

^42. Status of International Agreements relating to activities in outer space, 4 April 2016, http://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/spacelaw/treatystatus/AC105_C2_2016_CRP03E.pdf (accessed January 2017).

⁴³ United Nations Charter, Chapter IV. 1945.

^44. M. Listner, “International Space Law and Commercial Space Activities: The Rules Do Apply,” The Space Review, 3 June 2013, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2305/1 (accessed November 2013).

^45. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/ (accessed November 2013).

^46. United States Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

^47. J. Straub and J. Vacek, “Do We Have an ITAR Problem: A Review of the Implications of ITAR and Title VII on Small Satellite Programs,” in Spring 2013 CubeSat Workshop (San Luis Obispo, CA: California Polytechnic State University, 2013).

^48. International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities, European Union, 31 March 2014, https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/disarmament-non-proliferation-and-arms-export-control/14715_en (accessed November 2015).

^49. M. Listner, “International Space Law and Commercial Space Activities: The Rules Do Apply” [note 44].

^50. M. Listner, “The International Code of Conduct: Comments on changes in the latest draft and post-mortem thoughts,” The Space Review, 26 October 2015, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2851/1 (accessed November 2015).

^51. Ibid.

^52. Ibid.

^53. J. Foust, “Debating a code of conduct for space,” The Space Review, 7 March 2011, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1794/1 (accessed October 2015).

^54. R. Rajagopalan, “Keep Space Code of Conduct Moving Forward,” SpaceNews.com, 21 July 2015, http://spacenews.com/op-ed-keep-space-code-of-conduct-moving-forward/ (accessed November 2015).

^55. Ibid.

^56. M. Listner, “The International Code of Conduct: Comments on Changes in the Latest Draft and Post-Mortem Thoughts,” The Space Review, 26 October 2015, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2851/1 (accessed November 2015).

^57. International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities, European Union, 31 March 2014, https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/disarmament-non-proliferation-and-arms-export-control/14715_en (accessed November 2015).

^58. J. Straub, J. Nordlie, and E. Anderson, “A Need for Operating Standards in the Academic and Research High Altitude Balloon Community,” Issues in Aviation Law and Policy 12 (2013): 483–504.

^59. A. Zafar, “Glider Pilot in Fatal Accident Accused of Swallowing Evidence,” Time, 4 May 2012, http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/04/glider-pilot-in-fatal-accident-accused-of-swallowing-evidence/ (accessed 21 February 2017).

^60. KickStarter, WREN: The First Satellite YOU Can Fly (Canceled), http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1467273745/wren-fly-a-real-spacecraft-by-yourself (accessed November 2013).

^61. Article VI states that “States parties to the treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space… whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities.” However, it is unclear as to the precise meaning of “activities are carried on” and what level of mission involvement is required for a country’s national to be considered to be within this group, and thus, creating prospective international liability for his or her government.

^62. J. Straub, J. Nordlie, and E. Anderson, “A Need for Operating Standards in the Academic and Research High Altitude Balloon Community.”