State-of-the-Art of Small Spacecraft Technology - Soa - 2021
State-of-the-Art of Small Spacecraft Technology - Soa - 2021
State-of-the-Art
Small Spacecraft Technology
Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute
Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help
October 2021
This page is required and contains approved text that cannot be changed.
The NASA STI program operates under the SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,
auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. technical, or historical information from
It collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and NASA programs, projects, and missions,
disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI often concerned with subjects having
program provides access to the NASA substantial public interest.
Aeronautics and Space Database and its public
interface, the NASA Technical Reports Server, TECHNICAL TRANSLATION.
thus providing one of the largest collections of English-language translations of foreign
aeronautical and space science STI in the world. scientific and technical material pertinent to
Results are published in both non-NASA channels NASA’s mission.
and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series,
which includes the following report types: Specialized services also include organizing
and publishing research results, distributing
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of specialized research announcements and
completed research or a major significant feeds, providing information desk and personal
phase of research that present the results of search support, and enabling data exchange
NASA Programs and include extensive data services.
or theoretical analysis. Includes compila-
tions of significant scientific and technical For more information about the NASA STI
data and information deemed to be of program, see the following:
continuing reference value. NASA counter-
part of peer-reviewed formal professional Access the NASA STI program home page
papers but has less stringent limitations on at http://www.sti.nasa.gov
manuscript length and extent of graphic
presentations. E-mail your question to [email protected]
State-of-the-Art
Small Spacecraft Technology
Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute
Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help
October 2021
The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report is for accurate reporting and does not
constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help
Available from:
Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help
Top Left:
Spacecraft: Artist's (M. Combs and B. Malphrus) concept of Lunar IceCube in lunar
orbit. Credits: Morehead State University
Profile Technology: Space Micro P400, Credits: Space Micro, Inc.
Top Right:
Spacecraft: Illustration of Lunar Flashlight at the Moon. Credits: NASA/JPL
Profile Technology: Lunar Flashlight’s propulsion system
Credits: NASA/Georgia Institute of Technology
Lower Left:
Spacecraft: CAPSTONE is expected to be the first CubeSat to fly in cislunar space.
Credits: NASA/Advanced Space/Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems
Profile Technology: CAPSTONE’s propulsion system. Credits: Stellar Exploration
Lower Right:
Spacecraft: The LunaH-Map spacecraft’s destination is an orbit around the Moon.
Credits: Arizona State University
Profile Technology: MMA eHAWK solar arrays, Credits: MMA Design, LLC
NASA Ames Research Center, Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute
October 2021
Editor:
Sasha Weston
From NASA Ames Research Center: Richard Alena, Rodolphe De Rosee, Andres Dono, John
Hines, Marcus Jackson, Livingstone Johnson, Stanley Krześniak, Anh Nguyen, Mark Mallinson,
David Mauro, Alex Mazhari, Marc Murbach and the TechEdSat team, Craig Pires, Jan Stupl,
Shang Wu, and Senior Technical Editor Teague Soderman
From NASA Glenn Research Center: Gabriel Benavides and Thomas Liu
From NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center and Wallops Flight Facility: Andy Adams, Alistair Funge,
and Luis Santos
From NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center: Daniel Cavender, John Dankanich, Linda Krause,
Stephanie Mauro, Greg Schultz, and George Story
From The Aerospace Corporation: Dexter Becklund, Barbara Braun, Selasi Etchey, Rudd
Johnson, Edward Jung, Yao Lao, Dave Lubar, Kiara O’Neill, Laura Ramos, Mark Skinner, and
Catherine Venturini
The authors would like to also thank all of the companies, universities and organizations who
provided information for this report.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
2. Integrated Spacecraft Platforms .................................................................................. 6
3. Power ........................................................................................................................ 25
4. In-Space Propulsion .................................................................................................. 52
5. Guidance, Navigation, and Control.......................................................................... 121
6. Structures, Materials, and Mechanisms .................................................................. 155
7. Thermal Control....................................................................................................... 183
8. Small Spacecraft Avionics ……………………………………………………………….202
9. Communications...................................................................................................... 232
10. Integration, Launch and Deployment..................................................................... 253
11. Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations .................................................... 267
12. Identification and Tracking Systems ...................................................................... 337
13. Deorbit Systems .................................................................................................... 347
14. Summary ............................................................................................................... 362
15. Master Acronym List ..............................................................................................363
16. Appendix E - NPR 7123.1C - Technology Readiness Levels ………………….......371
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Preface
When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was
published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50
kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into
orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass
under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites
(1). Of the total 1,282 spacecraft launched in 2020, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall
mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 28% were under 200 kg, and 9% were
nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30%
and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and
academic institutions.
As with all previous editions of this report, the 2021 edition captures and distills a wealth of new
information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available
sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances
in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission
outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g. via conference papers, press releases,
company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small
spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original
source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices.
Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference
papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, and
the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute
Federated Search. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export
controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many
dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted
above. Content in this 2021 edition is based on data available by July 2021.
Each chapter is a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. The organizational
approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an
introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable
systems, and a summary of technologies surveyed. New for this year’s report is a table of contents
for each chapter to better assist the reader in locating specific information. As in previous years,
chapters are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions and include
information from previous editions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the
technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have
attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have
been adopted as a result of successful demonstration missions.
The report’s subject chapters have changed, and information has been added and removed to
reflect changes and growth in the small spacecraft market. A new chapter titled “Small Spacecraft
Avionics” encompasses information from the previous “Command and Data Handling” and “Flight
Software” chapters and provides more insight on a new generation of SmallSat avionics systems.
The “Communications” chapter underwent a complete update to better display useful information
for mission design engineers and has been separated appropriately into radio frequency and
optical telecommunications descriptions and associated technologies. The “Complete Spacecraft
Platforms” chapter has been reorganized to include more information on the development of small
spacecraft platforms, provide systems engineering considerations, and to expose recent and
upcoming trends in small spacecraft buses. The “Power” chapter was also completely reworked
to focus more on engineering requirements and processes for choosing a device. Lastly, the
authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a
consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry.
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Glossary
iii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Objective
The objective of this report is to assess and provide an overview of the state of the art in small
spacecraft technologies for mission designers, project managers, technologists, and students.
This report focuses on the spacecraft system as a whole, provides current best practices for
integration, and then presents the state of the art for each specific spacecraft subsystem. Certain
chapters have a particular emphasis on CubeSat platforms, as nanosatellite applications have
expanded due to their high market growth in recent years.
This report was first commissioned by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program in
mid-2013 in response to the rapid growth in interest in using small spacecraft for missions beyond
low-Earth orbit. The report was subsequently updated in 2015, 2018, and 2020. In addition to
reporting currently available technologies that have achieved TRL 5 or above, a prognosis is
provided describing technologies "on the horizon," or those technologies that are being
considered for future application.
This work is now funded by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) and Science
Mission Directorate (SMD).
1.2 Scope
The SmallSat mission timeline began at NASA Ames Research Center with the launch of Pioneer
10 and 11 that launched in March 1972 and April 1973, respectively. Both spacecraft weighed <
600 kg. To address the increase in mass and associated cost with the high launch cadence,
NASA established the Small Explorer (SMEX) Program in 1988 to encourage the development
of small spacecraft. In 1998, Ames' SmallSat program then focused on lunar exploration and
launched Lunar Prospector (< 700 kg), followed by the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing
Satellite (LCROSS), (< 630 kg) in 2009, and the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment
Explorer (LADEE), (~380 kg) which was launched in September 2013. In late 2010, NASA
launched its first minisatellite called Fast, Affordable, Science and Technology Satellite
(FASTSAT), which had a launch mass ~180 kg. This decrease in spacecraft mass and increase
in science capabilities ignited interest in miniaturization and maturity of aerospace
technologies which have proven to be capable of producing missions for less cost. The
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) payloads
provided up to 180 kg mass allocation to six payload slots in 2012 when this report was first
being written.
As this report is focused on smaller platforms, the “180 kg mass limit” served as a good indicator
to further classify a “SmallSat.” SmallSats are generally grouped according to their mass, and
this report adopts the following five small spacecraft mass categories (1):
• minisatellites are spacecraft with a total mass of 100 – 180 kg;
• microsatellites have a total spacecraft mass of 10-100 kg;
• nanosatellites have a total mass of 1 – 10 kg;
• picosatellites have a mass of 1 – 0.01 kg; and
• femtosatellites have a total spacecraft mass 0.01 – 0.09 kg.
Figure 1.1 offers examples of the various categorized spacecraft. On the lower mass end, there
are projects such as KickSat-2, which deployed 100-centimeter (cm) scale “ChipSat” spacecraft,
or Sprites, from a 2U femtosatellite deployer in March 2019. These femtosatellite ChipSats are
the size of a large postage stamp and have a mass below 10 grams.
1
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 1.1: Overview of small spacecraft categories. Credit: NASA, SpaceX, Redwire
Space, and Alba Orbital.
In 1999, a collaboration between California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) in San Luis
Obispo and Stanford University in Stanford, California, developed a small educational platform
called a "CubeSat" which was designed for space exploration and research for academic
purposes. CubeSats are now a common form of small spacecraft that can weigh only a few
kilograms (up to 30 kg) and are based on a form factor of a 10 cm square cube, or unit (U) (1).
The original CubeSat was composed of a single cube, a 1U, and it is now common to combine
multiple cubes to form, for instance, 3U or 6U units as shown in figure 1.2. These larger CubeSat
sizes have become more standardized and popular in the past five years as much more science
can be achieved at less cost with the additional volume, power, and overall increase in capability.
Figure 1.2: CubeSats are a class of nano- and microsatellites that use a standard size and
form factor. Credit: NASA.
2
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
It is common to interchange the terms “CubeSat” and “NanoSat” (short for nanosatellite) as the
original 1-3U CubeSat platforms fall under the nanosatellite category. Since the physical
expansion of CubeSats in 2014 with the 6U form factor, CubeSats now fall into both nanosatellite
and microsatellite categories, and this report refers to a nanosatellite as a spacecraft with mass
under 10 kg; a microsatellite as a spacecraft with mass greater than 10 kg; and a CubeSat as the
accepted form factor. Figure 1.3 illustrates the three smaller SmallSat categories: microsatellites,
nanosatellites, and picosatellites.
Figure 1.3: Nanosatellite sizes compared to CubeSat containerized sizes. Credit: NASA.
1.3 Assessment
This state-of-the-art assessment of SmallSat technology
is performed using NASA’s Technology Readiness Level
(TRL) scale (figure 1.4). For this report, a technology is
deemed state-of-the-art whenever its TRL is larger than
or equal to 5. A TRL of 5 indicates that the component
and/or brassboard with realistic support elements was
built and operated for validation in a relevant
environment so as to demonstrate overall performance
in critical areas. Success criteria include documented
test performance demonstrating agreement with
analytical predictions and documented definition of
scaling requirements. Performance predictions are made
for subsequent development phases (2).
A technology is considered not state of the art whenever
its TRL is lower than or equal to 4. In this category, the
technology is considered to be “on the horizon.” A TRL Figure 1.4: NASA’s standard TRL
of 4 is defined as a component and/or breadboard scale. Credit: NASA.
3
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
4
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
assessment (see figure 1.5) is to define the terms used. It is extremely important to develop and
use a consistent set of definitions over the course of the program/project.”
1.3.2 Heritage Systems
“Note the second box particularly refers to heritage systems (figure 1.5). If the architecture and
the environment have changed, then the TRL decreases to TRL 5—at least initially. Additional
testing may need to be done for heritage systems for the new use or new environment. If in
subsequent analysis the new environment is sufficiently close to the old environment or the new
architecture is sufficiently close to the old architecture, then the resulting evaluation could be TRL
6 or 7, but the most important thing to realize is that it is no longer at TRL 9. Applying this process
at the system level and then proceeding to lower levels of subsystems and components identifies
those elements that require development and sets the stage for the subsequent phase,
determining the new TRL.”
References
(1) NASA. What are SmallSats and CubeSats? February 26, 2015. Revised August 6, 2017.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/what-are-smallsats-and-cubesats
(2) NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. NASA/SP-2016 6105 Rev. 2.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/release-of-revision-to-the-nasa-systems-engineering-
handbook-sp-2016-6105-rev-2
5
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Contents
Chapter Glossary ............................................................................................................ ii
2.0 Complete Spacecraft Platforms ............................................................................. 6
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6
2.1.1 Chapter Organizational Approach ............................................................... 6
2.2 State-of-the-Art – Small Spacecraft Platforms.................................................... 7
2.2.1 Minisatellites (100 – 180 kg) ........................................................................ 7
2.2.2 Microsatellites (10 – 100 kg) ........................................................................ 8
2.2.3 Nanosatellites (1 – 10 kg) ............................................................................ 9
2.2.4 Picosatellites.............................................................................................. 10
2.3 Evolution of CubeSats ...................................................................................... 12
2.4 On the Horizon ................................................................................................. 13
2.5 Summary .......................................................................................................... 13
References .................................................................................................................... 21
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Glossary
ii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
6
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
7
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
through Geostationary Equatorial Orbit (GEO) environments, and will likely have a more notable
presence in deep space in the next five years. While the mass definition typically extends to
around 600 kg, for the purposes of this report the mass limit for minisatellites is 180 kg, which is
the limit for the readily available ESPA secondary launch opportunities.
Table 2-1: Integrated Minisatellite Platform Specifications
Vehicle Payload Payload T Ref
Pointing Pointing Cita
Manufacture Product Size Mass Power R Missio
Control Knowledge tion
(mm) (kg) (W) L n
1000 x
Dauntle Up to 7- LEO2
SFL 1000 x < 500 Unk. Unk. (1)
ss 1000 9 (2017)
1000
600 x NEMO-
Nemo- 7-
SFL 600 x < 70 >50 Unk. Unk. HD (2)
150 9
600 (2020)
Up to
965 x Kestrel
Redwire MagicB 50 – 150, ±0.15° 7-
660 x 0.01° 3σ Eye 1 (3)
Space us 220 option 3σ 9
610 (2017)
for 780
Surrey 450 x
SSTL- <0.1 < 0.05 7-
Satellite 340 x < 65 kg 63 W (5)
Micro degrees degrees 9
Technology 340
Maveric
Tyvak Nano- 560 x
ks Up to 20 7-
Satellite 560 x 180+ 10 arcsec
Systems Platfor 250kg arcsec 9
230
m
Ball
Ball Configur ≤ 609 x
0.03° - 7- GPIM
Aerospace able 711 x 70 100 0.03° 3σ
0.10° 3σ 9 (2020)
(USA) Platform 965
100
8
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
the use of the 6U form-factor in low-Earth orbit has more than tripled compared to its first space
demonstration in 2014 with more than 140 6U platforms launched. According to nanosats.eu in
2020, there were 29 launches of 6U platforms that were involved with a variety of mission
operations, including:
- Testing instruments for deep space technologies for future astrophysics missions
- Demonstrating technologies for higher accuracy
data, or to achieve more significant science with
inter-satellite links
- Commercial constellations for Earth observation
data
The first 12U platform was launched in 2016, and since
then, three were launched in 2019, two in 2020, and five
12U missions are planned to be launched in 2021. These
12U missions will demonstrate technology while also
performing science data collection. The first two 12U
spacecraft will be CubeSat platforms in a GTO
environment and are part of the Technology Demonstration
Orbiter (TDO-3 and TDO-4) missions for the United States
Air Force Academy; TDO-1 was launched in July 2019 and
TDO-2 in March 2020. The TDO missions successfully
demonstrated an atmospheric modelling thesis (5). The
Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology
Operations and Navigation Experiment (CAPSTONE)
mission is a 12U lunar mission in a near rectilinear halo
orbit (NRHO) that is slated for launch in October 2021. This Figure 2.2: Representation of
microsatellite will characterize the unique orbit with specific CAPSTONE spacecraft travelling to
power and propulsion requirements for future NRHO utility Moon. Credit: Ball Aerospace.
(20).
Microsatellite constellations are becoming more popular. Their potential is being recognized for
upcoming missions like Internet-of-Things (IoT) communication infrastructure, in-space weather
science collection, Earth observation data, and space observation to improve our understanding
of deep space. HawkEye-360 has been periodically sending clusters of three ~15 kg spacecraft
(based on the UTIAS NEMO platform) since December 2018. These are the first commercial
spacecraft to demonstrate formation flying to develop an innovative class of radio frequency (6).
Table 2-2 (see below) lists available integrated microsatellite platforms and their specifications.
2.2.3 Nanosatellites (1 – 10 kg)
This classification of microsatellites encompasses the classic CubeSat 1U and 3U platforms and
is commonly used interchangeably with the term “CubeSat”. Primarily used for technology
demonstrations following their inception in the early 2000s, nanosatellites are being used
increasingly in other areas due to their relative low cost, short development time, and relative
ease in which they can be deployed in small constellations. In 2020, there were 110 launched
nanosatellites, a notable decrease from the 165 launched in 2019, with the slowdown likely
caused by the COVID 19 pandemic.
The last ten years have witnessed a notable progression of the nanosatellite platform as it has
expanded in both capability for increased mission complexity and physical dimensions to meet
more complex needs. The first CubeSats that were built and launched were primarily technology
demonstration and educational missions, and now they are used more for Earth science missions
9
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
and include more diverse CubeSat platforms. In-space CubeSat constellations have been a major
contributor to CubeSats’ growth as a science platform. Constellations like Planet Labs and Spire
Global have ignited the nanosatellite/CubeSat expansion in low-Earth orbit since 2017. Of all
CubeSat/nanosatellite launches since 2017, nearly 50% are 3U constellations (both Planet Labs
and Spire Global). While most of these are in low-Earth orbit, CubeSats are starting to expand
their operations beyond low-Earth orbit and into deep space.
Figure 2.3 (left to right): BCT XB3 spacecraft bus for the APL RAVAN mission (NASA); Standard
6U platform (GomSpace); M6P platform (NanoAvionics); and EnduroSat 1U and 3U spacecraft.
(EnduroSat).
0.15
TRISAT,
1P 50 x 50 x 50 – 0.1 0.25 Unk. 7-9 (8)
2019
0.28
ATL-1 &
50 x 50 x
2P 0.5 0.3 1 0.5 7-9 SMOG-P, (7)
114
2019
50 x 50 x NOOR 1-A
3P 0.75 0.5 5 <5 7-9 (9, 10)
178 & -B, 2019
10
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
40 x 50 x STECCO,
6P 0.85 0.8 Unk. Unk. 7-9 (11)
300 2021
55 x 55 x ARCE-1
0.5U 0.5 0.3 2.5 1.75 7-9 (13)
100 (2021)
Professor Twiggs from Stanford proposed the first PocketQube in 2009 for an academic
evaluation of a cost-effective method for engaging students in space sciences. The first
PocketQubes were launched in November 2013, on a Dnepr rocket via the Morehead Rome
Femto Orbital Deployer attached to the UniSat-5 microsatellite (14). Since 2013, several
companies and universities have shown an interest in PocketQube design, and by mid-2021,
thirteen PocketQubes successfully completed in-space demonstration with five still in-orbit, while
over 40 PocketQube missions are currently in development (15). The cost for a single 1P
PocketQube spacecraft is around $20k, based on a 1P PocketQube being one-eighth of a 1U
CubeSat volume and thus one-eighth the cost; a 2P picosatellite is estimated to be 50% the cost
of a 3U CubeSat mission (16). Due to this reduced cost, they have become popular for kick-starter
companies and amateur radio satellite designers.
A clear limitation for these very small spacecraft is the ability to collect a wide variety of advanced
science data, as these types of missions require high power for heavy data transmission and a
fine ADCS for strict pointing requirements. However, picosatellites and PocketQubes are
becoming more noticed for their ability to function as a coherent distributed group and usefulness
in technology demonstrations. As low mass payloads with low power requirements,
PocketQube/picosatellite constellations can achieve quite a bit for much less than CubeSat
constellations, and are ideal platforms for IoT network connectivity and Earth and space
observations. These ultra-small spacecraft have been used as technology demonstration
platforms for imaging devices, communication systems, autonomy operations, and sensors. The
focus of The Aerospace Corporation PICOSAT Program is to study very small spacecraft
concepts, and they have launched eight <1 kg spacecraft that have all demonstrated innovative
technologies.
