Nanosatellite Industry Overview

3,066 views
2,916 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,066
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
147
Comments
0
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Nanosatellite Industry Overview

  1. 1. Nanosatellite Industry Overview October 2013 Update •1
  2. 2. Content of the Presentation • Introduction • Trends and Hot Topics • Myths Vs. Facts 2
  3. 3. Cut to the Chase • COTS in LEO has proven to be eminently capable … yet end-users exhibit strong reluctance to use it. • Community has not learned the lesson of PC vs. Mac • Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough … If you aim for perfect in nanosats, you will miss the cost-effective solution • Like PCs, CubeSats are disposable Andrew E. Kalman, President & CTO, Pumpkin, Inc. Director, SSDL, Stanford University, July 2012 3
  4. 4. Introduction (1) • Satellites are categorized by their weight according to the following key: – Less than 1 kg: Pico satellite – Less than 10 kg: Nano satellite – Less than 100 kg: Micro satellite • Recently NASA AMES changed the scale – Less than 5kg: Pico satellite – Less than 50kg: Nano satellite – Less than 200 kg: Micro satellite Credit: NASA 4
  5. 5. Introduction (2) • Nanosatellite Market growing rapidly – – – – Cubesats: Conception in 2000 First missions launched in 2003 10-20 projects in 2004 >250 projects ongoing now (estimate) • Change of users from educational and institutional to application focused 5
  6. 6. Nano/Micro satellite Future programs 6 Credit: SpaceWorks Nano/Microsatellite Market Assesment
  7. 7. Analysis per sector 7
  8. 8. CubeSatShop – The “AMAZON” of the Industry 8
  9. 9. Getting to space 9
  10. 10. Or like this 10
  11. 11. Trends and Hot Topics
  12. 12. CubeSat Generations • 1st : Modern Sputniks • 2nd : Utility of the 3U is demonstrated • 3rd : More power, attitude control & determination, propulsion • 4th : Constellations • 5th : AI collaborative entities 12
  13. 13. Trends / Hot Topics • • • • • • • 13 Earth Imaging Space Weather (Android) PhoneSats More & Better Power Faster Comms AIS/ADS-B Propulsion at Last!
  14. 14. Enabling Technologies: Communication • Biggest bottleneck perceived – €/bit is metric to be optimized for effective systems • Current downlinks fairly slow • S-Band emerging for payloads – Up to 1-5 being deployed and used – Up to 22 Mbps offered by L-3 22Mbps S-band transmitter • Move to X-Band and beyond before 2015? • More powerful platform can support these higher data rate systems 14 8 dBi S-band Patch antenna
  15. 15. Transceivers for Cubesats 15
  16. 16. X-band 50Mbps transmitter 16
  17. 17. Miniature Deployable High Gain Antenna - Boeing 17
  18. 18. Miniature Deployable High Gain Antenna - Boeing 18
  19. 19. Why deploy if you can…. Inflate ? 19 Credit: MIT
  20. 20. Patch Antennas 20
  21. 21. SMDC-ONE 21
  22. 22. Ka !! The ISARA Project (NASA) • 100 Mbps communication in Ka • 35 db antenna gain • Unique “PopUp” Feed 22
  23. 23. Optical Communication ? 23
  24. 24. AeroCube-OCSD: 1.5U Optical communication 24
  25. 25. Enabling Technologies: ADCS • New generation of ADCS products enables • better performance • Heritage: – Magnetic determination & control • Now: – – – – 25 Magnetic, Star tracker determination Earth horizon sensors, gyros also available Magnetorquer, reaction wheels Integrated ADCS packages incl CPU
  26. 26. Focus on ADCS iADCS-100 from BST 26 Main sensor: STR Main actuators: RW Accuracy: <0.1 deg 3 sigma Automatic pointing: Yes MAI-400 from MAI Main sensor: ES+SS Main actuators: RW Accuracy: <0.1 deg 3 sigma Automatic pointing: Yes
  27. 27. Focus on Propulsion 27
  28. 28. Enabling Technologies: PhoneSat 28
  29. 29. STRaND-1 29
  30. 30. Is this a valid Business ?
  31. 31. Planet Labs – 28 EOS 31
  32. 32. NanoSatisfi – Satellites on Demand 32
  33. 33. ADS-B 33
  34. 34. Myths Vs. Facts
