Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Nanosatellite Industry Overview

3,917 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business

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

×