Picosat constellations have become a recent addition to low-Earth orbit in the past few years and
their increased presence has indeed bolstered their growth. The low cost of these small
spacecraft is a benefit, and the constrained microelectromechanical system (MEMS) components
can be customized and tested within the typical budget of a CubeSat mission. The SpaceBee
0.25U constellation by Swarm Technologies are the smallest two-way communications satellites
that serve as a cost -effective, low data rate Internet of Things (IoT) network (17). As of July 2021,
112 SpaceBee spacecraft have been launched into low-Earth orbit (18). At TU Berlin, a
picosatellite swarm mission consists of four 0.25U CubeSats (BEESAT-5 to BEESAT-8) with a
mass of 0.375 kg each with a primary objective to demonstrate new UHF communication devices
and an experimental GNSS receiver (12). The first four, launched March 2021, successfully
demonstrated new technologies, and four more BEESATs are planned to launch in 2021 to verify
other technologies. From the University of Boston, the Ad-hoc Network Demonstration for
Spatially Extended Satellite-based Inquiry and Other Team Endeavors (ANDESITE) is a 6U
CubeSat that deployed eight 0.38 kg “Sensor Node” spacecraft in June 2020 to act as a local
network of magnetometers through the electrical currents that cause the Northern Lights (19).
11
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Launch Year
12
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
13
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
14
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
EnduroSat 6U 970 x 197 x 223 7.2 – 7.8 10 – 30 < 0.1° Unk 7-9 Spartan (2021) (31)
(Bulgaria) 12U Unk 14-16 20-45 Unk Unk 5-6 (ref)
6U Unk 8 12 (Ave) 1° Unk 7-9 GOMX-4A&B (2018)
GomSpace
(Denmark) 8U Unk 4 Unk 0.07 0.05 5-6 (32)
15
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
16
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Redwire
Up to 221 × 195 x
Space 12U 4U – 7U 84.3 (EOL) ±0.1° 3σ <10 m 5-6
192
(USA)
Sitael S-50 340 x 340 x 660 20 26 Up to 0.1 <0.01 arcsec 7-9 ESEO (2018) (49)
(Italy)
S-75 320 x 320 x 400 20 < 30 Up to 0.1 Up to 0.009 7-9 uHET (2021) (51)
NANOsky I 6U 226 x 100 x 366 6 <150 Unk Unk 5-6 (50)
SkyLabs
NANOsky I 24U 200 x 200 x 500 10-20 <300 Unk Unk 5-6 (50)
Chameleon 6U
Space
– 27 U, Open,
Information
Modular,
Laboratories 220x200x300 12 - 30 30 - 61 <0.1 <0.003 5-6 (55)
Scalable, and
(USA)
Reconfigurable
Bus
Sputnix
SXC6 6U 100 х 226.3 x 366 6 35 < 0.1 o Unk 7-9 Zorkiy (2021) (52)
(Russia)
Tyvak Tyvak-0129 (2019),
TRESTLES 6U Unk 3 180 Unk Unk 7-9 (53)
NanoSatellite Tyvak-0130 (2021)
Technology (53,
(USA) TRESTLES 12U Unk 13 180 Unk Unk 5-6 CASTONE (2021)*
58)
SPARTAN 6U 100 x 200 x 360 6 160 <2° <2° 7-9 Kepler (2020) (59)
< 76W h/
10 arcsec/ 1
JAEGER 12U 200 x 200 x 360 12 orbit, 215 2° 7-9 NORSAT-3 (2017)
arcsec
W peak
< 76W h/n
10 arcsec/ 1
JAEGER 16U 200 x 200 x 450 24 orbit, 215 2° 5-6
arcsec
W peak
UTIAS SLF Next-
(Canada) generation
NEMO-AM (2014)
Earth 10 arcsec/ 1 (60,
200 x 300 x 440 12 160 (peak) <2° 7-9 NORSAT-1 & -2
Monitoring and arcsec
(2017)
61)
Observation
(NEMO)
HawkEye-360
DEFIANT 300 x 300 x 400 Up to 30 < 65 <2° <2° 7-9 Constellation (2018- (62)
2021)
17
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Payload TRL
Vehicle Size Payload Point Pointing Ref Missions and
Manufacturer Product Mass (kg) or in
(mm) Power (W) Control Knowledge Citation
Volume (U) LEO
< 0.1 –
3U 970 x 970 x 173 1.7U 10 – 15 9 5-6 (67)
1°
EnduroSat
1.5U Unk 0.950 0.9 Unk Unk 5-6 (68)
(Bulgaria)
EnduroSat-1
1U 970 x 970 x 108 0.950 900 mW Up to 3° 9° 7-9 (69)
(2018)
18
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
FunCube-1
ISISpace 1U Bus 100 x 100 x100 0.7 400 mW Unk Unk 7-9
(2014)
(The
Netherlands)
10° (in NAPA-1 (2020)
3U Bus Unk Up to 4 105 Unk 7-9
sunlight)
MSS
Altair1 100 x 100 x 600 14 Unk Unk Unk 7-9 ALTAIR1 (2017)
(USA)
Multifunctional Lithuania-2
NanoAvionics
3U platform Unk 3 20 up to 0.1° 0.05° 7-9 (2017)
(Lithuania)
“M3P”
SHARC (2017),
100 x 100 x
3U FastBus Unk <40 Unk Unk 7-9 TSAT (2014),
340.5
GEARS1 (2015)
Near Space
Launch
Asgardia-1
(USA) 2U FastBus 100 x 100 x 227 Unk <40 Unk Unk 7-9
(2017)
19
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
OpenCosmos LacunaSAT-1
3U 100 x 100 x 300 2 25 1º Unk 7-9
(Spain) (2021)
Orbital
Astronautics (73)
ORB-3 100 x 100 x 300 3 160 (peak) <0.1° <0.01° 5-6
(United
Kingdom)
SW1FT (2020)
NanoBus 3U 100 x 100 x 300 Unk 50 (peak) <1° <1° 7-9 STORK-1
(2021)
SatRevolution
Pre-Uni Bus
(Poland)
1U, Modular 100 x 100 x 100 Unk 5 2° 0.5° 5-6
up to 2U
SkyLabs NANOsky I 3U 100 x 100 x 341 2.5 25 Unk Unk 7-9 TRISAT (2020)
20
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
References
(1) Nicholas Sciullo-Velenosi, Thermal Design and Analysis Methodologies Applied to the
DAUNTLESS Bus and GHGSat-C Microsatellite, 2018, Thesis, Institute for Aerospace
Studies University of Toronto
(2) Clark, Stephen. Spaceflight now: After weather delays, Arianespace delays Vega launch
to recharge batteries. [Online] 07 2020. https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/07/01/after-
weather-delays-arianespace-pauses-vega-launch-operations-to-recharge-batteries/.
(3) Kestrel Eye. ePortal Directory. [Online] 2018. Accessed: June 2018.
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/k/kestrel-eye.
(4) Surrey Satellite Technology . “Launched Missions.” [Online] 2021. Accessed: July 16,
2021. https://www.sstl.co.uk/space-portfolio/launched-missions
(5) A. Garges, Space and Missile Systems Center Public Affairs. “Multi-manifest Satellite
Vehicles TDO-3 and TDO-4 Ready for Integration.” [Online]. May 10, 2021. Accessed July
16, 2021. https://www.losangeles.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-
Display/Article/2602337/multi-manifest-satellite-vehicles-tdo-3-and-tdo-4-ready-for-
integration/
(6) European Space Agency. “HawkEye 360 Pathfinder Cluster Mission to identify RFI
locations.” eoPortal Directory, Satellite Missions. [Online]
https://eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/h/hawkeye
(7) P. Stoetzer. “SMOG-P and ATL-1 Designated Magyar-OSCAR 105 (MO-105) and
Magyar-OSCAR 106 (MO-106).” December 19, 2019. [Online] Accessed: August 27,
2021. https://www.amsat.org/smog-p-and-atl-1-designated-magyar-oscar-105-mo-105-
and-magyar-oscar-106-mo-106/
(8) D. Messier. “Rocket Lab Launches Satellites, Tests Next-Gen Reusable Booster.”
December 6, 2019. [Online] Accessed: august 27, 2021.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/tag/trsi-sat/
(9) “NOOR 1A, 1B (Unicorn 2B, 2C).” [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021.
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/noor-1.htm
(10) Alba Orbital. “Unicorn-2: The world's most powerful PocketQube launch.” October 24,
2018. [Online] Accessed: August 27, 2021. http://www.albaorbital.com/new-
blog/2018/7/19/unicorn-2-the-worlds-most-powerful-pocketqube-launch
(11) Sapienza Università di Roma. “Sapienza in the sky with Stecco.” March 22, 2021. [Online]
Accessed: July 16, 2021. https://www.uniroma1.it/en/notizia/sapienza-sky-stecco
(12) F. Baumann. “BEESAT-5/-6/-7/-8.” March 22, 201. [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021.
https://www.raumfahrttechnik.tu-
berlin.de/menue/research/current_projects/beesat_5_6_7_8/parameter/en/
(13) University of South Florida, College of Engineering News Room. “SATELLITES
ENGINEERED BY IAE STUDENTS, FACULTY LAUNCH ON WORLD RECORD
MISSION.” 2021. [Online] Accessed: August 28, 2021.
(14) Wikipedia. “PocketQubue.” July 24, 2018. [Online] Accessed: August 28, 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PocketQube
(15) E. Kulu. “PocketQubes.” [Online] Accessed: July 15, 2021.
https://www.nanosats.eu/cubesat
(16) R J Twiggs, J G Jernigan, L R Cominsky, B K Malphrus, BS Silverman, K Zack, S McNeil,
W Roach-Barrett, and T-LogoQube Team. "The PocketQube Concept." California State
Polytechnic University: s.n., 2014. CubeSat Workshop.
(17) J. Schertz: “Swarm Preparing for 150 CubeSat Constellation” 01/19/2019, The Space
Research
21
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(18) Gunter’s Space Page. “SpaceBEE 10, ..., 180.” [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021.
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/spacebee-10.htm
(19) European Space Agency. “ANDESITE 6U CubeSat Auroral Plasma Science Mission of
Boston University.” eoPortal. [Online] Accessed July 16, 2021.
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-/article/andesite
(20) NASA. “What is CAPSTONE?” July 31, 2020. [Online] Accessed: July 13, 2021.
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/small_spacecraft/capstone
(21) ADE (Aerodynamic Deorbit Experiment).” Purdue University, Missions. [Online]
Accessed: July 14, 2021. https://engineering.purdue.edu/CubeSat/missions/ade
(22) A. Elsaesser, F. Merenda, R. Lindner, R. Walker, S. Buehler, G. Boer, A. Villa, Y. Hallak,
F. Aguado, E. Alberti, B. Wood. “SpectroCube: a European 6U nanosatellite spectroscopy
platform for astrobiology and astrochemistry, Acta Astronautica, Volume 170, 2020,
Pages 275-288, ISSN 0094-5765, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.01.028.
(23) NASA. “GTOSat: A 6U CubeSat in Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit to Study Radiation
Belt Dynamics.” November 12, 2020. [Online] Accessed: July 14, 2021.
https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/gtosat-a-6u-cubesat-in-geosynchronous-transfer-orbit-
to-study-radiation-belt-dynamics
(24) F. Tan and N. Khalil. “NASA Science Mission Directorate SmallSat Coordination Group,
State of NASA Science with SmallSats.” 2021. 35th Annual Small Satellite Conference.
(25) National Research Council. 2000. The Role of Small Satellites in NASA and NOAA Earth
Observation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:
10.17226/9819.
(26) NASA. “10 Things: CubeSats — Going Farther.” February 5, 2019. [Online] Accessed:
July 14, 2021. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/834/10-things-cubesats-going-farther/
(27) Berlin Space Technologies. “LEOS-50MR.” [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021.
https://www.berlin-space-tech.com/portfolio/leos-50mr/
(28) “XVI (Link-16).” Gunter’s Space Page. [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021.
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/xvi.htm
(29) “TAM 4.” Gunter’s Space Page. [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021.
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/yam-4.htm
(30) Complex Systems and Small Satellites. “3U-12U Platforms.” [Online] Accessed: July 16,
2021. Gunter’s Space Page. [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021.
(31) EnduroSat. “Commercial space services redefined.” July 1, 2021. [Online] Accessed: July
16, 2021. https://www.endurosat.com/news/commercial-space-services-redefined/
(32) GomSpace. Datasheet, “8U PLATFORM.”
(33) GomSpace. “ESA and GomSpace sign contract for continuation of the GOMX-5 mission.”
October 2, 2020. [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021. https://news.cision.com/gomspace-a-
s/r/esa-and-gomspace-sign-contract-for-continuation-of-the-gomx-5-mission,c3202464
(34) GomSpace. Datasheet, “16U PLATFORM.”
(35) Hermia. “range of Nanosatellites.” [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021.
https://www.hemeria-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Datasheet-Nanosat-
UK_versionfinale.pdf
(36) C. Henry. “French component suppliers demo constellation hardware with ANGELS
cubesat.” https://spacenews.com/french-component-suppliers-demo-constellation-
hardware-with-angels-cubesat/
(37) ArgoTech. Small Satellites Unit. https://www.argotec.it/online/what-we-do/small-satellite-
unit/
(38) Atermis Space. “Artemis XPLORA Platforms Range.” [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021.
https://www.spaceartemis.com/satellite-platforms/
(39) ISISPACE. “Brik-II first signals received.” SpaceNews. July 5, 2021. [Online] Accessed
July 16, 2021. https://www.isispace.nl/news/brik-ii-first-signals-received/
22
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(40) Nanoavionics. “Bravo – NanoAvionics adds satellite twin to Aurora Insight’s global
wireless spectrum mission.”
(41) Nanoavionics. “NanoAvionics Selected by Thales Alenia Space to Build the First Two
Satellite Buses for Omnispace Constellation.” [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021.
https://nanoavionics.com/news/bravo-nanoavionics-adds-satellite-twin-to-aurora-
insights-global-wireless-spectrum-mission/
(42) [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021 https://nanoavionics.com/press-releases/nanoavionics-
selected-by-thales-alenia-space-to-build-the-first-two-satellite-buses-for-omnispace-
constellation/
(43) NearSpace Launch. “NSL Heritage.” [Online] Accessed July 16, 2021.
https://www.nearspacelaunch.com/pages/heritage
(44) NearSpace Launch. “NSL Constellation – ThinSat.” [Online] Accessed July 16, 2021.
https://www.nearspacelaunch.com/pages/constellation-solutions-thinsat
(45)
(46) Open Cosmos. “A Revolution in Space Technology: A 3U, 6U, a12U and small-satellite
platforms.” [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021. https://www.open-cosmos.com/satellites
(47) NewSpace Index. OrbAstro (Guardian). [Online] Accessed July 16, 2021.
https://www.newspace.im/constellations/orbastro
(48) Orb Astro. Satellites. [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021. https://orbastro.com/satellites/
(49) “ESEO student satellite successfully launched to space.” March 12, 2018. [Online]
Accessed: August 31, 2021.
https://www.esa.int/Education/ESEO/ESEO_student_satellite_successfully_launched_to
_space
(50) Skylabs. “Satellite platforms.” [Online] Accessed: August 31, 2021.
https://www.skylabs.si/products/satellite-platforms/
(51) µHETsat. Gunter’s Space Page. https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/myhetsat.htm
(52) Sputnix, LLC. Technical datasheet, “CUBESAT NANOSATELLITE PLATFORM.” [Online]
Accessed: August 31, 2021. https://sputnix.ru/en/satellites/in-orbit/cubesat-6u
(53) Tyvak Nano-Satellite Technologies. “Platforms.” [Online] Accessed: August 31, 2021.
https://www.tyvak.com/platforms/
(54) SPACE INFORMATION LABORATORIES. “SIL Chameleon 12U to 27U OMSR Flexible
Satellite Bus” Bus to Payload ICD SIL Document Number 501767, 1/4/2020
(55) Space Information Laboratories. “CHAMELEON 6U to 27U OMSR BUS.” [Online]
Accessed: August 31, 2021. https://www.spaceinformationlabs.com/products/chameleon/
(56) AAC Clyde Space. “AAC Clyde Space confirms successful launch of NSLSat-1.” July 14,
2019. [Online] Accessed: August 31, 2020. https://www.aac-clyde.space/latest/6-
successful-launch-of-nslsat-1
(57) Ingegneria, Marketing, Tecnologia. “Nadir Platform.” [Online] Accessed: August 31, 2020.
https://imtsrl.it/nadir.html
(58) “CAPSTONE, a small cubesat bound for the moon, is preparing for an October launch.”
August 24, 2021. [Online] Accessed: September 1, 2021.
https://www.space.com/capstone-cubesat-moon-mission-october-2021-launch-prep
(59) SFL. “Nanosatellites: Kepler.” June 17, 2020. [Online] Accessed: July 31, 2020.
https://www.utias-sfl.net/?page_id=3344
(60) SFL. “Microsatellites: NORSAT-1.” March 17, 2014. {Online] Accessed July 31, 2020.
https://www.utias-sfl.net/?page_id=1260
(61) SFL. “Microsatellites: NEMO-HD.” March 17, 2014. {Online] Accessed July 31, 2020.
https://www.utias-sfl.net/?page_id=1233
(62) SFL. “Microsatellites: NEMO-HD.” June 15, 2020. {Online] Accessed: July 31, 2020.
https://www.utias-sfl.net/?page_id=3305
23
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(63) AAC Clyde Space. EPIC 1U. [Online] 2020. Accessed: July 30, 2020. ://www.aac-
clyde.space/epic-spacecraft/epic-1u
(64) J. Faleti. “MIR-SAT 1 Successfully Deploys from the ISS into Orbit.” June 22, 2021.
[Online] Accessed: August 31, 2021. https://africanews.space/mir-sat-1-has-deployed-
from-the-iss-into-orbit/
(65) Vega. “19th Vega mission demonstrates Arianespace’s ability to deliver for the most
innovative projects for the benefits of its clients.” August 17, 2021. [Online] Accessed:
August 24, 2021. https://www.arianespace.com/press-release/vv19-vega-launch-
success/
(66) Complex Systems and Small Satellites. “3U-12U Platforms.” [Online] Accessed: July 24,
2021.https://c3s.hu/3-12u-platforms/
(67) EnduroSat. “3U CubeSat Platform.” [Online] Accessed: July 24, 2021.
https://www.endurosat.com/cubesat-store/cubesat-platforms/3u-cubesat-platform/
(68) EnduroSat. “1.5U CubeSat Platform.” [Online] Accessed: July 24, 2021.
https://www.endurosat.com/cubesat-store/cubesat-platforms/1-5u-cubesat-platform/
(69) EnduroSat. “1U CubeSat Platform.” [Online] Accessed: July 24, 2021.
https://www.endurosat.com/cubesat-store/cubesat-platforms/1u-cubesat-platform/
(70) GomSpace. “1U/2U Platform.” [Online] Accessed: July 24, 2021.
https://gomspace.com/1u-2u-platform.aspx
(71) Gunmush. “N-Art Bus.” [Online] Accessed: July 24, 2021.
https://gumush.com.tr/product/n-art-bus/
(72) Ingegneria, Marketing, Tecnologia. “Cubesat Platform.” [Online] Accessed: July 24, 2021.
https://imtsrl.it/cubesat-3u.html
(73) Orb Astro. “ORB-3.” 2021. [Online] Accessed: July 24, 2021.
https://orbastro.com/satellites/orb-3/
(74) CubeSat World. “Swiatowid Platform.” 2021. [Online] Accessed: July 24, 2021.
https://cubesatworld.com/product/swiatowid-platform/
(75) Spacemind. “CubeSat platforms 1U – 24U.” 2021. [Online] Accessed: July 24, 2021.
https://www.spacemanic.com/cubesat-platforms/
(76) Spacemind. “Scientific breakthrough for GRBAlpha 1U CubeSat.” August 11, 2021.