  35. 35. Myth #1: Nanosatellites Reliability Myth: Nanosatellites are not reliable, Their success rate is less than 50% Fact: Success rate of Nanosatellite projects for the last five years is stable >80% • Nanosatellites Industry is complex, and incorporates industrial, research and academic institutes • Discussing “Nanosatellites Reliability” without taking into account who manufactured the satellites is like discussing “automobile reliability” while comparing BMW to TATA
  36. 36. Are COTS Reliable enough ? • CubeSat • source: Wikipedia Cubesat page
  37. 37. Myth #2: Components Reliability Myth: COTS are not reliable, They are the cause for failures Fact: Components are very reliable, the problem is workmanship • Two thirds of the projects are done by amateurs with no experience in space standards AIT • Technical analysis presented @2011 small sat conference showed most failures are related to workmanship • Components are getting better all the time – This is a competitive market with several leading manufacturers pushing for constant quality improvement of products
  38. 38. Most satellites are being built by amateurs Attack of the CubeSats: A Statistical Look: Michael Swartwout – Saint Louis University
  39. 39. Myth #3: Nanosatellites don’t last long in space Myth: Nanosatellites that reach space last for several months and than die Fact: There are nanosatellites that launched almost a decade ago and are still operational • COTS are now RAD tolerant up to 20 Krad • Computers are Latchup and SEU protected • Low cost allow redundancy – Several items in a satellite – Several satellites (mission redundancy)
  40. 40. Mission Lifetime for Nanosatellites • Satellites active since 2003 – Cute-1 – CubeSat XI-IV – RS-22 • Satellites active since 2005 – Cubesat XI-V • Satellites active since 2006 – GeneSat-1 • Satellites active since 2008 – Cute-1.7 + APD II – Delfi-C3 – SEEDS II • Satellites active since 2009 – – – – • PRISM SwissCube BEESAT ITUpSAT1 Average mission lifetime = 40 months source of data: Cubesat page at the AMSAT web page
  41. 41. Summary • About 65% of nanosatellites projects are being built by amateurs “responsible” for most of the failures – “Flagships” launching more than one satellites have a success rate of 52 out of 59 • Workmanship is the main cause for failures – Communication system failures are often due to bad wiring and not transmitter or receiver failures – Power system failures mostly occur due to connection loss between solar panels and batteries • Quality of subsystem is constantly improving – Number of manufacturers is rising, especially in Europe – Economical constraints derived meticulous QA – Competitiveness in the market manifests in the form of better quality products • Size doesn’t matter – Use of proven methodologies especially during AIT is a MUST
  42. 42. Inspiring words – Bob Twiggs 42
  43. 43. Thank you
  44. 44. Sources of Information • 25 Years of Small Satellites – • Attack of the CubeSats: A Statistical Look – • Jeroen Rotteveel, ISIS- Innovative Solutions in Space Nano/Microsatellite Market Assessment, February 2013 – 44 W. Dan Williams, Busek Co. Inc Beyond CubeSats: Operational, Responsive, Nanosatellite Missions – • Andrew E. Kalman , President & CTO, Pumpkin, Inc. Director, SSDL, Stanford University Propulsion Solutions for CubeSats – • Matt Bille, Paul Kolodziejski, Tom Hunsaker – Booz Allen Hamilton Nine Years and Counting – A Nanosatellite Designer's Perspective – • Jordi Puig-Suari, Roland Coelho – California Polytechnic State University; Scott Williams, Victor Aguero, Kyle Leveque, Bryan Klofas – SRI International Distant Horizons: Smallsat Evolution in the Mid-to-Far Term – • Michael Swartwout – Saint Louis University Recent CubeSat Launch Experiences on U.S. Launch Vehicles – • Siegfried Janson – The Aerospace Corporation Mr. Dominic DePasquale , Director of Washington D.C. Operations, Dr. John Bradford, President, SpaceWorks Engineering

×