[Online] Accessed: July 24, 2021. https://www.spacemanic.com/news/scientific-
breakthrough-for-grbalpha-1u-cubesat/
24
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Contents
Chapter Glossary ............................................................................................................ ii
3.0 Power .................................................................................................................. 25
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 25
3.2 State-of-the-Art – Power Generation ................................................................ 26
3.2.1 Solar Cells ................................................................................................. 26
3.2.2 Solar Panels & Arrays ............................................................................... 28
3.3 On the Horizon – Power Generation ................................................................ 30
3.3.1 Multi-junction Solar Cells ........................................................................... 30
3.3.2 Flexible Solar Cells .................................................................................... 30
3.3.3 Organic Solar Cells .................................................................................... 31
3.3.4 Fuel Cells................................................................................................... 31
3.3.5 Nuclear Power ........................................................................................... 31
3.3.6 TPV ........................................................................................................... 32
3.3.7 Alpha- and Beta-voltaics ............................................................................ 32
3.3.8 Thermoradiative (TR) Cells........................................................................ 33
3.4 State-of-the-Art – Energy Storage .................................................................... 33
3.4.1 Secondary Li-ion and Li-po Batteries ......................................................... 37
3.5 On the Horizon – Energy Storage .................................................................... 40
3.5.1 Supercapacitors ......................................................................................... 40
3.5.2 Solid State Batteries .................................................................................. 42
3.6 State-of-the-Art – Power Management and Distribution ................................... 42
3.7 On the Horizon – Power Management and Distribution ................................... 46
3.7.1 Modular Architecture ................................................................................. 46
3.7.2 Wireless Power Transfer and Telemetry.................................................... 46
3.8 Summary .......................................................................................................... 46
References .................................................................................................................... 47
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Glossary
(AFRL) Air Force Research Laboratory
(BMS) Battery Management System
(BOL) Beginning-of-Life
(CFRPs) Composite Fiber Reinforced Panels
(CIGS) Cu(In,Ga)Se2
(COTS) Commercial-off-the-Shelf
(EOL) End-of-Life
(EPS) Electrical Power System
(ESA) European Space Agency
(GaN) Galium Nitride
(GRC) NASA Glenn Research Center
(KSC) Kennedy Space Center
(Li-ion) Lithium-ion
(LiCFx) Lithium carbon monofluoride
(LiPo) Lithium polymer
(LiSO2) Lithium sulfur dioxide
(LiSOCl2) Lithium thionyl chloride
(MIL) Military
(QML) Qualified Manufacturers List
(NiCd) Nickel-cadmium
(NiH2) Nickel-hydrogen
(OPV) Organic Photovoltaic
(OSCAR) Optical Sensors based on carbon materials
(PCB) Printed Circuit Board
(PEASSS) Piezoelectric Assisted Smart Satellite Structure
(PET) polyethylene terephthalate
(PMAD) Power management and distribution
(RHUs) Radioisotopic Heater Units
(RTGs) Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators
(SABER) Solid-state Architecture Batteries for Enhanced Rechargeability and Safety
(SWaP) Size, Weight, and Power
(TPV) Thermophotovoltaic
ii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(TR) Thermoradiative
(TRL) Technology Readiness Level
(Wh kg-1) Watt hours per kilogram
iii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
3.0 Power
3.1 Introduction
The electrical power system (EPS) encompasses electrical power generation, storage, and
distribution. The EPS is a major, fundamental subsystem, and commonly comprises a large
portion of volume and mass in any given spacecraft. Power generation technologies include
photovoltaic cells, panels and arrays, and radioisotope or other thermonuclear power generators.
Power storage is typically applied through batteries; either single-use primary batteries, or
rechargeable secondary batteries. Power management and distribution (PMAD) systems facilitate
power control to spacecraft electrical loads. PMAD takes a variety of forms and is often custom-
designed to meet specific mission requirements. EPS engineers often target a high specific power
or power-to-mass ratio (Wh kg−1) when selecting power generation and storage technologies to
minimize system mass impact. The EPS volume is more likely to be the constraining factor for
nanosatellites.
EPS Engineers should note the fundamental differences between commercial-off-the-shelf
(COTS) parts and space qualified parts while weighing those differences against spacecraft
requirements. Military or Space (MIL/QML) parts need to go through a series of specific tests,
while COTS go through a different, typically less stringent, set of tests. For example, Military or
Space parts are typically tested and qualified to survive -55°C to 125°C, while the alternative
COTS requirement is -40°C to 85°C. SmallSat missions, especially CubeSat missions, don’t
always have a need to be qualified for harsh environments from a temperature perspective, as
well as other factors that are a part of the MIL/QML qualification process like radiation, reliability,
etc. COTS parts are typically known to perform better than space rated parts while lacking the
ability to survive in harsh environments. Another key limitation in QML parts is their lack of
availability and slow revision timeline. Most electronic components don’t come with a QML
version, and when they are available, QML parts tend to be multiple generations behind their
COTS equivalents. All in all, MIL/QML parts can be a limiting factor in SmallSat designs, from
their relatively weaker technical capabilities, to the increased costs associated with incorporating
them into a design. CubeSats and other SmallSats typically operate at low-Earth orbit in a mild
environment for short periods of time, and so stringent qualification standards and high
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) don’t tend to carry a lot of weight on those missions.
In this chapter, the terms SmallSat and CubeSat are often used in the same context, however it
is important for the reader to be aware of the distinctions between the two types of spacecraft.
Please refer to the introduction of this report for more information on the categories of SmallSats.
CubeSats fall under the category of both microsatellites and nanosatellites and CubeSat missions
commonly use COTS parts for space applications. Due to their exclusive use in low-Earth orbit
applications, CubeSats are more likely to incorporate COTS parts as they typically feature shorter
mission lengths, more favorable environmental conditions, and as a result need less stringent
standards when qualifying parts. Knowing the distinction between a CubeSat and a SmallSat is
necessary in determining the potential for incorporating COTS parts in a SmallSat design.
The information described below is not intended to be exhaustive but provides an overview of
current state-of-the-art technologies and their development status for a particular small satellite
subsystem. It should be noted that TRL designations may vary with changes specific to payload,
mission requirements, reliability considerations, and/or the environment in which performance
was demonstrated. Readers are highly encouraged to reach out to companies for further
information regarding the performance and TRL of described technology. There is no intention of
25
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
mentioning certain companies and omitting others based on their technologies or relationship with
NASA.
that degrade the functionality of solar cells include radiation exposure, coverglass/adhesive
darkening, contamination, and mechanical or electrical failure.
This section individually covers small spacecraft targeted cells, fully-integrated panels, and
arrays. Table 3-1 itemizes small spacecraft solar cell efficiency per the available manufacturers.
Note the efficiency may vary depending on the solar cells chosen.
Jsc Jmp
Cell BOL Voc Vmp Pmp
Company (mA/ (mA/ Citation
Name Efficiency (V) (V) (W/m2)
cm2) cm2)
Silicon
16.8 0.628 0.528 45.8 43.4 229.2 (3)
S 32
3G30-
29.5 2.7 2.411 17.2 16.71 403 (3)
Adv
AZUR
Space
4G32-
31.5 3.426 2.999 15.2 14.37 431 (3)
Adv
TJ
28 2.667 2.37 16.77 16.14 1367 (3)
3G28C
27
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ZTJ
29.9 2.73 2.43 17.4 16.8 408.2 (10)
Omega
XTJ-
30.4 2.715 2.39 18.1 17.4 415.9 (6)
Prime
XTE-
31.9 2.75 2.435 18.6 17.8 433.4 (5)
SF
XTE-
31.8 2.782 2.49 18 17.4 427.9 (5)
SpectroLab HF
XTE-
31.3 2.755 2.459 18.1 17.4 427.9 (5)
LF
28
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
station keeping. Important considerations for SmallSat solar arrays are: deployment mechanisms,
deployed frequency, panel specific power, and power density, as well as stowed volume. Most of
these metrics are not listed on manufacturer’s data sheets.
Solar array comparison can be challenging because SmallSat/CubeSat manufacturers who make
solar arrays specific to their bus and payload designs often do not report solar array power using
the same metrics. Their reported “power” can mean multiple things: power available to the
payload, peak power provided by a combination of solar array and battery, or an orbital specific
average power. Solar array power (Peak BOL) reported in the chart is mainly referring to the peak
power of the solar array at the beginning of life, 28°C which is mission-independent. Panel
stiffness and moment of inertia are dependent on multiple factors such as size and mass of the
panel as well as spacecraft size and weight distribution, and usually need to be calculated for a
specific spacecraft.
28 – 42 (3U)
Blue Canyon Body Mount +
Technologies
BCT Solar Array
Deployed Rigid
* / 48-118 7-9 (12)
(6U-12U)
0.272-60
DHV Solar Panels for Deployed Rigid
67 (1P/1U/3U/6 N/A (13)
Technologies CubeSats Set (PCB)
U/12U)
Deployed Rigid
Hawk 121 36-112 7-9 (15)
(PCB)
MMA Design
Deployed Rigid
zHawk 95 36 7-9 (16)
(PCB)
Airbus
Defense and Sparkwing Solar
Deployed Rigid 165 66 5-6 (17)
Space Panel
Netherlands
Agencia DSA/1A
Espacial Civil Deployed Rigid 107 7.2 7-9 (18)
Ecuatoriana
29
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Flexible PV
ROSA 100 1000 5** (21)
blanket
Redwire
Space
Aladdin Hybrid Array:
80 300 5-6
SmallSat Array Flex Rigid
CubeSat GaAs
Nanoavionics Deployed Rigid Unk Unk 7-9 (89)
Solar Panel
* Available with Inquiry to Manufacturer
** For smallsat use
30
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
University of Oklahoma. The authors found promising thin film solar material using Cu(In,Ga)Se2
(CIGS) solar cells with record power conversion efficiencies up to 22.7% (24).
3.3.3 Organic Solar Cells
Another on the horizon photovoltaic technology uses organic or “plastic” solar cells. These use
organic electronics or organic polymers and molecules that absorb light and create a
corresponding charge. A small quantity of these materials can absorb a large amount of light
making them cheap, flexible and lightweight.
Toyobo Co., Ltd. and the French government research institute CEA have succeeded in making
trial organic photovoltaic (OPV) small cells on a glass substrate. Trial OPV modules on a
lightweight and thin PET (polyethylene terephthalate) film substrate were demonstrated during
their joint research project. Toyobo and CEA succeeded in making the OPV small cells on a glass
substrate with the world’s top-level conversion efficiency by optimizing the solvents and coating
technique. In a verification experiment under neon lighting with 220 lux, equivalent to the
brightness of a dark room, the trial product was confirmed to have attained a conversion efficiency
of about 25%, or 60% higher than that of amorphous silicon solar cells commonly used for desktop
calculators (25).
In October 2016, the Optical Sensors based on carbon materials (OSCAR) stratospheric-balloon
flight test demonstrated organic-based solar cells for the first time in a stratospheric environment.
While more analysis is needed for terrestrial or space applications, it was concluded that organic
solar energy has the potential to disrupt “conventional” photovoltaic technology (26). Since then,
a joint collaborative agreement between the German Aerospace Center and the Swedish National
Space Board REXUS/BEXUS has made the balloon payload available for European university
student experiments collaborating with European Space Agency (ESA) (27).
No standardized stability tests are yet available for organic-based solar cell technology, and
challenges remain in creating simultaneous environmental influences that would permit in-depth
understanding of organic photovoltaic behavior, but these achievements are enabling progress in
organic-based solar cell use. In 2018, Chinese researchers in organic photovoltaics were able to
reach 17% power conversion energy using a tandem cell strategy. This method uses different
layers of material that can absorb different wavelengths of sunlight, which enable the cells to use
more of the sunlight spectrum, which has limited the performance of organic cells (28).
3.3.4 Fuel Cells
Hydrogen fuel cells are appealing due to their small, light and reliable qualities, and high energy
conversion efficiency. They also allow missions to launch with a safe, storable, low pressure and
non-toxic fuel source. An experimental fuel cell from the University of Illinois that is based on
hydrogen peroxide rather than water has demonstrated an energy density of over 1000 Wh kg -1
with a theoretical limit of over 2580 Wh kg-1 (29). This makes them more appealing for
interplanetary missions and during eclipse periods, however unlike chemical cells, they cannot be
recharged on orbit. Carrying a large fuel tank is not feasible for small or nanosatellite missions.
Regenerative fuel cells are currently being researched for spacecraft application. Today, fuel cells
are primarily being proposed for small spacecraft propulsion systems rather than for power sub-
systems (30).
3.3.5 Nuclear Power
Another source of spacecraft power comes from harnessing the energy released during
radioactive decay. Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) are associated with longer
lifetimes, high reliability, predictable power production, and are more appealing beyond Mars orbit
31
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(>3 AU) than relying on batteries and solar panels. Unlike fuel cells, an RTG may operate
continuously for decades without refueling. A full-sized RTG, such as on New Horizons, has a
mass of 56 kg and can supply 300 W (6.3% efficiency) at the beginning of its life (31). Additionally,
the Perseverance rover is being powered by a nuclear energy system known as Multi-Mission
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG) (90).
In addition to power generation, radioactive decay can also aid in offsetting the power
requirements of SmallSats, allowing for smaller sized power generation and storage subsystems.
Heaters are often one of the most power-hungry subsystems in space missions. An example of
this is the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter which uses 90% of its power to heat its batteries and
electronics. Radioisotopic Heater Units (RHUs) generate heat through the decay of plutonium-
238 and can be used to keep SmallSat equipment warm, decreasing the load that conventional
heaters have on the SmallSat electrical power system (32).
Although a radioisotope power system has not yet been integrated on a small spacecraft and may
present challenges for SmallSats with limited mass and power requirements, options for nuclear
power generation might be considered in the future (e.g., for small spacecraft missions that
traverse interplanetary space). This concept would require substantial testing and modified
fabrication techniques to facilitate use on smaller platforms. There are limits placed on the amount
or mass of a radioisotope that can be used in a spacecraft before special handling and procedures
are required. These limits are determined by values for specific types of radioactive material, but
spacecraft designers should note that radioactivity levels below these values can be flown in
spacecraft without any special handling. NASA/TM—2018-219940 gives a summary of low-power
radioisotope-based power sources and acceptable values (91).
3.3.6 TPV
A thermophotovoltaic (TPV) battery consists of a
heat source or thermal emitter and a photovoltaic
cell which transforms photons into electrical energy.
Thermophotovoltaic power converters are similar to
high TRL thermoelectric converters, but the latter
uses thermocouples and the former uses infrared-
tuned photovoltaic cells.
A planar TPV system with very high efficiency and
output power has been numerically demonstrated at
near-field at large vacuum gaps, illustrated in figure
3.2. As a performance example, the 50 W scale-up
TPV power supply with 1.5 kg of fuel has a projected
weight specific energy density of 645 Wh kg -1. This
is 4 times larger than for a Li-ion battery (33).
3.3.7 Alpha- and Beta-voltaics
Alpha- and beta-voltaic power conversion systems
use a secondary material to absorb the energetic
particles and re-emit them via luminescence. These
photons can then be absorbed by photovoltaic cells.
Methods for retrieving electrical energy from
radioactive sources include beta-voltaic, alpha-
voltaic, thermophotovoltaic, piezoelectric and
32
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
33
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
250 222
205
182 187 193
200
160
150
105 114
100 70
50
Figure 3.3: Battery cell energy density. Credit: The Aerospace Corporation.
34
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
28V Modular
Ibeos
Battery
151.1 109.8 9.82 20 * N/A (45)
4.5 – Cont.
Saft VES16 4S1P 109.2 91 4.5 SAFT Li-ion 7-9 (46)
9 - Pulse
Vectronic
10 – Cont.
Aerospace VLB-X 101.96 74.6 12 SAFT Li-Ion 7-9 (47)
20 - Pulse
GmbH
BAT-110 Modular
Berlin Space
Battery (Nominal 69.73 57.75 7.5 3 Li-Fe 7-9 (48)
Technologies
3 strings)
35
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
36
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The chemistry and cell design impacts the volumetric and specific energy densities. This limit
represents the total amount of energy available per unit volume or weight, respectively. Current
top of the line Li-ion energy cells exhibit ~270 Wh kg-1. Li-ion batteries exhibit lower energy
densities due to inclusion of a battery management system (BMS), interconnects, and sometimes
thermal regulation.
There are generally two groups of cells – high energy or high power. High power cells use a low
resistance design, such as increasing coating surface area, or multiple points of contact for the
current collector to cell which can allow for lower overall resistance values and a higher rate of
discharge. High energy cells work to optimize gravimetric energy densities to obtain the most
energy from the cell. Some common methods to increase gravimetric energy densities are via
addition of silicon to the anode, use of high voltage cathodes, or using a metallic lithium anode.
However, these methods can significantly reduce the cyclability of the battery system in exchange
for increased energy density.
In general, for space applications, high energy density is important because a battery with high
gravimetric energy density will be cheaper to launch into orbit (higher battery capacity per unit
mass). However, for some high pulse applications, high power cells would meet mission needs
with less weight. However, energy density is not the only factor to look into during cell selection.
For non-space commercial applications, faster degradation (lower cyclability) of the battery can
be beneficial as the electronic device often lasts as long as the battery, and faster turnover of a
device may lead to increased revenue.
While space-designed cells typically underperform in energy density, they over-perform in
cyclability with many space-designed cells used for longer (~5-15 year) missions. Of a limited
number of COTS cells tested, NASA results for 40% low-Earth orbit testing showed that the LG
MJ1 provides the best cyclability compared to some of its peers for 1500 cycles (61). However,
not all degradation modes for lithium-ion trend in a linear fashion, and trends often take time to
settle, thus the test results don’t necessarily show the best performing cell until others are further
along in testing.
Due to the extremely short mission durations with primary cells, the current state-of-the-art energy
storage systems use lithium ion (Li-ion) or lithium polymer (LiPo) secondary cells, so this
subsection will focus only on these electrochemical compositions, with some exceptions.
3.4.1 Secondary Li-ion and Li-po Batteries
Typically, Li-ion cells deliver an average voltage of 3.6 V, while the highest specific energy
obtained is well in excess of 150 Wh kg -1 (37). Unlike electronics, battery cells do not typically
show significant damage or capacity losses due to radiation. However, in an experiment done by
JPL, some capacity loss is seen among these latest lithium ion battery cells under high dosage
of Cobalt-60. The results are shown below in figure 3.4 (62).
In Lithium-ion batteries, repeated charging cycles of the battery eventually result in aging or
degradation that affects the overall energy (Watt-hours) that the battery may provide. There are
many variables that impact aging, such as temperature, charge/discharge rate, depth of
discharge, storage conditions, etc. Due to the numerous variables that impact aging, lithium-ion
batteries are typically put under life test in mission conditions prior to launch to ensure the battery
will meet the specific mission life requirements.
37
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
18650 Cells
18650 cylindrical cells (18 x 65 mm) have been an industry standard for lithium ion battery cells.
Many manufacturers have staple high-performance 18650 cells, some of which have flown on
multiple spacecraft and are documented in table 3-5 below.
38
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Cylindrical 18650s have become the most commonly used building blocks for many SmallSats
today, although prismatic and pouch formats are also available. The lithium-ion industry has seen
incremental increases in energy density via inclusion of silicon in the anode, high voltage
cathodes, new electrolyte additives, and improved cell designs.
21700 Cells
21700 (21 x 70 mm) is another type of cylindrical cells that are getting more popular. Samsung
50E and LG M50 both offer 5000 mA h of energy while the Samsung cells are slightly heavier.
The specific energy densities are 262 Wh kg -1 and 264 Wh kg-1 respectively. Although 21700 cells
are slightly larger than 18650 cells, they are among some of the cells with highest energy
densities. They could offer some mechanical packaging benefits with fewer cells for certain
missions.
4680 Cells
4680 cells (46 x 80 mm) cylindrical cells are a form factor of battery cell that has been introduced
to the energy storage scene by Tesla. The larger format cell potentially exacerbates several of
the thermal management drawbacks (particularly internal temperature gradients and
heterogeneity in current distribution) associated with other common smaller cells, however in
order to address these drawbacks, Tesla has a “tabless current collection” method where the
current collector foil is used in conjunction with an array of current collectors to reduce ohmic
losses and the temperature increases that those losses can cause (63).
When it comes to the manufacturing of Li-ion batteries and battery cells, these companies are at
the forefront for their respective sectors listed in table 3-6.
Sony Japan
39
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
40
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
in some applications. Figure 3.6 shows a comparison chart (68), and table 3-4 lists differences in
Li-ion batteries and supercapacitors (69).
Efficiency (%) 75 – 90 98
Life (years) 5 – 10 10 – 15
41
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Overload pb yes no
The lithium ion capacitor is a promising recent development in the world of energy storage,
combining the energy storage capabilities of both lithium ion batteries as well as double layered
capacitors, providing a middle ground between power density and energy density, but suffers
from a limited cycle life. Some lithium ion capacitors have a minimum specific energy of 200 Wh
kg-1 but are limited by a maximum specific power of <350 W kg-1 (88).
3.5.2 Solid State Batteries
A majority of the batteries being used in contemporary space applications are lithium ion batteries
that use liquid electrolytes, however these batteries carry an inherent risk of combustion from
physical damage as well as thermal runaway due to overcharge. As a result, spacecraft often
carry parasitic weight in the form of cooling systems and housing units. Interest in battery designs
that solve the issue of safety and improve on energy and power density have been an industry
topic for a long time, ultimately leading the way to NASA’s SABER (Solid-state Architecture
Batteries for Enhanced Rechargeability and Safety) project which aims to create solid state
batteries that have significantly higher energy than current state of the art lithium-ion batteries
and would not catch fire or lose capacity over time. Current strides in this project include
examination and testing on unique battery chemistries including sulfur-selenium and “holey
graphene” (70).
42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
43
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
22-34 / 5 / 8/ 12
AAC Clyde Space Starbuck Mini 5.90 13133 1200 * / 15
* 9 (73)
3.3 / 5 / 12 /
DHV EPS Module 0.177 1530 56 4.5-28 93 9 (77)
Batt
Extreme
Engineering XPM-2020 0.660 400 300 22-29 3.3 / 5 / 12 / -12 90 N/A (78)
Solutions (X-ES)
3.3 / 5 / 6-12 /
EnduroSat EPS II 1.280 * 250 10-36
Batt
* 9 (81)
44
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
45
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
3.8 Summary
Driven by weight and mostly size limitations, small spacecraft are using advanced power
generation and storage technology such as >32% efficient solar cells and lithium-ion batteries.
The higher risk tolerance of the small spacecraft community has allowed both the early adoption
of technologies like flat lithium-polymer cells, as well as COTS products not specifically designed
for spaceflight. This can dramatically reduce cost and increase mission-design flexibility. In this
way, power subsystems are benefiting from the current trend of miniaturization in the commercial
electronics market as well as from improvements in photovoltaic and battery technology.
Despite these developments, the small spacecraft community has been unable to use other, more
complex technologies. This is largely because the small spacecraft market is not yet large enough
to encourage the research and development of technologies like miniaturized nuclear energy
sources. Small spacecraft power subsystems would also benefit from greater availability of
flexible, standardized power management and distribution systems so that every mission need
not be designed from scratch. In short, today’s power systems engineers are eagerly adopting
certain innovative Earth-based technology (like lithium polymer batteries) while, at the same time,
46
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
patiently waiting for important heritage space technology (like fuel cells and RTGs) to be adapted
and miniaturized. Despite the physical limitations and technical challenges these power
generation technologies have, most small and nanosatellites in the foreseeable future will still
likely carry batteries to support the transient load.
For feedback solicitation, please email: [email protected]. Please include a business
email so someone may contact you further.
References
(1) Alia-Novobilski, M. "Advanced Multi-junction Solar Cells Deliver High Efficiency, Reduced
Costs for Space." [Online] Jan 4, 2018. [Cited: July 15, 2018.] https://phys.org/news/2018-
01-advanced-multi-junction-solar-cells-high.html#jCp.
(2) Green, M. A. "Third Generation Photovoltaics: Advanced Solar Energy Conversion."
Springer. Vol. 12. 2003.
(3) AzurSpace. "Space Products, Solar Cells." [Online] 2020. [Accessed: May 15, 2021.]
http://www.azurspace.com/index.php/en/products/products-space/space-solar-cells
(4) EMCORE. BTJ Space Solar CelLS. 2015.
(5) SpectroLab. [Online] May 16, 2020. [Accessed: May 16, 2021.]
https://www.spectrolab.com/photovoltaics/XTE-
SF%20Data%20Sheet%20_12.23.19.pdf.
(6) SpectroLab. 30.7% Triple Junction Space Grade Solar Cell. [Online] 2018. [Cited: July 15,
2018.] https://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/cells/XTJ_Prime_Data_Sheet_7-28-
2016.pdf.
(7) SpectroLab. Datasheet, "Ultra Triple Junction (UTJ) Cells". [Online] 2018. [Accessed: July
16, 2021.]
http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/cells/2015%20UTJ%20CIC%20Datsheet.pdf
(8) SpectroLab. Datasheet, " Triangular Advanced Solar Cells (TASC)." [Online] Accessed
July 16, 2021. https://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/PV/PV_NM_TASC_ITJ.pdf
(9) SpectroLab. Datasheet, "26.8% Improved Triple Junction (ITJ) Solar Cells." [Online]
Accessed: July 16, 2021.
(10) SolAero. "Space Solar Cells/CICs." [Online]. 2020. Accessed: June 30, 2021.
https://solaerotech.com/space-solar-cells-cics/
(11) AAC Clyde Space. Datasheet, “Photon.” [Online]. Accessed: July 17, 2021.
https://www.aac-clyde.space/assets/000/000/078/PHOTON_original.pdf?1564954830
(12) Blue Canyon Technologies. Datasheet, "Power Systems." [Online] Accessed: July 19,
2021.
https://www.bluecanyontech.com/static/datasheet/BCT_DataSheet_Components_Power
Systems.pdf
(13) DHV Technology. Products - Solar Panels for CubeSats. [Online] 2020.
https://dhvtechnology.com/products
(14) Exoterra. Fold Out Solar Arrays (FOSA) Datasheet [Online].
https://exoterracorp.com/products/power/
(15) MMA. HAWK (PAT.) CUBESAT SOLAR ARRAYS. 2015.
47
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(16) MMA_Design. rHaWK Solar Array. [Online] May 16, 2020. [Cited: May 16, 2020.]
https://mmadesignllc.com/product/r-hawk-solar-array/.
(17) Airbus Defense and Space Netherlands: Datasheet, “Sparkwing: The plug and play
solution in power your small satellite.” [Online] Accessed: July 16, 2021.
https://sparkwing.space/
(18) Agencia Espacial Civil Ecuatoriana. Datasheet, “DSA: 1U Deployable Solar Arrays.”
[Online] Accessed: July 18, 2021. https://satsearch.co/products/exa-1u-deployable-solar-
panels-dsa-1a
(19) GomSpace Datasheet, “Nanopower Deployable Solar Panel for 3U or 6U satellite.”
[Online] Accessed: July 18, 2021.
https://gomspace.com/UserFiles/Subsystems/datasheet/GS-DS-
NanoPower_DSP_1018088_25.pdf
(20) Innovative Solutions in Space: “Small satellite solar panels.” 2021. [Online] Accessed: July
18, 2021. https://www.isispace.nl/product/isis-cubesat-solar-panels/
(21) Redwire Space. “Redwire’s Innovative Solar Array Technology Powering the Future of
Space Exploration.” May 25, 2021. [Online] Accessed: July 18, 2021.
https://redwirespace.com/2021/05/25/redwires-innovative-solar-array-technology-
powering-the-future-of-space-exploration/
(22) Seeger, Daniel. "Fraunhofer ISE Announces 33% Efficiency for Multi-junction Solar Cell.
[Online] 2018. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/04/04/fraunhofer-ise-announces-33-
efficiency-for-multi-junction-solar-cell/
(23) King, R. "Raising the Efficiency Ceiling in Multijunction Solar Cells.” Stanford Photonics
Research Center Symposium, 2009. 2015.
(24) Brown, Collin, et al. "An Investigation of Flexible Cu(In,Ga)Se2 Solar Cells Under Low
Intensity Low Temperature for Potential Applications for Outer Planetary Missions." IEEE
Journal of Photovoltaics. 2019.
(25) Toyobo Co., Ltd. "Toyobo to practicalize power-generating material for organic
photovoltaics with world’s top-level conversion efficiency under room light." May 23, 2020.
(26) Cardinaletti, I., et al. "Organic and Perovskite Solar Cells for Space Applications." Solar
Energy Materials and Solar Cells, p. 182. 2018.
(27) Nagels, S. "OSCAR: the First Hasselt University Aerospace Project." 2020.
(28) Meng, Lingxian, et al. "Organic and Solution-processed Tandem Solar Cells with 17.3%
efficiency." 6407, Vol. 361. 2018.
(29) N. Luo et al. “Hydrogen-Peroxide-Based Fuel Cells for Space Power Systems.” Vol. 24,
no. 3. 2008.
(30) Ethier, V, et al. “Development of a CubeSat Water-Electrolysis Propulsion System.” 2013.
(31) “Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Program.” National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. 2015.
(32) Light-Weight Radioisotope Heater Unit | Thermal Systems –. (n.d.). NASA RPS:
Radioisotope Power Systems, from https://rps.nasa.gov/power-and-thermal-
systems/thermal-systems/light-weight-radioisotope-heater-unit/
48
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(33) Joannopoulos, Aristeidis Karalis and J. D.. "‘Squeezing’ near-field thermal emission for
ultra-efficient high-power thermophotovoltaic conversion." 2016.
(34) Nighttime Photovoltaic Cells: Electrical Power Generation by Optically Coupling with Deep
Space. Tristan Deppe and Jeremy N. Munday. ACS Photonics 2020 7 (1), 1-9. DOI:
10.1021/acsphotonics.9b00679
(35) EnduroSat. CubeSat 3U Solar Panel X/Y MTQ. [Online] 2017.
https://www.endurosat.com/products/cubesat-3u-solar-panel-x-y-mtq/
(36) Nelson, R. A.: "Spacecraft Battery Technology." 1999.
(37) Jung, D. S. and Manzo, M. A.. "NASA Aerospace Flight Battery Program.” NASA/TM-
2010-216728/Vol I. 2010.
(38) Eagle Pitcher. LP34100 Datasheet [Online]
https://www.eaglepicher.com/sites/default/files/LP34100%205Ah%20021820.pdf
(39) EaglePitcher Technologies. “Lithium-Ion Space Battery.” Data Sheet
Catalog_Part2_Part5. Page 21
(40) EaglePitcher Technologies. LP33330 Datasheet [Online]
https://www.eaglepicher.com/sites/default/files/LP%2033330%206Ah%20Space%20Cell
%200319.pdf
(41) EaglePitcher Technologies. LP32975 Datasheet [Online]
https://www.eaglepicher.com/sites/default/files/LP%2032975%2012%20Ah%20Space%
20Cell%20%20040219.pdf
(42) GomSpace. Datasheet, “NanoPower BPX.” [Online]. Accessed: July 19, 2021.
https://gomspace.com/shop/subsystems/power/nanopower-bpx.aspx
(43) GomSpace. Datasheet, “NanoPower BP4.” [Online]. Accessed: July 19, 2021.
https://gomspace.com/shop/subsystems/power/nanopower-bp4.aspx
(44) AAC Clyde Space. Datasheet, “Optimus Battery.” July 28. 2020.
(45) Ibeos. Cubesat Product Overview. [Online] 2020. Accessed: July 16, 2021.
https://ibeos.com/products.html.
(46) Saft. 4s1p VES16 Battery [Online]. 2019. https://www.saftbatteries.com/products-
solutions/products/4s1p-ves16-battery
(47) Vectronic Aerospace. Li-Ion Battery Block VLB-4/ -8 /-16. 2014.[Online] Accessed July 18,
2021. https://satsearch.co/products/vectronic-aerospace-li-ion-battery-block-vlb-4-8-16
(48) Berlin Space Technologies. BCT 110 Datasheet.
(49) Samsung. INR18650-35E Datasheet [Online]. Accessed: July 18, 2021.
https://www.orbtronic.com/content/samsung-35e-datasheet-inr18650-35e.pdf
(50) Sony: Murata. US18650VC7 Battery Datasheet [Online]. Accessed: July 18, 2021.
https://www.batterypacks.com/content/sony_us18650vc7.pdf
(51) Panasonic. NCR18650B Datasheet [Online].
https://www.orbtronic.com/content/NCR18650B-Datasheet-Panasonic-Specifications.pdf
49
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
50
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
51
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Contents
Glossary ...........................................................................................................................ii
4.0 In-Space Propulsion ............................................................................................ 52
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 52
4.1.1 Document Organization ............................................................................. 53
4.2 Public Data Sources and Disclaimers .............................................................. 53
4.3 Definitions ........................................................................................................ 54
4.4 Technology Maturity ......................................................................................... 54
4.4.1 Application of the TRL Scale to Small Spacecraft Propulsion Systems ..... 54
4.4.2 Progress Toward Mission Infusion (PMI) ................................................... 55
4.5 Overview of In-Space Propulsion Technology Types ....................................... 58
4.6 State-of-the-Art in Small Spacecraft Propulsion ............................................... 60
4.6.1 In-Space Chemical Propulsion .................................................................. 60
4.6.2 In-Space Electric Propulsion...................................................................... 73
4.6.3 In-Space Propellant-less Propulsion .......................................................... 92
References .................................................................................................................. 106
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Glossary
iii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
iv
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
52
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Document Organization
This chapter organizes the state-of-the-art in small spacecraft propulsion into the following
categories:
1. In-Space Chemical Propulsion (4.6.1)
2. In-Space Electric Propulsion (4.6.2)
3. In-Space Propellant-less Propulsion (4.6.3)
Each of these categories is further subdivided by the prevailing technology types. The subsections
organize data on each prevailing technology type as follows:
a. Technology Description
b. Key Integration and Operational Considerations
c. Current & Planned Missions
d. Summary Table of Devices
e. Notable Advancements
The organizational approach introduces newcomers to each technology, presents technology-
specific integration and operation concerns for the reader’s awareness, highlights recent or
planned missions that may raise the TRL of specific devices, and finally tabulates procurable
devices of each technology. Some sections further include an incomplete list of highlights of
notable advancements. While the key integration and operational considerations are not all-
inclusive, they provide initial insights that may influence propulsion system selection. In the cases
where a device has significant flight heritage, this chapter reviews only select missions.
4.2 Public Data Sources and Disclaimers
This chapter is a survey of small spacecraft propulsion technologies as discussed in open
literature and does not endeavor to be an original source. As such, this chapter only considers
literature found in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for
public data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers,
public filings with government agencies, and news articles.
This chapter summarizes device performance, capabilities, and flight history, as presented in
publicly available literature. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary,
export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As such, actual device maturity
and flight history may be more extensive than what is documented herein. Device manufacturers
should be consulted for the most up-to-date and relevant data before performing a TMA.
This chapter’s primary data source is literature produced by device manufacturers. Unless
otherwise published, do not assume independent verification of device performance and
capabilities. Performance and capabilities described may be speculative or otherwise based on
limited data.
The information described below is not intended to be exhaustive but to provide a general
overview of current state-of-the-art technologies and their development status. It should be noted
that technology maturity designations may vary with change to payload, mission requirements,
reliability considerations, and/or the environment in which performance was demonstrated.
Readers are highly encouraged to reach out to companies for further information regarding the
performance and maturity of the described technology. There is no intention of mentioning certain
companies and omitting others based on their technologies or relationship with NASA.
Suggestions or corrections to this document should be submitted to the NASA Small Spacecraft
Virtual Institute [email protected] for consideration prior to the
53
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
publication of future issues. When submitting comments, please cite appropriate publicly
accessible references. Private correspondence is not considered an adequate reference.
4.3 Definitions
• Device refers to a component, subsystem, or system, depending on the context.
• Technology refers to a broad category of devices or intangible materials, such as
processes.
4.4 Technology Maturity
Application of the TRL Scale to Small Spacecraft Propulsion Systems
NASA has a well-established guideline for performing TMAs, described in detail in the NASA
Systems Engineering Handbook (1). A TMA determines a device’s technological maturity, which
is usually communicated according to the NASA TRL scale. The TRL scale is defined in NASA
Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7123 (2). The NASA Systems Engineering Handbook and NPR
7123 can be accessed through the NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS) library.
Assessment of TRLs for components, systems, or software allows for coherent communication
between technologists, program managers, and other stakeholders regarding the maturity of a
technology. Furthermore, TRL is a valuable tool to communicate the potential risk associated with
the infusion of technologies into programs. For TRLs to be applied across all technology
categories, the NASA TRL definitions are written broadly and rely on subject matter experts (SME)
in each discipline to interpret appropriately.
Recently, U.S. Government propulsion SMEs suggested an interpretation of the TRL scale
specifically for micro-propulsion. The Micro-Propulsion Panel of the JANNAF Spacecraft
Propulsion Subcommittee in 2019 published the JANNAF Guidelines for the Application of
Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) to Micro-Propulsion Systems (3). This guideline suggests
an interpretation of TRL for micro-propulsion and reflects both NASA and DOD definitions for
TRL. The JANNAF panel consisted of participants from the Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL), Glenn Research Center (GRC), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and Goddard Space
Flight Center (GSFC). The panel further received feedback from the non-Government propulsion
community. While this JANNAF guideline focuses on micro-propulsion (e.g., for CubeSats), the
guideline still has relevance to rigorously assessing TRLs for the more general category of small
spacecraft in-space propulsion. By establishing a common interpretation of TRL for small
spacecraft propulsion, a more coherent and consistent communication of technology maturity can
occur between small spacecraft propulsion providers and stakeholders. The JANNAF guideline
is open to unlimited distribution and may be requested from the Johns Hopkins University
Energetics Research Group (JHU ERG). Ensure the use of the latest JANNAF guideline, as the
guideline is anticipated to evolve with further community input.
A fundamental limitation of the JANNAF guideline for TRL assessment, and TMA in general, is
an assumption of in-depth technical knowledge of the subject device. In the absence of detailed
technical knowledge, especially in a broad technology survey as presented herein, a TMA may
be conducted inaccurately or inconsistently. Furthermore, assessment of TRL assumes an
understanding of the end-user application. The same device may be concluded to be at different
TRLs for infusion into different missions. For example, a device may be assessed at a high TRL
for application to low-cost small spacecraft in low-Earth orbits, while assessed at a lower TRL for
application to geosynchronous communication satellites or NASA interplanetary missions due to
different mission requirements. Differences in TRL assessment based on the operating
environment may result from considerations such as thermal environment, mechanical loads,
mission duration, or radiation exposure. Propulsion-specific variances between missions might
54
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
include propellant type, total propellant throughput, throttle set-points, burn durations, and the
total number of on/off cycles. As such, an accurate TRL assessment not only requires an in-depth
technical understanding of a device’s development history, including specifics on past flight-
qualification activities, but also an understanding of mission-specific environments and interfaces.
The challenge of assessing an accurate TRL in a broad technology survey poses a significant
burden for data collection, organization, and presentation. Such activities are better suited for the
programs seeking to infuse new technologies into their missions.
Given the rapid evolution of small spacecraft propulsion technologies and the variety of mission
environments, as well as generally limited device technical details in open literature, the
propulsion chapter implements a novel system to classify technical maturity according to Progress
toward Mission Infusion (PMI). This novel classification system is not intended to replace TRL but
is a complementary tool to provide initial insight into device maturity when it is not feasible to
accurately and consistently apply the TRL scale. This novel classification system is discussed in
detail below.
Readers using this survey are strongly encouraged to perform more in-depth technical research
on candidate devices based on the most up-to-date information available, as well as to assess
risk within the context of their specific mission(s). A thoughtful TMA based on the examination of
detailed technical data through consultation with device manufactures can reduce program risk
and in so doing increase the likelihood of program success. This survey is not intended to replace
the readers’ own due diligence. Rather, this survey and PMI seek to provide early insights that
may assist in propulsion system down-select to a number of devices where an in-depth TMA
becomes feasible.
Progress Toward Mission Infusion (PMI)
Rather than directly assessing a device’s technical maturity via TRL, propulsion devices described
herein are classified according to evidence of progress toward mission infusion. This is a novel
classification system first introduced in this survey. Assessing the PMI of devices in a broad
survey, where minimal technical insight is available, may assist with down-selecting propulsion
devices early in mission development. Once a handful of devices are selected for further
consideration, an in-depth technical examination of the selected devices may be more practical
to conduct a TMA and rigorously assess TRL. The PMI classification system sorts devices into
one of four broad technology development categories: Concept, In-Development, Engineering-to-
Flight, and Flight-Demonstrated. The following sections describe the PMI classification system in-
detail. Furthermore, figure 4.1 summarizes the PMI classifications.
Concept, ‘C’
The Concept classification reflects devices in an early stage of development, characterized by
feasibility studies and the demonstration of fundamental physics. Concept devices typically align
with the NASA TRL range of 1 to 3. At a minimum, these devices are established as scientifically
feasible, perhaps through a review of relevant literature and/or analytical analysis. These devices
may even include experimental verification that supports the validity of the underlying physics.
These devices may even include notional designs. While Concept devices are generally not
reviewed herein, particularly promising Concept devices will be classified in tables with a ‘C’.
In-Development, ‘D’
The In-Development classification reflects the bulk of devices being actively matured and covered
in this survey, where only a modest number of devices may progress to regular spaceflight. In-
Development devices typically align with the NASA TRL range of 4 to 5. While In-Development
55
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
devices may have specific applications attributed by their developers, no selection for a specific
mission has been publicly announced. In the absence of a specific mission, device development
activities typically lack rigorous system requirements and a process for independent requirement
validation. Furthermore, qualification activities conducted in the absence of a specific mission
typically require a delta-qualification to address mission-specific requirements. At a minimum, In-
Development devices are low-fidelity devices that have been operated in an appropriate
environment to demonstrate basic functionality and support prediction of the device’s ultimate
capabilities. They may even be medium- or high-fidelity devices operated in a simulated final
environment, but lacking a specific mission pull to define requirements and a qualification
program. They may even be medium- or high-fidelity devices operated in a spaceflight
demonstration but lacking sufficient fidelity or demonstrated capability to reflect the anticipated
final product. These devices are typically described as a technology push, rather than a mission
pull. In-Development devices will be classified in tables with a ‘D’.
Engineering-to-Flight, ‘E’
The Engineering-to-Flight classification reflects devices with a publicly announced spaceflight
opportunity. This classification does not necessarily imply greater technical maturity than the In-
Development classification, but it does assume the propulsion device developer is receiving
mission-specific requirements to guide development and qualification activities. Furthermore, the
Engineering-to-Flight classification assumes a mission team performed due diligence in the
selection of a propulsion device, and the mission team is performing regular activities to validate
that the propulsion system requirements are met. Thus, while the PMI classification system does
not directly assess technical maturity, there is an underlying assumption of independent validation
of mission-specific requirements, where a mission team does directly consider technical maturity
in the process of device selection and mission infusion. Engineering-to-Flight devices typically
align with the NASA TRL range of 5 to 6. At a minimum, these are medium-fidelity devices that
have been operated in a simulated final environment and demonstrate key capabilities relative to
the requirements of a specific mission. These devices may even be actively undergoing or have
completed a flight qualification program. These devices may even include a spaceflight, but in
which key capabilities failed to be demonstrated or further engineering is required. These devices
may even include a previously successful spaceflight, but the devices are now being applied in
new environments or platforms that necessitate design modifications and/or delta-qualification.
These devices must have a specific mission pull documented in open literature. A design
reference mission (DRM) may be considered in place of a specific mission pull, given detailed
documentation in open literature, which includes a description of the DRM, well-defined
propulsion system requirements, maturation consistent with the DRM requirements, and evidence
of future mission need. Engineering-to-Flight devices will be classified in tables with an ‘E’.
Flight-Demonstrated, ‘F’
The Flight-Demonstrated classification reflects devices where a successful technology
demonstration or genuine mission has been conducted and described in open literature. Flight-
Demonstrated devices typically align with the NASA TRL range of 7 to 9. These devices are high-
fidelity components or systems (in fit, form, and function) that have been operated in the target
in-space environment (i.e., low-Earth orbit, GEO, deep space) on an appropriate platform, where
all key capabilities were successfully demonstrated. These devices may even be final products,
which have completed genuine missions (not simply flight demonstrations). These devices may
even be in repeat production and routine use for several missions. The devices must be described
in open literature as successfully demonstrating key capabilities in the target environment to be
considered Flight-Demonstrated. If a device has flown, but the outcome is not publicly known, the
56
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 4.1: Progress toward mission infusion (PMI) device classifications. Credit: NASA.
57
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
58
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
the spacecraft. As such, it is logical to describe highly integrated propulsion units at the system
level, whereas components of distributed propulsion systems may be logically treated at the sub-
system level, where components from a multitude of manufacturers may be mixed-and-matched
to create a unique mission-appropriate propulsion solution.
59
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 4.2: Typical small spacecraft in-space propulsion trade space (thrust vs. specific impulse).
Credit: NASA.
60
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
the use of Self Contained Atmospheric Protective Ensemble (SCAPE) suits. This overhead
increases the ground processing flow of spacecraft and may impose undesirable constraints on
secondary spacecraft. Hydrazine propulsion systems typically incorporate redundant serial valves
to prevent spills or leaks.
Because hydrazine systems are so widely used for larger spacecraft, a robust ecosystem of
components and experience exists, and hydrazine propulsion systems are frequently custom
designed for specific applications using available components. Typically, they also have the
advantage of being qualified for multiple cold starts, which may be beneficial for power-limited
buses if the lifespan of the mission is short.
c. Current & Planned Missions
ArianeGroup has developed a 1-N class hydrazine thruster that has extensive flight heritage,
including use on the ALSAT-2 small spacecraft (5) (6).
Aerojet Rocketdyne has leveraged existing designs with flight heritage from large spacecraft that
may be applicable to small buses, such as the MR-103 thruster used on New Horizons for attitude
control (7). Other Aerojet Rocketdyne thrusters potentially applicable to small spacecraft include
the MR-111 and the MR-106 (8). These thrusters have successfully flown on several missions.
Moog-ISP has extensive experience in the design and testing of propulsion systems and
components for large spacecraft. These may also apply to smaller platforms, as some of their
flight-proven thrusters are lightweight and have moderate power requirements. The MONARC-5
thrusters flew on NASA JPL’s Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) spacecraft in 2015 and
provided 4.5 N of steady state thrust. Other thrusters potentially applicable to small spacecraft
buses include the MONARC-1 and the MONARC-22 series (9).
d. Summary Table of Devices
See table 4-2 for current state-of-the-art hydrazine monopropellant devices applicable to small
spacecraft.
e. Notable Advances
Aerojet Rocketdyne (AR) has developed a new class of green hydrazine propellant blends
providing the low vapor-toxicity and high density- ISP of ionic liquids while retaining the low reaction
and preheat temperatures of traditional hydrazine. This makes it possible to increase both safety
and performance while still using conventional nickel-alloy catalytic thrusters. In testing completed
to date, green hydrazine blends have demonstrated long-term thermal stability/storability, low
shock/impact sensitivity, and good operational stability. Furthermore, they have demonstrated a
100-fold reduction in vapor pressure/toxicity and a similar low-temperature start capability as
compared to pure hydrazine (10). Ongoing development efforts at Aerojet Rocketdyne, NASA
GSFC, and the Aerospace Corporation are on track to advance the technical maturity of green
hydrazine blends to flight-ready status by the end of 2022.
61
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Fueling spacecraft with green propellants, generally permitted as a parallel operation, may require
a smaller exclusionary zone, allowing for accelerated launch readiness operations (14). These
green propellants are also generally less likely to exothermically decompose at room temperature
due to higher ignition thresholds. Therefore, they require fewer inhibit requirements, fewer valve
seats for power, and less stringent temperature storage requirements. The reduced hazard
associated with some of these propellants may enable projects to take a Design for Minimum Risk
(DFMR) approach to address some propulsion system safety concerns, but only with the support
of associated range and payload safety entities.
While there are thrusters that are relatively mature (PMI E/F), incorporating them into propulsion
systems is challenging, and the maturity of stand-alone propulsion systems has lagged the pace
of component development. Historically, research and development efforts, like Small Business
Innovative Research (SBIR) efforts, have focus on component development, and not the entire
system. Efforts are now being made to focus on the development of system solutions. Most of
these non-toxic propellants are still in some phase of development. Additionally, data on the
propellants is also widely restricted. Therefore, a comprehensive, public, peer-reviewed
databased of compatible materials does not currently exist, and would-be system developers
using these propellants may have difficultly accessing such data to guide their efforts.
Other ‘green propellants’ such as Hydrogen Peroxide, High Test Peroxide (HTP), and
HTP/Alcohol bipropellants also have their own unique handling considerations. For instance, HTP
is a strong oxidizer and can exothermically decompose rapidly if improperly stored or handled.
Hydrogen Peroxide, however, has been used as a rocket propellant for many decades, and there
is a lot of information on safe handling, materials selection, and best practices. Electrolyzed water
is another propellant option, wherein water is decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen and
combusted as a traditional bi-propellant thruster. However, generating and managing the power
required to electrolyze the water in a compact spacecraft presents its own unique challenges. Yet
it does provide a safe-to-launch system with very benign constituents.
c. Current & Planned Missions
Planet Labs launched a constellation of Earth
observing satellites, called SkySat. These satellites
are approximately 120 kg, and incorporate the
Bradford-ECAPS HPGP system, a LMP-103S based
system shown in figure 4.3. SkySats 3 – 21 include a
propulsion system using four 1-N thrusters. As of
August 2020, 13 SkySat satellites with the Bradford
ECAPS propulsion system have been launched and Figure 4.3: ECAPS HPGP thruster.
are fully operational (15). Credit: Bradford ECAPS.
Astroscale has built and launched a highly
maneuverable ‘chaser’ SmallSat called ELSA-d. ELSA-d is a twin SmallSat mission which will
demonstrate key rendezvous and docking technologies, and proximity operational concepts in
readiness for providing a commercial deorbit service (16). ELSA-d has an LMP-103S using eight
1-N Bradford ECAPS thrusters to provide both re-orbiting and de-orbiting capability. ELSA-d
launched in March 2021.
63
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
64
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
65
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
66
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
67
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(WFF) into space and the motor was successfully re-fired 5 times. During the tests, 8 N of thrust
and a specific impulse of 215 s were achieved as predicted (34) (35). The Space Dynamics Lab
has miniaturized this technology to be better suited for CubeSat applications (0.25 - 0.5 N). A
qualification unit is currently in development for the miniaturized system.
d. Summary Table of Devices
See table 4-4 for current state-of-the-art hybrid devices applicable to small spacecraft.
e. Notable Advances
Utah State University has an ongoing test series with Nytrox, a blend of nitrous oxide and oxygen,
and ABS. This testing is focused on a 25-50 N system for a 12U sized vehicle and will cumulate
in vacuum testing of the motor at MSFC in 2021. Investigation into different nozzle materials for
low erosion in long duration burns is a key concern (36) (37).
JPL has pursed development of a hybrid propulsion system for 12U CubeSat and a 100 kg
SmallSat. Testing included regression rate characterization of clear and black Poly (Methyl
MethAcrylate) fuels with GOX to be included in propulsion system sizing. Later vacuum testing
included an improvement of the ignition system to a laser operated system that eliminates the
need for a separate ignition fuel gas to be carried (38).
NASA ARC developed a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and nitrous oxide hybrid system that
had ethylene and nitrous oxide thrusters. The ethylene and nitrous oxide also function as the
hybrid ignition source. The hybrid system had a demonstrated efficiency of 91% and calculated
ISP of 247 sec, making it competitive with current small satellite propulsion systems (39) (40).
Aerospace Corporation and Penn State University developed an “Advanced Hybrid Rocket Motor
Propulsion Unit for CubeSats (PUC)”. The design used additive manufacturing techniques for the
carbon filled polyamide structure including the nitrous oxide tank and a paraffin grain within an
acrylic shell, with acrylic diaphragms 3-D printed in-situ in the grain to aid in the performance of
the grain. This design fits in a 1U space, for a 3 to 6U spacecraft (41).
Parabilis Space Technologies has done development work on two small satellite propulsion
systems. Rapid Orbital Mobility Bus (ROMBUS) is a hybrid rocket-based system with nitrous oxide
as the oxidizer and the attitude control system/reaction control system thruster propellant. It
provides high-impulse thrust for satellite translational maneuvers which can be used for initial orbit
insertion, rapid orbit rephasing, threat/collision avoidance, and targeted re-entry at the satellite’s
mission end of life (42). Nano Orbital Transfer System (OTS) is a Hydroxyl-terminated
polybutadiene (HTPB) and nitrous oxide (N2O) hybrid system, with N2O based ACS thrusters.
Nano OTS leverages Parabilis’ proven hybrid engine and small satellite technologies for low-cost,
high performance maneuvers using non-toxic green propellants. The OTS has a modular design,
enabling rapid and low-cost configuration of stages to accommodate 3U size NanoSats up to >50
kg MicroSat size vehicles.
Cold Gas / Warm Gas
a. Technology Description
Cold gas systems are relatively simple systems that provide limited spacecraft propulsion and are
one of the most mature technologies for small spacecraft. Thrust is produced by the expulsion of
a propellant which can be stored as a pressurized gas or a saturated liquid. Warm gas systems,
in which the propellant is heated but there is still no chemical reaction, have been used to increase
thrust and specific impulse. Warm gas systems use the same basic principle as cold gas systems
and have higher performance at the cost of added power requirements to heat the propellant.
68
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Electrothermal systems, a type of warm-gas system where the gas is electrically heated in the
thruster body or nozzle, are described in more detail in the Electric Propulsion section.
b. Key Integration and Operational Considerations
Cold gas thrusters are often attractive and suitable for small buses due to their relatively low cost
and complexity. Many cold gas thrusters use inert, non-toxic propellants, which are an advantage
for secondary payloads that must adopt “do no harm” approaches to primary payloads. Such
systems are well suited to provide attitude control since they technically provide very low minimum
impulse bits for precise maneuvering. However, the low specific impulse of these systems limits
them from providing large orbit correction maneuvers. Recently, new designs have improved the
capability of these systems for nanosatellite buses such as 3U CubeSats.
c. Missions
A cold gas thruster developed by Marotta flew on the NASA ST-5 mission (launch mass 55 kg)
for fine attitude adjustment maneuvers. It incorporates electronic drivers that can operate the
thruster at a power of less than 1 W. It has less than 5 ms of response time and it uses gaseous
nitrogen as propellant (43).
The Micro-Electromechanical-based PICOSAT Satellite
Inspector, or MEPSI, built by the Aerospace Corporation
flew aboard STS-113 and STS-116. The spacecraft
included both target and imaging/inspector vehicles
connected via tether. The two vehicles were 4 x 4 x 5 in3
in volume, each, and had five cold-gas thrusters,
producing ~20 mN. The MEPSI propulsion system was
produced using stereo-lithography. It was suited as a
propulsion research unit for PicoSats (44).
Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. (SSTL) has included a
butane propulsion system in several small spacecraft Figure 4.13: SSTL butane propulsion
missions for a wide range of applications in low-Earth orbit system. Credit: Surrey Satellite
and Medium Earth Orbit (MEO). In this system, propellant Technology, Ltd.
tanks are combined with a resistojet thruster and
operation is controlled by a series of solenoid valves (figure
4.13). It requires power to heat the thruster and improve the
specific impulse performance with respect to the cold gas
mode. (45) (46).
In June 2014, Space Flight Laboratory at University of
Toronto Institute for Aerospace Research (UTIAS)
launched two 15 kg small spacecraft to demonstrate
formation flying. The Canadian Nanosatellite Advanced
Propulsion System (CNAPS), shown in figure 4.14,
consisted of four thrusters fueled with liquid sulfur Figure 4.14: CanX-4 and CanX-5
hexafluoride. This non-toxic propellant was selected formation flying nanosatellites with
because it has high vapor pressure and density, which is CNAPS propulsion systems. Credit:
important for making a self-pressurizing system (47). This UTIAS SFL.
propulsion module is a novel version of the previous
NanoPS that flew on the CanX-2 mission in 2008 (48).
Another flight-demonstrated propulsion system was flown on the POPSAT-HIP1 CubeSat mission
(launched June 2014), which was developed by Microspace Rapid Pte Ltd in Singapore. It
69
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
consisted of a total of eight micro-nozzles that provided control for three rotation axes with a single
axis thrust for translational applications. The total delta-v has been estimated from laboratory data
to be between 2.25 and 3.05 ms-1. Each thruster has 1 mN of nominal thrust by using argon
propellant. An electromagnetic microvalve with a very short opening time of 1 m-s operates each
thruster (49).
Two related butane propulsion systems have been developed by GomSpace: the NanoProp 3U
and NanoProp 6U. Both use proportional thrust control of four nozzles to control spacecraft
attitude while providing delta-v. The 6U configuration was flown on GOMX-4B in 2018 as a
formation flight demonstration (50) (51).
An ACS cold gas propulsion system using R-236fa was produced and tested by Lightsey Space
Research for the NASA ARC BioSentinel mission, a 6U CubeSat scheduled to launch on Artemis
I. This propulsion system uses a 3D-printed propellant tank in order to reduce part count and use
the available volume more efficiently (52) (53).
A complete cold gas propulsion system has been developed for
CubeSats with a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) (figure
4.15) that provides accurate thrust control with four butane
propellant thrusters. While thrust is controlled in a closed loop
system with magnitude readings, each thruster can provide a
thrust magnitude from zero to full capacity (1 mN) with 5-μN
resolution. The dry mass of the system is 0.220 kg and average
power consumption is 2 W during operation (54). This system is
based on flight-proven technology flown on larger spacecraft
(PRISMA mission, launched in 2010). The MEMS cold gas
system was included on the bus of the TW-1 CubeSat, launched
in September 2015 (55).
The CubeSat Proximity Operations Demonstration (CPOD) is a
mission led by Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems (56). It incorporates
a cold gas propulsion system built by VACCO Industries that Figure 4.15: NanoSpace
provides up to 186 N-s of total impulse. This module operates at MEMS cold gas system.
a steady state power of 5 W and delivers 40-s of specific impulse Credit: GomSpace.
while the nominal thrust is 10 mN (57). It uses self-pressurizing
refrigerant R236fa propellant to fire a total of eight thrusters
distributed in pairs at the four corners of the module. It has gone through extensive testing at the
US Air Force Research Lab. Endurance tests consisted of more than 70,000 firings.
JPL is supporting the InSight mission, launched in March 2018, which incorporated two identical
CubeSats as part of the Mars Cube One (MarCO) technology demonstration. These spacecrafts
performed five trajectory correction maneuvers (TCMs) during the mission to Mars. The CubeSats
included an integrated propulsion system developed by VACCO Industries, which contained four
thrusters for attitude control and another four for TCMs. The module uses cold gas refrigerant R-
236FA as propellant, produces 75 N-s of total impulse, and weighs 3.49 kg (58) (59).
NEA Scout is a NASA MSFC mission that is going to be launched as part of Artemis I. For its
main propulsion system, NEA Scout will deploy a sail of 80 m2 with 0.0601-mm s-2 of characteristic
acceleration and will be steered by active mass translation via a VACCO cold gas MiPS (R236FA
propellant). This module is approximately 2U in volume and will use six 23-mN thrusters to provide
30 m s-1 of delta-v (60) (61).
70
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The ThrustMe I2T5 iodine cold gas module, figure 4.16, is the
first iodine propulsion system to be spaceflight tested, on-
board of the Xiaoxiang 1-08 satellite. The demonstration was
the result of a joint collaboration of ThrustMe and Spacety (62)
(63). An I2T5 module is anticipated to launch in 2021 on the
Robusta-3A satellite, developed by CSUM. The Robusta-3A
will carry various scientific payloads related to meteorology
and technology demonstration (64).
d. Summary Table of Devices
See table 4-5 for current state-of-the-art cold gas / warm gas
devices applicable to small spacecraft.
Solid Motors
Figure 4.16: I2T5 Iodine Cold
a. Technology Description Gas Module. Credit: ThrustMe.
Solid rocket technology is typically used for impulsive maneuvers such as orbit insertion or quick
de-orbiting. Due to the solid propellant, they achieve moderate specific impulses and high thrust
magnitudes that are compact and suitable for small buses.
There are some electrically controlled solid thrusters that operate in the milli-newton (mN) range.
These are restartable, have steering capabilities, and are suitable for small spacecraft
applications, unlike larger spacecraft systems that provide too much acceleration.
b. Key Integration and Operational Considerations
Thrust vector control systems can be coupled with existing solid rocket motors to provide
controllable high delta-v in relatively short time. While some solid motors are restartable, in
general solid motors are often considered a single-burn event system. To achieve multiple burns,
the system must be either electrically restartable (aka electric solid propellants), or several small
units must be matrixed into an array configuration. Because electrically controlled solid propellant
(ESPs) are electrically ignited, they are safer than traditional solid energetic propellants.
c. Current & Planned Missions
A flight campaign tested the ability of thrust vector
control systems coupled with solid motors to
effectively control the attitude of small rocket vehicles.
Some of these tests were performed by using state-
of-the-art solid rocket motors such as the ISP 30
developed by Industrial Solid Propulsion and the
STAR 4G by ATK (now: Northrop Grumman) (66).
SpinSat, a 57 kg spacecraft, was deployed from the
International Space Station (ISS) in 2014 and
incorporated a set of first-generation solid motors, the
CubeSat Agile Propulsion System (figure 4.17), which Figure 4.17: SpinSat at the ISS. Credit:
was part of the attitude control system developed by NASA.
Digital Solid State Propulsion LLC (DSSP). The system was based on a set of ESP thrusters that
consist of two coaxial electrodes separated by a thin layer of electric solid propellant. This material
is highly energetic but non-pyrotechnic and is only ignited if an electric current is applied. The
thrust duration can be better controlled and allows for better burn control, and the lack of moving
parts make the system suitable for small spacecraft (67).
71
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
72
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
e. Notable Advances
Northrop Grumman has made advances in development of SmallSat and CubeSat scale
diaphragm propellant tanks using materials with known compatibility with hydrazine and some
green monopropellant fuels (71). Some effort has been made to demonstrate the application of
additive manufacturing to produce tank shells.
In-Space Electric Propulsion
In-space electric propulsion (EP) is any in-space propulsion technology wherein a propellant is
accelerated through the conversion of electrical energy into kinetic energy. The electrical energy
source powering in-space EP is historically solar, therefore these technologies are often referred
to as solar electric propulsion (SEP), although other energy sources are conceivable such as
nuclear reactors or beamed energy. The energy conversion occurs by one of three mechanisms:
electrothermal, electrostatic, or electromagnetic acceleration (112) (113). Each of these
technologies are covered herein.
This survey of the state-of-the-art in EP does not attempt to review all known devices but focuses
on those devices that can be commercially procured or devices that appear on a path toward
commercial availability. The intent is to aid mission design groups and other in-space propulsion
end-users by improving their awareness of the full breadth of potentially procurable EP devices
that may meet their mission requirements.
Metrics associated with the nominal operating condition for each propulsion device are published
herein, rather than metrics for the complete operating range. A focus on the nominal operating
condition was decided to improve comprehension of the data and make initial device comparisons
more straightforward. When a manufacturer has not specifically stated a nominal operating
condition in literature, the manufacturer may have been contacted to determine a recommended
nominal operating condition, otherwise a nominal operating condition was assumed based on
similarity to other devices. For those metrics not specifically found in published literature,
approximations have been made when calculable from available data. Readers are strongly
encouraged to follow the references cited to the literature describing each device’s full
performance range and capabilities.
Electrothermal
a. Technology Description
Electrothermal technologies use electrical energy to increase the enthalpy of a propellant,
whereas chemical technologies rely on exothermal chemical reactions. Once heated, the
propellant is accelerated and expelled through a conventional converging-diverging nozzle to
convert the acquired energy into kinetic energy, like chemical propulsion systems. The specific
impulse achieved with electrothermal devices is typically of similar magnitude as chemical devices
given that both electrothermal and chemical devices are fundamentally limited by the working
temperature limits of materials. However, electrothermal technologies can achieve somewhat
higher specific impulses than chemical systems since they are not subject to the limits of chemical
energy storage.
Electrothermal devices are typically subclassified within one of the following three categories.
1. Resistojet devices employ an electrical heater to raise the temperature of a surface that
in turn increases the bulk temperature of a gaseous propellant.
2. Arcjet devices sustain an electrical arc through an ionized gaseous propellant, resulting in
ohmic heating.
73
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
74
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
c. Missions
The Bradford (formerly Deep Space Industries) Comet
water-based electrothermal propulsion system (figure
4.19) has been implemented by three customers
operating in low-Earth orbit: HawkEye 360, Capella
Space, and BlackSky Global (114). All three missions
employ the same Comet thruster head, while the BlackSky
Global satellites use a larger tank to provide a greater total
impulse capability. The three HawkEye 360 pathfinder
spacecraft employ the Space Flight Laboratory NEMO
platform with each spacecraft measuring 20 x 20 x 44 cm3
with a mass of 13.4 kg (115) (116). The Comet provides
each HawkEye 360 a total delta-v capability of 96 ms-1.
The approximate dimensions of the BlackSky Global Figure 4.19: Comet-1000. Credit:
spacecraft are 55 x 67 x 86 cm3 with a mass of 56 kg (117). Bradford Space.
The Propulsion Unit for CubeSats (PUC) system (118),
figure 4.20, was designed and fabricated by CU
Aerospace LLC (Champaign, IL) and VACCO Industries
under contract with the U.S. Air Force to supply two
government missions (119). The system was acquired for
drag makeup capability to extend asset lifetime in low-
Earth orbit. The system uses SO2 as a self-pressurizing
liquid propellant. The propulsion system electrothermally
heats the propellant using a micro-cavity discharge (MCD)
and expels the propellant through a single nozzle (120). It Figure 4.20: PUC module. Credit: CU
can alternatively use R134a or R236fa propellants, but Aerospace LLC.
only in a cold-gas mode with reduced performance. Eight
(8) flight units were delivered to the Air Force in 2014, though it is unknown if any of the units
have flown.
In 2019, CU Aerospace was selected for a NASA STMD Tipping Point award to design, fabricate,
integrate, and perform mission operations for the DUPLEX 6U CubeSat having two of CU
Aerospace’s micro-propulsion systems on board, one
Monofilament Vaporization Propulsion (MVP) system (121)
(122), figure 4.21, and one Fiber-Fed Pulsed Plasma
Thruster (FPPT) system (123) (124) (125) (126), figure
4.44. The MVP is an electrothermal device that vaporizes
and heats an inert solid polymer propellant fiber to 1100 K.
The coiled solid filament approach for propellant storage
and delivery addresses common propellant safety
concerns, which often limit the application of propulsion on
low-cost CubeSats. In-orbit operations will include
inclination change, orbit raising and lowering, drag
makeup, and deorbit burns demonstrating multiple mission
capabilities with approximately 20 hours of operation for Figure 4.21: MVP module. Credit: CU
MVP and >1,000 hours for FPPT. Launch is anticipated in Aerospace.
mid-2022 (127).
75
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
76
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Feed systems for electrospray technologies can be actively fed via pressurant gas or passively
fed via capillary forces. The ion (high-ISP) or droplet (moderate-ISP) emission can be controlled by
modulation of the high-voltage (i.e., >1 kV) input in a closed-loop feedback system with current
measurements. Stable operations in either emission mode can provide very precise impulse bits.
Propellants that result in both anion and cation emission may not require the presence of a
cathode neutralizer to maintain overall charge balance; such neutralizers are included as part of
the electrospray propulsion system for propellants that only emit positively charged species.
b. Key Integration and Operational Considerations
• Plume Contamination: Because propellants for electrospray propulsion systems are
electrically conductive and condensable as liquids or solids, impingement of the thruster
plume on spacecraft surfaces may lead to electrical shorting and surface contamination
of solar panels and sensitive spacecraft components.
• Propellant Handling and Thruster Contamination: Ionic liquids and metallic propellants
can be sensitive to humidity and oxidation, so care is needed if extended storage prior to
flight is required. Electrospray technologies can also be sensitive to contamination of the
thruster head during propellant loading, ground testing (e.g., backsputter or outgassed
materials from the test facility), and handling (i.e., foreign object debris). Precautions
should be taken to minimize contamination risks from manufacturing, through test, and to
launch. Post-launch, ionic liquids can outgas (e.g., water vapor) when exposed to the
space environment, and such behavior should be accounted for in the mission ConOps.
• Performance Stability and Lifetime: As an electrospray propulsion system operates
over time, the propulsive performance can degrade as the plume impinges upon and
deposits condensable propellant on thruster head surfaces; in time, sufficiently deposited
propellant buildup can electrically short out the thruster electrodes and terminate thruster
operations. Especially for missions with large total impulse requirements, lifetime testing
or validated life models of the electrospray propulsion system in a relevant environment is
important for understanding end-of-life behavior.
• Specific Impulse: Even for electrosprays that principally emit ions, operational thruster
modes and instabilities can result in droplet emission that degrade the specific impulse
and thrust efficiency. Caution is advised when considering claimed specific impulse or
other propulsive properties (e.g., thrust vector and beam divergence) derived from plume
characteristics; verification test data in a relevant environment is important for properly
assessing these claims.
• Precision Thrust: Electrospray devices have the potential of providing very fine thrust
precision during continuous operations. For devices that can operate in pulsed mode via
pulsed modulation of the high-voltage input, fine impulse bits (i.e., <10 μN-s) may be
achievable. Such operations permit precise control over spacecraft attitude and
maneuvering. Verification test data in a relevant environment should be used to properly
assess the degree of thrust precision.
77
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
c. Missions
The ESA Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA)
Pathfinder spacecraft was launched in December 2015,
on Vega flight VV06. Onboard were two integrated
propulsion modules associated with the NASA Space
Technology 7 Disturbance Reduction System (ST7 DRS).
Each propulsion module contained four independent
Busek Colloid MicroNewton Thrusters (CMNT),
propellant-less cathode neutralizers, power processing
units, digital control electronics, and low-pressure
propellant tanks. The propulsion system was successfully
commissioned in-orbit in January 2016, after having been
fully fueled and stored for almost eight years. The
electrospray modules (figure 4.24), were operated at the
Earth-Sun Lagrange Point 1 for 90 days to counteract
solar disturbance forces on the spacecraft; seven of the
eight thrusters demonstrated performance consistent with Figure 4.24: Flight CMNT modules
ground test results, and the full propulsion system met the for LISA Pathfinder. Credit: Busek.
mission-level performance requirements (132).
Enpulsion’s IFM Nano FEEP (figure 4.25), was first
integrated onboard a 3U Planet Labs Flock 3P’ CubeSat
and launched via PSLV-C40 in January 2018. The indium-
propellant propulsion system (with integrated thruster
head, propellant storage, and power processing unit) was
demonstrated in a 491 km by 510 km orbit. Two thruster
firing sequences were reported, with the first a 15-minute
firing in non-eclipse and the second a 30-minute firing in
eclipse. Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry data
onboard the spacecraft indicated good agreement with the
~220 µN commanded thrust (133). Since this initial
demonstration, the IFM Nano has flown onboard other
spacecraft, but limited in-orbit data is publicly available. Figure 4.25: IFM Nano. Credit:
These missions include the ICEYE-X2 (launched onboard Enpulsion.
Falcon-9 flight F9-64 in December 2018) to provide low-
Earth orbit interferometric synthetic aperture radar
observations (134) (135) and the DOD-funded Harbinger
technology demonstrator (launched onboard Electron
flight STP-27RD in May 2019) (136) (137). The IFM Nano
was also integrated onboard the Zentrum für Telematik
(Würzburg) NetSat formation-flying demonstrator mission,
which launched as a Soyuz-2 rideshare in September
2020 (138) (139).
The GMS-T mission was launched in January 2021
onboard a Rocket Lab Electron. The telecommunications
satellite uses an OHB Sweden Innosat platform and
houses an Enpulsion Micro R3 (figure 4.26). Inaugural on- Figure 4.26: IFM Micro R3. Credit:
orbit commissioning of the propulsion system was Enpulsion.
confirmed in March 2021 (140).
78
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
79
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Gridded-Ion
a. Technology Description
Gridded-ion propulsion systems ionize gaseous propellant via a plasma discharge, and the
resultant ions are subsequently accelerated via electrostatic grids (i.e., ion optics). This
technology can be generally classified into the following types according to the type of plasma
discharge employed:
• Direct-Current (DC) Discharge: The propellant is ionized via electron bombardment from an
internal discharge cathode (figure 4.30).
• Radio-Frequency (RF) Discharge: No internal discharge cathode is present. Instead, the
propellant is ionized via RF or microwave excitation from an RF generator (figure 4.31).
80
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
generation and acceleration mechanisms within the device tend to make calculations of
thrust and ion velocity (or ISP) more straightforward.
• Grid Erosion: Charge-exchange ions formed in between and downstream of the ion
optics can impinge upon and erode the grids. Over time, this erosion can lead to a variety
of failure modes, including grid structural failure, an inability to prevent electrons from back
streaming into the discharge chamber, or the generation of an inter-grid electrical short
due to the deposition of electrically conductive grid material. Proper grid alignment is
important to reducing grid erosion, and this alignment must be maintained during thruster
assembly, transport, launch, and operations. Random vibration tests at the protoflight level
should be conducted to verify the survivability of the ion optics against launch loads, and
validated thermal modeling may be needed to assess the impact of grid thermal expansion
during thruster operations.
• Foreign Object Debris: The grids are separated by a small gap, typically less than 1 mm,
to maximize the electric field and thrust capability of the device. As a result, gridded-ion
thrusters tend to be sensitive to foreign object debris, which can bridge the inter-grid gap
and cause electrical shorting. Precautions should be taken to minimize such
contamination risks from manufacturing, through test, and to launch.
• Cathode Lifetime: Cathodes for plasma discharge or plume neutralization may be
sensitive to propellant purity and pre-launch environmental exposure. Feed system
cleanliness, bake-out, and use of a high-purity propellant are key factors in maximizing
cathode lifetime. The technology provider may recommend a maximum cumulative
atmospheric exposure and humidity to reduce risk.
• Roll Torque: Misalignments in the ion optics can lead to disturbances in the thrust vector,
resulting in a torque around the roll axis that cannot be addressed by the mounting gimbal.
81
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
82
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
83
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
84
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Thruster Lifetime: Classical HETs are primarily life-limited by erosion of the discharge
chamber wall. Magnetically shielded HETs are primarily life-limited by erosion of the front
pole covers.
• Cathode Lifetime: Cathode lifetime may be sensitive to propellant purity and pre-launch
environmental exposure. Feed system cleanliness, bake-out, and use of a high purity
propellant are key factors in maximizing cathode lifetime. The HET manufacturer may
recommend a maximum cumulative atmospheric exposure and humidity. Some cathode
emitter formulations are less sensitive to propellant impurities and atmospheric exposure,
but these formulations may require other trades such as a higher ignition temperature.
• Roll Torque: The E x B force results in a slight swirl torque. For missions requiring
extended thruster operations, a secondary propulsion system or reaction wheels may be
needed to counter the torque buildup. The roll torque may largely be countered by
periodically reversing the direction of the magnetic field. Field reversal requires switching
the polarity of current to the magnet coils. Field reversal is only possible with HETs using
electromagnets.
• Thrust Vector: Non-uniformity of the azimuthal plasma, magnetic field, or propellant flow
may result in slight variations of the thrust vector relative to the HET physical centerline.
Temperature variation of the HET, such as during startup, also results in a slight walking
of the thrust vector.
• Heaterless Cathodes: Heaterless cathode technologies continue to mature. The benefit
of a heaterless cathode is elimination of the cathode heater, typically an expensive
component due to rigorous manufacturing and acceptance processes. However, the
physics of heaterless cathode life-limiting processes require further understanding.
Nevertheless, heaterless cathode demonstrations have empirically shown significant
promise. Heaterless cathode requirements on the EP system differ from an HET with a
cathode heater. Impacts on the power processing unit and feed system should be well
understood when trading a heaterless versus heated cathode.
• Throttling Range: HETs typically throttle stably over a wide range of power and discharge
voltage. This makes an HET attractive for missions requiring multiple throttle set-points.
However, an HET operates most efficiently at specific throttle conditions. Operating at off-
nominal conditions may result in decreased specific impulse and/or electrical efficiency.
c. Missions
Canopus-V (alternative spelling Kanopus-V) is a Russian Space Agency spacecraft for Earth
observation with a design life of 5 years. The 450 kg spacecraft launched in 2012 employed a
pair of EDB Fakel SPT-50 thrusters. Similarly, the Canopus-V-IK (Kanopus-V-IK) launched in
2017 with a pair of SPT-50. The SPT-50 thrusters have a long history of spaceflight dating back
to the late 1970s. Although the Canopus bus exceeds 450 kg, the power class and physical scale
of the SPT-50 are appropriate for smaller spacecraft. The SPT-50 is nominally a 220 W thruster
operated on xenon propellant (163) (164) (165).
The KazSat-1 and KazSat-2 spacecraft produced by Khrunichev Space Center in cooperation
with Thales Alenia Space launched in 2006 and 2011, respectively. The KazSat spacecraft are
geosynchronous communication satellites. These spacecrafts employ the EDB Fakel SPT-70BR
thruster. The SPT-70BR is Fakel’s latest version of the SPT-70 product line. EDB Fakel optimized
the SPT-70 for operation between 600 and 700 W, but no more than 900 W. Experiments
demonstrate a lifetime of 3,100 hours, equating to about 450 kNs. The SPT-70 thrusters have a
long history of spaceflight dating back to the early 1980s. Control of KazSat-1 was lost in 2008
(166) (167).
85
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
86
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
87
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
to form the pulsed discharge is stored in a high voltage capacitor bank, which often accounts for
a significant portion of the system mass. Once the capacitors are charged, resulting in a large
differential voltage between the electrodes, the ignitor provides seed material that allows the
discharge between the electrodes to form. Various materials and gases (including water vapor)
have been tested with PPTs, however PTFE remains most common.
Vacuum arc thrusters (VAT) are another type of pulsed plasma propulsion (198). This technology
consists of two metallic electrodes separated by a dielectric insulator. Unlike PPTs, one VAT
electrode is sacrificial, providing the propellant source. The mechanism for propellant acceleration
is predominantly electromagnetic, resulting in a characteristically high specific impulse and low
thrust. One variant of the VAT is predominantly electrostatic, by the inclusion of a downstream
electrostatic grid.
b. Key Integration and Operational Considerations
• Safety: PPT capacitor banks often store tens of joules of energy at potentially a couple
thousand volts. Follow good electrical safety practices when operating and storing PPTs
in a laboratory environment.
• Input Power Range: PPTs and VATs are pulsed devices, which operate by discharging
energy stored in capacitors with each pulse. Thus, the propulsion system’s average power
draw from the spacecraft bus can be quite low or high depending on the capacitor energy
storage and pulse frequency. This flexibility allows PPTs to be applied to spacecraft with
limited power budgets of just a few watts, or ample power budgets of hundreds of watts.
• Minimum Impulse Bit: A compelling capability of pulsed devices is the ability to generate
small, precise, and well-timed impulse bits for precise spacecraft maneuvering. By
controlling the discharge voltage, very small impulse bits on the order of micronewtons-
seconds are easily achieved.
• Compact and Simple Designs: PPTs and VATs are typically very simple and compact
devices. While the total impulse capability is small compared to other forms of EP, these
devices offer a particularly attractive solution for CubeSats, where low cost may be a more
significant consideration than total impulse. The systems are also attractive for learning
environments where propulsion expertise such as high-pressure feed systems and
propellant management may be lacking.
• Late-Time Ablation: Although pulsed devices allow for operation over a wide range of
pulse frequency, thruster efficiency typically improves with higher pulse rate. Late time
ablation is a key inefficiency of solid propellant pulsed devices, where material continues
to ablate from the propellant surface well after the discharge pulse. Through higher
frequency pulsing, the amount of material accelerated may be maximized.
• Thrust-to-Power: Pulsed devices suffer from several inefficiencies including late time
ablation, frozen flow, and wall heating. Propulsion system efficiency is typically below 20%
and may be as low as a few percent. Thus, although pulsed devices may have high
specific impulse, the thrust-to-power is low. Small spacecraft with limited power for
propulsion may find that large propellant loads provide little benefit as there is inherently
a limitation to the number of pulses achievable over the life of the power-limited spacecraft.
• Thermal Soak-back: The low thruster efficiencies may result in large thermal loads on
the spacecraft due to thermal soak-back, especially at high rates of pulsing. The
spacecraft’s ability to radiate this energy to limit heating may set an upper bound on pulse
frequency.
• Ignitor: Pulsed devices usually require some form of ignitor to provide seed material to
lower the impedance between the electrodes and initiate the discharge pulse. As such,
the lifetime of the ignitor may dictate the lifetime of the thruster. Ignitors may fail due to
89
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
erosion or fouling that prevents sparking. Some devices may include multiple redundant
ignitors to increase system lifetime.
• Shorting: The electrodes of pulsed devices are separated by isolating elements. Shadow
shielding or other physical features are typically necessary to avoid shorting between
electrodes as conductive material ejected by the thruster accumulates. While PTFE is an
insulator, the PTFE is reduced to carbon and fluorine when ablated, where carbon
accumulation provides a potentially conductive path. VATs employ metal propellants that
can similarly result in unintended shorting.
• Spacecraft Contamination: As with any conductive propellant, contamination of the
spacecraft is a concern. Plume interaction with the spacecraft must be understood to
assess the impact of the plume on the operation of critical surfaces such as solar panels,
antennas, and radiators.
c. Missions
In 2019, CU Aerospace was selected for a NASA STMD
Tipping Point award to design, fabricate, integrate, and
perform mission operations for the DUPLEX 6U CubeSat
having two of CU Aerospace’s micro-propulsion systems
on board, one Monofilament Vaporization Propulsion
(MVP) system (121) (122), shown in figure 4.21, and one
Fiber-Fed Pulsed Plasma Thruster (FPPT) system (123)
(124) (125) (126), shown in figure 4.44. The FPPT can
provide a large total impulse primary propulsion for micro-
satellites through implementation of a novel PTFE fiber
propellant storage and delivery mechanism. A major
enhancement of the FPPT technology over classical PPTs Figure 4.44: FPPT module. Credit:
is the ability to control both the propellant feed rate and CU Aerospace.
pulse energy, thereby providing control of both the specific
impulse and thrust. The FPPT can also provide precision
control capability for small spacecraft requiring capabilities such as precision pointing or formation
flying. In-orbit operations will include inclination change, orbit raising and lowering, drag makeup,
and deorbit burns demonstrating multiple mission capabilities with approximately 20 hours of
operation for MVP and >1,000 hours for FPPT. Launch is anticipated in mid-2022 (127).
d. Summary Table of Devices
See table 4-11 for current state-of-the-art pulsed plasma and vacuum arc devices applicable to
small spacecraft.
Ambipolar
a. Technology Description
Ambipolar thrusters ionize gaseous propellant within a discharge cavity via various means,
including DC breakdown or RF excitation. The escape of high-mobility electrons from the
discharge cavity creates a charge imbalance in the plasma discharge, and the subsequent
ambipolar diffusion accelerates ions out of the cavity to generate thrust.
Because the thruster plume is charge neutral, no neutralizer assembly is necessary. A variety of
propellants are theoretically usable due to the absence of exposed electrodes (and their
associated material compatibility concerns).
90
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
91
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
92
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
a. Missions
Georgia Institute of Technology’s Prox-1 mission was
launched as a secondary payload on the Department of
Defense’s Space Test Program (STP-2) in June 2019.
The 70 kg spacecraft served as the host and deployer for
the LightSail 2 mission. The Prox-1 spacecraft housed a
Tethers Unlimited Nanosat Terminator Tape (NSTT),
shown in figure 4.48, which deployed a 70 m tether in
September 2019 to lower the orbit from 717 km. Data from
the Space Surveillance Network indicate that the NSTT is
causing Prox-1 to deorbit more than 24 times faster than Figure 4.48: Nanosat Terminator
otherwise expected. This rate of orbital decay will enable Tape (NSTT). Credit: Tethers
Prox-1 to meet its 25-year deorbit requirement (210) (211) Unlimited.
(212).
The Naval Postgraduate School’s NPSat-1 was launched as a secondary payload on STP-2 and
was expected to deploy its NSTT later in 2020 (212).
TriSept’s DragRacer technology demonstration mission, launched as a rideshare onboard an
Electron rocket in November 2020, sought to conduct a direct comparison of the deorbiting rates
of two Millennium Space Systems satellites, one of which will use a 250 m NSTT (212) (213).
The AuroraSat-1 satellite is anticipated to be launched on
an Electron rocket in Q4 2021 (131). The spacecraft is
built by SatRevolution with Aurora Propulsion
Technologies providing the payloads. The mission serves
as a technology demonstration for a Plasma Brake
module (figure 4.49), and an Attitude and Orbit Control
System (AOCS) (128) (figure 4.22), both produced by
Aurora. The Plasma Brake module on AuroraSat-1 is a
dual redundant system for demonstration purposes. A
500-m tether will be deployed to demonstrate its
deorbiting capability (129).
Aerodynamic Drag
Figure 4.49: Plasma Brake Module
Satellites have historically deorbited from low-Earth orbits (PBM) demo unit. Credit: Aurora
with the aid of thrusters or passive atmospheric drag. Propulsion Technologies.
Given the increasing rate of new spacecraft launched,
and in-turn potential for new orbital debris following completion of missions, orbital debris
management has gained increasing attention. Space debris poses a growing threat to active
satellites and human activity in space. Allowing decades for defunct spacecraft to decay naturally
from low-Earth orbit may soon be insufficient. Aerodynamic drag devices may provide one method
to rapidly remove spacecraft from low-Earth orbits upon mission completion.
Below about 1,000 km altitude, the atmosphere exerts a measurable drag force opposite the
relative motion of any spacecraft, which results in a slow orbital decay. The intensity of the drag
force exerted on the spacecraft depends on numerous factors such as local atmospheric density,
the spacecraft forward facing area, the spacecraft velocity, and a drag coefficient. The drag
coefficient accounts for the drag force’s dependency on an object’s unique geometric profile.
While the spacecraft velocity and local atmospheric density are largely mission dependent, a
spacecraft’s forward-facing area and drag coefficient can be altered by introducing aerodynamic
93
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
drag devices such as exo-brakes and ballutes. These deployable or inflatable parachutes and
balloons can greatly increase the drag force exerted on spacecraft by an order of magnitude or
more and significantly increase the rate of orbital decay.
Furthermore, aerodynamic drag devices may be useful to reduce spacecraft propellant mass
required for orbit capture and disposal at other planetary bodies, given sufficient atmospheric
density exists.
For further details on these devices, see chapter on Deorbit Systems.
94
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
18
Moog MONARC-1 Hydrazine 1N 227.5 111 0.38 - - F numerous (9)
(Valve)
18
Moog MONARC-5 Hydrazine 4.5 N 226.1 613 0.49 - - F numerous (9)
(Valve)
30
Moog MONARC-22 Hydrazine 22 N 228-229 533 – 1,173 0.69-0.72 - - F numerous (9)
(Valve)
Note that all data is documented as provided in the references. Unless otherwise published, do not assume the data has been independently verified.
† denotes a wet mass, ‡ denotes a dry mass, N/A = Not Available
95
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
96
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
97
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
98
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
99
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
100
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
101
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Indium 14 x 12 x
Enpulsion Austria IFM Micro R3 1,000 3,000 --- 3.9† 100 Thermionic F GMS-T (140) (229) (230)
(FEEP) 13.3
102
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
103
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
104
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
105
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
References
(1) “NASA Systems Engineering Handbook.” NASA/SP-2016-6105, Rev2.
(2) “NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements.” NPR 7123.1C, Effective 14
February 2020, Expiration 14 February 2025.
(3) JANNAF Spacecraft Propulsion Subcommittee, Micro-Propulsion Panel, “JANNAF
Guidelines for the Application of Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) to Micro-
Propulsion Systems.” JANNAF 2019, Tampa, FL, Distribution Unlimited
(4) Marshall, W. M. and M. Deans. “Recommended Figures of Merit for Green
Monopropellants.” NASA TM-2013-216560. National Aeronautics & Space Administration.
Cleveland, OH. August, 2013.
(5) “AlSat-2”. https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/a/alsat-2
(6) Arianegroup. “Chemical Monopropellant Thruster Family.” Product Brochure.
http://www.space-propulsion.com/brochures/hydrazine-thrusters/hydrazine-thrusters.pdf
(7) Stratton, J. 2004. "The use of the aerojet MR-103H thruster on the New Horizons mission
to Pluto." 55th International Astronautical Congress.
(8) Aerojet Rocketdyne. “In-Space Propulsion Data Sheets: Monopropellant and Bipropellant
Engines.” Product Brochure. https://www.rocket.com/sites/default/files/documents/In-
Space%20Data%20Sheets%209.13.19.pdf
(9) Moog Space and Defense Group. "Monopropellant Thrusters." Product Brochure.
https://www.moog.com/content/dam/moog/literature/Space_Defense/spaceliterature/prop
ulsion/Moog-MonopropellantThrusters-Datasheet.pdf
(10) Robert K. Masse and Benjamin A. Glassy, Low-Vapor-Toxicity Hydrazine Propellant
Blends,” Joint Meeting of the 49th Combustion (CS), 37th Airbreathing Propulsion (APS),
37th Exhaust Plume and Signatures (EPSS), and 31st Propulsion Systems Hazards
(PSHS) Subcommittees; and the 66th JANNAF Propulsion Meeting (JPM) and meeting of
the Programmatic and Industrial Base (PIB), June 3 7, 2019.
(11) Cavender, D., W. Marshall, and A. Maynard. “2018 NASA Green Propulsion Technology
Development Roadmap.” NASA/TP—2018–219861. National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. August, 2018.
(12) United States Air Force – Air Force Space Command. AFSPCMAN 91-710. “Range Safety
User Requirements.” 1 July 2004. Certified Current 17 September, 2013.
(13) Spores, R., Masses, R., Kimbrel, S., McLean, C. AIAA-2013-3849. "GPIM AF-M315E
Propulsion System." 49th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit.
San Jose.
(14) Mulkey, H., J. Miller, and C. Bacha. “Green Propellant Loading Demonstration at U.S.
Range.” AIAA-2016-4576. AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum. Salt Lake City, UT. July
25-27, 2016.
(15) Friedhoff, P., K. Anflo, M. Persson, and P. Thormahlen. “Growing Constellation of
Ammonium Dinitramide (ADN) Based High Performance Green Propulsion (HPGP)
Systems." AIAA-2018-4754. AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum, Cincinnati, OH, July 9-
11, 2018.
(16) ESA Earth Observation Portal, “ELSA-d (End-of-Life Service by Astroscale)-d
(demonstration)” https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-
/article/elsa-d#dev
(17) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. “Lunar
Flashlight.” https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/CubeSat/missions/lunar_flashlight.php.
(18) National Aeronautics and Space Administration. “Green Propellant Infusion Mission Fires
Thrusters for the First Time.”
106
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/home/tdm/gpim_fires_thrusters_for_first_ti
me
(19) McLean, C H, W D Deininger, B M Marotta, and et al. AIAA-2015-3751. "Green Propellant
Infusion Mission Program Overview, Status, and Flight Operations." 51st
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference.
(20) Masse, R K, M. Allen, E. Driscoll, L. Arrington, S. Schneider, and T. Vasek. AIAA-2016-
4577. "AF-M315E Propulsion System Advances & Improvements." 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference. Salt Lake City, UT., 25-27 July, 2016.
(21) NASA. 2017. “Cube Quest Challenge Team Spotlight: Cislunar Explorers.”
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/centennial_challenges/cubequest/cislunar-
explorers
(22) “Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator, Demonstrating Novel CubeSat Technologies in
Low-Earth Orbit”, February 2,2021, https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/small_
spacecraft/Pathfinder_Technology_Demonstrator/
(23) Messier, D. “NASA Selects Tethers Unlimited’s HYDROS-C Thruster for First PTD
CubeSat Mission.” http://www.parabolicarc.com/2018/06/30/nasa-selects-tuis-hydrosc-
thruster-ptd-CubeSat-mission/
(24) Satnews, “Rocket Fuel You Can Drink?” 26 January 2021.
(25) Rainbow, J., “Benchmark Space Systems unveils in-space mobility-as-a-service business,”
SpaceNews, 23, June, 2021.
(26) NanoAvionics. “CubeSat Propulsion System EPSS.” https://nanoavionics.com/CubeSat-
components/CubeSat-propulsion-system-epss/
(27) DawnAerospace. “CubeSat Propulsion Module.” Revision B. Product Brochure.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cb46b698d9740673f117259/t/5e3a2caed29b7f33
6bad9f52/1580870831508/CubeSat+Propulsion+Module+-+Dawn+Aerospace-
compressed.pdf
(28) “Busek BGT-X5 Green Monopropellant Thruster Technical Specification”,
http://www.busek.com/index_htm_files/70008517E.pdf
(29) Rocket Lab. “The Rocket Lab Kick Stage.”
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/electron/kickstage/
(30) Rocket Lab. “Rocket Lab successfully circularizes orbit with new Electron kick Stage.”
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-successfully-circularizes-orbit-
with-new-electron-kick-stage/
(31) Robert K. Masse, Ronald A. Spores, May Allen, “AF-M315E Advanced Green Propulsion
– GPIM and Beyond,” AIAA Propulsion & Energy Forum, Virtual Forum, August 24-26,
2020.
(32) Plasma Processes, “ASCENT (AF-M315E) Monopropellant Thrusters”, 2020.
(33) Dawn Aerospace, “SmallSat Propulsion thruster – 20N”,
https://www.dawnaerospace.com/products/p/smallsat-propulsion
(34) Whitmore , S A, S L Merkley, Z S Spurrier, and S D Walker. 2015. "Development of a Power
Efficient, Restartable, 'Green' Propellant Thruster for Small Spacecraft and Satellites." 29th
Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites.
(35) Bulcher, A. M. and S. A. Whitmore. “A Green Hybrid Thruster Using Moderately Enriched
Compressed Air as the Oxidizer.” AIAA-2018-4841. AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum.
Cincinnati, OH. July 9-11, 2018. doi: 10.2514/6.2018-4841
(36) Whitmore, S., Babb, R., Gardner, T., Lloyd, K., Stephens, J.,” Pyrolytic Graphite and Boron
Nitride as Low-Erosion Nozzle Materials for Long-Duration Hybrid Rocket Testing”. AIAA-
2020-3740, AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum, 2020.
107
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(37) Whitmore, S., Babb, R., Stephens, J.,Horlacher, J., “Further Development of Low-Erosion
Nozzle Materials for Long-Duration Hybrid Rocket Burns”. AIAA Propulsion and Energy
Forum, 2021.
(38) Jens, E., Karp, A., Williams, K., Nakazono, B., Rabinovitch, J., Dyrda, D., and Mechentel,
F. “Low Pressure Ignition Testing of a Hybrid SmallSat Motor.” AIAA-2019-4009, AIAA
Propulsion and Energy Forum, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-4009.
(39) Simurda, L., Zilliac, G. and Zaseck, C., "High Performance Hybrid Propulsion System for
Small Satellites," AIAA-2013-3635, 49th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference, 2013.
(40) Simurda, L, Zilliac, G., “Continued Testing of a High Performance Hybrid Propulsion
System for Small Satellites”, AIAA-2015-4201, AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum, 2015.
(41) Desain, J., Brady, B., Curtiss, T., Hsu-Schouten, A., Fuller, J., Boyer, J.E., McKnight, B.,
Cortopassi, A., “Advanced Hybrid Rocket Motor Propulsion Unit for CubeSats(PUC)”.
Aerospace Report No. TOR-2015-03522.
(42) ROMBUS Rapid Orbital Mobility Bus.” Parabilis Space Technologies, datasheet
(43) Schappell, D T, E Scarduffa, P Smith, and N Solway. AIAA-2005-4055. "Advances in
Marotta Electric and Satellite Propulsion Fluid Control Activities." 41st
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference.
(44) Hinkley, D. “A Novel Cold Gas Propulsion System for Nanosatellites and Picosatellites.”
AIAA, 22nd Annual Conference on Small Satellites, SSC08-VII-7.
(45) Gibbon, D. 2010. "A review of the use of butane as a low-cost propellant." Space Propulsion
Conference.
(46) Gibbon, D. and Underwood, C. “Low Cost Butane Propulsion System for Small Spacecraft,”
15th AIAA / USU Conference on Small Satellites. SSC01-XI-1.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2030&context=smallsat
(47) Pauliukonis, R S. 2017. "Fuel system comprising sulfur hexafluoride and lithium containing
fuel." https://patents.google.com/patent/US3325318.
(48) Bonin, G, N Roth, S Armitage, J Newman, B. Risi, and R. Zee. 2015. "CanX-4 and CanX-
5 Precision Formation Flight: Mission Accomplished!" 29th Annual AIAA/USU Conference
on Small Satellites.
(49) Manzoni, G, and Y L Brama. 2015. "CubeSat Micropropulsion Characterization in Low
Earth Orbit." 29th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites.
(50) GOMSpace. “Attitude and Orbit Control Systems.”
https://gomspace.com/shop/subsystems/attitude-orbit-control-systems/default.aspx
(51) “GomX-4,” https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/g/gomx-4.
(52) National Aeronautics & Space Administration. “BioSentinel.” Fact Sheet.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/biosentinel_fact_sheet-
16apr2019_508.pdf
(53) Lightsey, E. G., T. Stevenson, and M. Sorgenfrei. “Development and Testing of a 3-D-
Printed Cold Gas Thruster for an Interplanetary CubeSat.” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol.
106, No. 3, March, 2018. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2018.2799898
(54) Kvell, U, M Puusepp, F Kaminski, and et al. 2014. "Nanosatellite orbit control using MEMS
cold gas thrusters." Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, 63, 2S, 279–285.
(55) Palmer, K., Sundqvist, J., Salaverri, A., Gronland, T., Li, Z., and Wu, S.. “In-Orbit
Demonstration of a MEMS-based Micropropulsion System for CubeSats.” Small Satellite
Conference, August 2016.
(56) Bowen, J, M Villa, and A Williams. 2015. "CubeSat based Rendezvous, Proximity
Operations, and Docking in the CPOD Mission." 29th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on
Small Satellites.
108
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
109
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(100) Thrasher, J. and M. McPherson. “Design and Qualification of DSSP’s CubeSat Delta-V
Motor (CDM-1).” Digital Solid State Propulsion, Inc. Poster presented at Small Satellites
Conference. Logan, UT. 2015.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3261&context=smallsat
(101) Industrial Solid Propellant, Inc. “Product Portfolio.” Product Brochure.
http://www.specificimpulse.com/
(102) Alliant Techsystems Inc. (ATK). “ATK Space Propulsion Products Catalog.” Product
Brochure. 2008. Available from:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31042.0;attach=4940
63;sess=0
(103) D-Orbit. “D-Raise.” Product Brochure. https://www.dorbit.space/d-raise
(104) D-Orbit. “D3.” Product Brochure. https://www.dorbit.space/d3
(105) VACCO Industries. “Standard Propulsion System.” Product Brochure.
https://www.CubeSat-propulsion.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Standard-MiPS-
datasheet-080119.pdf
(106) VACCO Industries. “JPL MarCO – Micro CubeSat Propulsion System.” Product Brochure.
https://www.CubeSat-propulsion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/X14102000-
01_2019update.pdf
(107) VACCO Industries. “Reaction Control Propulsion Module.” Product Brochure.
https://www.CubeSat-propulsion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Reaction-control-
propulsion-module.pdf
(108) GOMspace. “NanoProp CGP-3.” Product Brochure.
https://gomspace.com/UserFiles/Subsystems/flyer/gomspace_nanoprop_cgp3.pdf
(109) GOMspace. “NanoProp 6U.” Product Brochure.
https://gomspace.com/UserFiles/Subsystems/flyer/gomspace_nanoprop_cgp6_flyer.pdf
(110) Newman, J and Zee, R. E. “Drift Recovery and Station Keeping Results for the Historic
CanX-4/CanX-5 Formation Flying Mission.” 29th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small
Satellites, Logan, UT, 2015.
(111) Risi, B.W. “Propulsion System Development for the CanX-4 and CanX-5 Dual Nanosatellite
Formation Flying Mission.” Master of Applied Science Thesis, University of Toronto, 2014.
(112) Jahn, R. G. and Choueiri, E. Y. “Electric Propulsion.” Academic Press, Encyclopedia of
Physical Science and Technology, Third Edition, Volume 5, 2002.
(113) Goebel, D. M. and Katz, I. “Fundamentals of Electric Propulsion: Ion and Hall Thrusters.”
California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL Space Science and
Technology Series, 2008.
(114) Bradford Space, “Comet: Water-based Propulsion for Small Satellites.” Company Website,
Datasheet, Copyright 2019.
(115) Sarda, K., Roth, N., Zee, R. E., Cajacob, D., and Orr, N. G. “Making the Invisible Visible:
Precision RF-Emitter Geolocation from Space by the HawkEye 360 Pathfinder Mission.”
32nd AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, UT, 2018.
(116) eoPortal, “HawkEye 360 Pathfinder Cluster Mission to identify RFI locations.” June, 2020.
URL: https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/h/hawkeye
(117) BlackSky Global, “Global-4 Orbital Debris Assessment Report (ODAR).” FCC Licensing,
18 December, 2018.
(118) CU Aerospace, “Propulsion Unit for CubeSats.” Company Website, Datasheet, 2018.
(119) Carroll, D. L., Cardin, J. M., Burton, R. L., Benavides, G. F., Hejmanowski, N., Woodruff,
C., Bassett, K., King, D., Laystrom-Woodard, J., Richardson, L., Day, C., Hageman, K.,
and Bhandari, R. "Propulsion Unit for CubeSats (PUC)." 62nd JANNAF Propulsion
Meeting, Nashville, TN, 1-5 June, 2015, Paper Tracking # 4059, 2015, Dist. A.
111
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(120) Burton, R.L., Benavides, G.F., and Carroll, D.L. “Space Thruster using Robust
Microcavity Discharge.” U.S. Patent No. 9,242,747 B1, 2016.
(121) Woodruff, C., Carroll, D., King, D., Burton, R., and Hejmanowski, N. “Monofilament
Vaporization Propulsion (MVP) – CubeSat propulsion system with inert polymer
propellant.” Small Satellite Conf., Paper # SSX18-III-09, Logan, UT, Aug. 6-9, 2018.
(122) CU Aerospace, “Monofilament Vaporization Propulsion System Solid Inert Polymer
Propellant.” Company Website, Datasheet, 2020.
(123) Woodruff, C., King, D., Burton, R., Bowman, J., and Carroll, D. "Development of a Fiber-
Fed Pulsed Plasma Thruster for Small Satellites." Small Satellite Conference, Logan, UT,
Paper # SSC19-WKVIII-06, 2019.
(124) Woodruff, C., King, D., Burton, R., and Carroll, D. "Fiber-fed Pulsed Plasma Thruster for
Small Satellites." 36th International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC) 2019, Vienna,
Austria, Paper # IEPC 2019-A899, 2019.
(125) Woodruff, C., King, D., Burton, R., and Carroll, D. “Fiber-Fed Advanced Pulsed Plasma
Thruster (FPPT).” U.S. Patent # 10,570,892, Feb. 25, 2020.
(126) CU Aerospace, “Fiber-Fed Pulsed Plasma Thruster System Solid Inert Polymer
Propellant.” Company Website, Datasheet, 2020.
(127) “NASA Funds Long-Standing Partners in CubeSat Development.” Press Release,
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign, Aerospace Engineering, 9 Oct., 2019.
(128) Aurora Propulsion Technologies, “Attitude and Orbit Control System (AOCS).” Company
Website, URL: https://aurorapt.fi, Datasheet, Copyright May, 2020.
(129) Werner, D. “Aurora to test deorbit tether on Momentus mission.” SpaceNews, 5 February,
2020. URL: https://spacenews.com/aurora-momentus-plasma-brake/
(130) Frost, J., “Momentus delays first Vigoride launch,” SpaceNews, 7 January, 2021. URL:
https://spacenews.com/momentus-delays-first-vigoride-launch/
(131) Satnews, “AuroraSat-1 From Aurora Propulsion Technologies To Be Launched By
Rocket Lab,” 17 August 2021.
(132) Ziemer, J., Marrese-Reading, Colleen, Cutler, C., Dunn, C., Romero-Wolf, A., Javidnia,
S., Le, T., Li, I., Barela, P., Demmons, N., Hruby, V., Slutsky, J., Thorpe, J., Maghami, P.,
Hsu, O., and O’Donnell, J. “In-Flight Verification and Validation of Colloid Microthruster
Performance.” AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum, Cincinnati, OH, AIAA-2018-4643.
(133) Krejci, D., Reissner, A., Seifert, B., Jelem, D., Horbe, T., Plesescu, F., Friedhoff, P., and
Lai, S. “Demonstration of the IFM Nano FEEP Thruster in Low Earth Orbit.” 4S
Symposium, 2018.
(134) Krejci, D., Reissner, A., Schonherr, T., Seifert, B., Saleem, Z., and Alejos, R. “Recent
Flight Data from IFM Nano Thrusters in a Low Earth Orbit.” 36th IEPC, Vienna, Austria,
IEPC-2019-A724.
(135) Amos, J. “ICEYE’s Small Radar Satellites Achieve Big Capability.” BBC News, 6 May,
2020, URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52560809
(136) Werner, D. “Key Hurdle Cleared for York Space Systems and U.S. Army Small Satellite
Launch.” SpaceNews, 22 February, 2018, URL: https://spacenews.com/key-hurdle-
cleared-for-york-space-systems-and-u-s-army-small-satellite-launch/
(137) Clark, S. “Rocket Lab Deploys Experimental U.S. Military SmallSats on First Night
Launch.” Spaceflight Now, 5 May, 2019. URL:
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/05/rocket-labs-deploys-experimental-u-s-military-
SmallSats-on-first-night-launch/
(138) Wörner, N. “Sensor Networks of Satellites.” ElektronikNet, 26 May, 2020. URL:
https://www.elektroniknet.de/international/sensor-networks-of-satellites-176831.html
(139) “NetSat – Pioneering Research in Formation Control”, website accessed June 2021,
https://www.telematik-zentrum.de/en/projects/netsat/
112
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(140) “First Use of the Enpulsion Micro R3 Thruster in the GMS-T Mission”, Space Daily, 18
March 2021.
(141) Bangert, P., Kramer, A., and Schilling, K. “UWE-4: Integration State of the First
Electrically Propelled 1U CubeSat.” 31st Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small
Satellites, SSC17-WK-47, 2017.
(142) Kramer, A., Bangert, P., and Schilling, K. “Hybrid Attitude Control On-Board UWE-4
Using Magnetorquers and the Electric Propulsion System NanoFEEP.” 33rd Annual
AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, SSC19-WKI-02, 2019.
(143) D. Werner, “Miniature Thruster Propels Single CubeSat to Lower Orbit”, SpaceNews, 22
July 2020, https://spacenews.com/uwe-4-lowers-altitude/
(144) “Accion Systems TILE 2 In-Space Propulsion System to Launch on the June 2021
SpaceX Rideshare with Astro Digital and Starfish Space”, press release, 19 April 2021,
https://accion-systems.com/news/press/accion-systems-tile-2-in-space-propulsion-
system-to-launch-on-the-june-2021-spacex-rideshare-with-astro-digital-and-starfish-
space/
(145) NASA, “Upcoming ELaNa CubeSat Launches.” NASA CubeSat Launch Initiative. URL:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/upcoming-elana-CubeSat-launches
(146) NASA, “NASA Announces Tenth Round of Candidates for CubeSat Space Missions.” 14
March, 2019, Press Release. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-announces-tenth-
round-of-candidates-for-CubeSat-space-missions
(147) “Accion Systems Raises $11 Million in Series B Funding.” 5 February, 2020, Satnews.
URL: https://www.satnews.com/story.php?menu=1&number=351788008
(148) Satnews, “Two NanoAvionics-Built SmallSats were Passengers on the SpaceX
Transporter-2 Mission Launched to Successful Orbit,” 6 July 2021.
(149) “Accion Systems to demonstrate its propulsion system in NanoAvionics US rideshare
mission”, press release, 12 October 2020, https://accion-
systems.com/news/press/accion-systems-to-demonstrate-its-propulsion-system-in-
nanoavionics-us-rideshare-mission/
(150) N. Arthur. “Ion Thruster Produced Roll Torque.” AIAA-2019-4166.
(151) N. Wallace et al., “The GOCE Ion Propulsion Assembly – Lessons Learnt from the First
22 Months of Flight Operations”, IEPC-2011-327.
(152) “ESA’s GOCE Mission Comes to an End”, ESA press release #33-2013, 21 Oct 2013,
https://www.esa.int/Newsroom/Press_Releases/ESA_s_GOCE_mission_comes_to_an_e
nd
(153) A. Jones, “French Startup Demonstrates Iodine Propulsion in Potential Boost for Space
Debris Mitigation Efforts”, SpaceNews, 22 January 2021, https://spacenews.com/french-
startup-demonstrates-iodine-propulsion-in-potential-boost-for-space-debris-mitigation-
efforts/
(154) “Trial Integration Completed By Norwegian Space Agency Of ThrustMe’s Propulsion
System For NorSat-TD”, SatNews, 27 April 2021,
https://news.satnews.com/2021/04/27/trial-integration-completed-by-norwegian-space-
agency-of-thrustmes-propulsion-system-for-norsat-td/
(155) “ESA and GomSpace Sign Contract for Continuation of the GOMX-5 Mission”,
GomSpace press release, 2 October 2020, https://news.cision.com/gomspace-a-s/r/esa-
and-gomspace-sign-contract-for-continuation-of-the-gomx-5-mission,c3202464
(156) Malphrus, B. “The Lunar IceCube EM-1 Mission: Prospecting the Moon for Water Ice.”
IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, Vol 34, Issue 4, DOI:
10.1109/MAES.2019.2909384.
(157) Clark, P. “Lunar Ice Cube Mission: Determining Lunar Water Dynamics with a First
Generation Deep Space CubeSat.” 47th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 2016.
113
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(158) Hardgrove, C. “The Lunar Polar Hydrogen Mapper CubeSat Mission.” IEEE Aerospace
and Electronic Systems Magazine, Vol 35, Issue 3, DOI: 10.1109/MAES.2019.2950747.
(159) eoPortal, “SMART-1 (Small Mission for Advanced Research in Technology.” June, 2020.
URL: https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/s/smart-1
(160) eoPortal, “TacSat-2 / Roadrunner.” June 2020. URL:
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-/article/tacsat2
(161) de Grys, K., Mathers, A., Welander, B., and Khayms, V. “Demonstration of 10,400 Hours
of Operation on a 4.5 kW Qualification Model Hall Thruster.” 46th AIAA Joint Propulsion
Conference, Nashville, TN, July, 2010.
(162) Sheetz, M. and Petrova, M. “Why in the next decade companies will launch thousands
more satellites than in all of history.” CNBC, 15 December, 2019. URL:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/14/spacex-oneweb-and-amazon-to-launch-thousands-
more-satellites-in-2020s.html
(163) Gorbunov, A., Khodnenko, V., Khromov, A., Murashko, V., Koryakin, A., Zhosan, V., and
Grikhin, G. “Vernier Propulsion System for Small Earth Remote Sensing Satellite
“Canopus-V.” 32nd IEPC, Wiesbaden, Germany, 2011.
(164) eoPortal, “Kanopus-V 1 (Kanous-Vulkan N1, Environmental Satellite).” June, 2020. URL:
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/k/kanopus-v-1
(165) eoPortal, “Kanopus-V-IK 1 (Kanous-Vulkan-Infra-Krasny-1).” June, 2020. URL:
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/k/kanopus-v-ik-1
(166) EDB Fakel, “Stationary Plasma Thrusters.” Company Website, Datasheet, 2020.
(167) Gnizdor, R., Markov, A., Mitrofanova, O., and Semenenko, D. “The research of the
modified SPT-70 thruster parameters and characteristics.” 36th IEPC, Vienna, Austria,
2019.
(168) Hruby, P., Demmons, N., Courtney, D., Tsay, M., Szabo, J., and Hruby, V. “Overview of
Busek Electric Propulsion.” 36th IEPC, Vienna, Austria, 2019.
(169) Kamhawi, H., Haag, T., Benavides, G., Hickman, T., Smith, T., Williams, G., Myers, J.,
Polzin, K., Dankanich, J., Byrne, L., Szabo, J., and Lee, L. “Overview of Iodine Propellant
Hall Thruster Development Activities at NASA Glenn Research Center.” 52nd AIAA Joint
Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2016.
(170) NASA TechPort, “Iodine Satellite (iSAT).” June, 2020. URL:
https://techport.nasa.gov/view/91492
(171) Lev, D., Zimmerman, R., Shoor, B., Appel, L., Ben-Ephraim, M., Herscovitz, J., and
Epstein, O. “Electric Propulsion Activities at Rafael in 2019.” 36th IEPC, Vienna, Austria,
2019.
(172) Herscovitz, J., and Karnieli, A. “VENuS Program: Broad and New Horizons for Super-
Spectral Imaging and Electric Propulsion Missions for a Small Satellite.” 22nd AIAA/USU
Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, Utah, 2008.
(173) Herscovitz, J., Appel, L., Barnett, D., Baron, D., Davidson, A., Gontmacher, P., Kedem,
M., Lev, D., Merenstein, A., Rbinovich, L., Reiner, D., Salama, O., Amit-Shapira, Y.,
Shechter, Y., Shoor, B., Warshavsky, A., and Zhuravel, N. “VENuS – A Novel
Technological Mission Using Electric Propulsion.” 35th IEPC, Atlanta, Georgia, 2017.
(174) Herscovitz, J., Lev, D., Shoor, B., Katz-Franco, D., Berkman, S., Baron, D, and Adler, S.
“VENuS – Updates on Technological Mission using the Israeli Hall Effect Thruster
(IHET).” 36th IEPC, Vienna, Austria, 2019.
(175) eoPortal “VENuS (Vegetation and Environment monitoring on a New Microsatellite).”
June, 2020. URL: https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/v-w-x-y-
z/venus
(176) SITAEL “Electric Propulsion – HT100 Hall Effect Thruster Product Sheet.” Company
Website, Datasheet, 2020.
114
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(177) Misuri, T., Ducci, C., Gregucci, S., Pedrini, D., Cannelli, F., Cesari, U., Nania, F., Vicini,
A., Pace, G., Magistro, F., Cenni, J., Dignani, D., Farauanu, C., Quaranta, V., Tiseo, B.,
Orefice, M., and Bruno, G. “SITAEL HT100 Thruster Unit, Full Ground Qualification.” 36th
IEPC, Vienna, Austria, 2019.
(178) Tambini, A., Antonini, F., Melega, N., Mariotti, G., Centonze, V., and Gabriele, A.
“uHETsat small Power System for high demanding payloads.” European Space Power
Conference, 2019.
(179) Apollo Fusion, “Apollo Constellation Engine (ACE).” Company Website,
https://apollofusion.com/ace.html, Copyright 2019.
(180) Astro Digital US, Inc. “Astro Digital Ignis Orbital Debris Assessment Report (ODAR) v1.0.”
FCC Public Database, 2019.
(181) Apollo Fusion Press Release, “Apollo Fusion, Inc. To Propel Spaceflight Inc.’s Orbital
Sherpa-LTE,” 12 November 2020.
(182) Foust, J., “SpaceX launches second dedicated rideshare mission,” SpaceNews, 30, June
2021.
(183) Exotrail, “Hall effect thruster for small satellites.” Company Website, Online Datasheet,
May, 2020.
(184) Exotrail Press Release, “Exotrail delivers its first Hall Effect Propulsion system prototype
for In-Orbit Demonstration mission.” 02 October, 2019.
(185) Exotrail Press Release, “Exotrail secures contract with AAC Clyde Space to equip their
spacecrafts for Eutelsat’s ELO 3 and 4.” 18 February, 2020.
(186) Gurciullo, A., Jarrige, J., Lascombes, P., and Packan, D. “Experimental performance and
plume characterization of a miniaturized 50W Hall thruster.” 36th IEPC, Vienna, Austria,
2019.
(187) ExoTrail Press Release, “Exotrail paves the way for new space mobility with first of its
kind successful in-orbit demonstration mission,” 01 January 2021.
(188) ExoTerra Resource, “Halo Hall-Effect Thruster.” Company Website, Datasheet, May,
2020.
(189) VanWoerkom, M., Gorokhovsky, V., Pulido, G., Pettigrew, R., and Seidcheck, A. “Test
Results of ExoTerra’s Halo Micro Electric Propulsion System.” 36th IEPC, Vienna, Austria,
2019.
(190) NASA Press Release, “NASA Announces New Tipping Point Partnerships for Moon and
Mars Technologies.” 27 September, 2019.
(191) Vinoski, J. “Orbion’s Plasma Rocket Thrusters Will Power AST’s New Space-Based Cell
Tower.” Forbes, 23 July, 2020.
(192) Henry, C. “Megaconstellation startup raises $110 million to connect smartphones via
satellite.” SpaceNews, 5 March, 2020.
(193) Jewett, R., “AST SpaceMobile to Launch Demo Satellite With SpaceX,” Via Satellite, 30
July 2021.
(194) Erwin, S., “Blue Canyon selects Orbion electric thrusters for DARPA’s Blackjack
satellites,” SpaceNews, 15 September 2020.
(195) Busek Co Press Release, “Busek Ships First LEO to GEO Capable Electric Propulsion
System – Design Demonstrated One Million Newton-Seconds in NASA-Led Test,” PR
Newswire, 23 February 2021.
(196) Szabo, J., Byrne, L., Strain, M., Paintal, S., Sawyer, S., Yu, T., Kolencik, G., and Hruby,
V., “One Million Newton-Second Duration Test of a 600 Watt Hall Effect Thruster Fueled
By Xenon,” 2020 AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum, Virtual Event, August 24-28, 2020.
(197) Burton, R. “Pulsed Plasma Thrusters.” In Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering (eds R.
Blockley and W. Shyy). doi:10.1002/9780470686652.eae120.
(198) Kolbeck, J., Anders, A., Beilis, I., and Keidar, M. “Micro-propulsion based on vacuum
arcs.” Journal of Applied Physics, June, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5081096.
115
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(199) J. Foust, “Phase Four Launches First Plasma Propulsion Systems”, SpaceNews, 25
January 2021, https://spacenews.com/phase-four-launches-first-plasma-propulsion-
systems/
(200) Debra Werner “Capella Space and Phase Four reveal Maxwell Engine performance”
SpaceNews 30 June 2021.
(201) REGULUS, 6 May 2020, URL: https://www.t4innovation.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/T4i-REGULUS-Magazine.pdf
(202) Bellomo, N. “Enhancement of Microsatellites’ Mission Capabilities: Integration of
REGULUS Electric Propulsion Module into UniSat-7.” 70th International Astronautical
Congress, Washington, D.C., October, 2019.
(203) “Cube Quest Challenge NASA Facts.” NASA, FS-2019-12-073-MSFC. URL:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/cubequest_fs_june2020_508.pdf
(204) “Three DIY CubeSats Score Rides on NASA’s First Flight of Orion, Space Launch
System.” NASA Press Release 17-055, 8 June, 2017. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/press-
release/three-diy-CubeSats-score-rides-on-nasa-s-first-flight-of-orion-space-launch-
system
(205) Alhorn, D., Casas, J., Agasid, E., Adams, C., Laue, G., Kitts, C., and O’Brien, S.
“NanoSail-D: The Small Satellite That Could!” SmallSat Conference, 2011.
(206) Mansell, J., Spencer, D., Plante, B., Diaz, A., Fernandez, M., Bellardo, J., Betts, B., and
Nye, B. “Orbit and Attitude Performance of the LightSail 2 Solar Sail Spacecraft.” AIAA
2020-2177.
(207) “CubeSail.” Laboratory for Advanced Space Systems at Illinois (LASSI), Accessed 5 July,
2020. URL: https://aerospace.illinois.edu/research/research-facilities/laboratory-
advanced-space-systems-illinois-lassi
(208) CU Aerospace Press Release, “CubeSail Mission Update,” 8 April, 2021. URL:
https://cuaerospace.com/news/details/cubesail-mission-update
(209) Johnson, L, et al. “Near Earth Asteroid Scout: Exploring Asteroid 1991VG Using a
SmallSat.” Proceedings of the 70th International Astronautical Congress, IAC-19/B4/2.
(210) “AE’s Prox-1 Satellite Launches from Kennedy Space Center.” Georgia Institute of
Technology, 25 June, 2019. URL: https://ae.gatech.edu/news/2019/06/aes-prox-1-
satellite-launches-kennedy-space-center
(211) C. Henry. “Tethers Unlimited Says Early Results of Deorbit Hardware Test Promising.”
SpaceNews, 23 January, 2020. URL: https://spacenews.com/tethers-unlimited-says-
early-results-of-deorbit-hardware-test-promising/
(212) Clark, S. “SmallSat Companies Teaming Up on Deorbit Experiment.” Spaceflight Now, 15
August, 2019. URL: https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/08/15/SmallSat-companies-
teaming-up-on-deorbit-experiment/
(213) Satnews, “SmallSat Space Debris Remediation Technology Being Demo’d By Millennium
Space Systems,” 7 December 2020.
(214) Busek Company, “Busek Micro Resistojet.” Company Website, Datasheet, Copyright
2013.
(215) Hejmanowski, N. J., Woodruff, C. A., Burton, R. L., Carroll D. L., Palla, A. D., and Cardin
J. M. “CubeSat High Impulse Propulsion System (CHIPS) Design and Performance.”
JANNAF, Phoenix, AZ, 2016, Dist. A.
(216) Hejmanowski, N. J., Woodruff, C. A., Burton, R. L., and Carroll D. L. “Electrothermal
Space Thruster Heater for Decomposable Propellants.” U.S. Patent # 9,909,574 B1,
2018.
(217) Hejmanowski, N. J., Woodruff, C., Burton, R.L., Carroll, D.L., and Cardin, J. "CubeSat
High Impulse Propulsion System (CHIPS)." 62nd JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, Nashville,
TN, 1-5 June, 2015, Dist. A.
116
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
119
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(282) Siddiqui, M. and Cretel, C. “Updated Performance Measurements and Analysis of the
Phase Four RF Thruster.” Joint Propulsion Conference, Cincinnati, OH, AIAA-2018-4817.
(283) Cretel, C., Ajamia, M., Thompson, D., and Siddiqui, M. “Torsional Balance Thrust
Measurement Techniques for Small RF Thrusters.”
(284) “Meet Maxwell.” Phase Four, website, accessed 2020, URL:
https://www.phasefour.io/maxwell/
(285) “REGULUS Electrical Propulsion System for Micro-satellites.” T4i, datasheet. URL:
https://www.t4innovation.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/10/T4i_REGULUS_datasheet_.pdf
(286) “M1.4 Thruster Interface and User Manual”, version 1.4, https://miles-space.com/thruster/
(287) “Plasma Brake Module (PBM).” Aurora, datasheet, 2020. URL: https://aurorapt.fi/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/Aurora-PBM.pdf
(288) “Terminator Tape.” Tethers Unlimited, datasheet, 2020. URL:
https://www.tethers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2020-Terminator-Tape.pdf
120
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Contents
Glossary .......................................................................................................................... ii
5.0 Guidance, Navigation & Control ........................................................................ 121
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 121
5.2 State-of-the-Art – GNC Subsystems .............................................................. 122
5.2.1 Integrated Units ....................................................................................... 122
5.2.2 Reaction Wheels ..................................................................................... 125
5.2.3 Magnetic Torquers ................................................................................... 127
5.2.4 Thrusters ................................................................................................. 128
5.2.5 Star Trackers ........................................................................................... 128
5.2.6 Magnetometers........................................................................................ 131
5.2.7 Sun Sensors ............................................................................................ 132
5.2.8 Horizon Sensors ...................................................................................... 136
5.2.9 Inertial Sensing ........................................................................................ 137
5.2.10 GPS Receivers ........................................................................................ 149
5.2.11 Deep Space Navigation ........................................................................... 150
5.2.12 Atomic Clocks .......................................................................................... 150
5.3 On the Horizon ............................................................................................... 151
5.4 Summary ........................................................................................................ 152
References............................................................................................................... 152
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Glossary
ii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
121
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Deep Space
Bands: X, Ka, S, and UHF 7-9
Navigation
122
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
123
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
124
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Berlin Space 7-
RWA05 1.700 0.5 0.020 0.0005 1 30
Technologies 9
Blue Canyon RWP01 7-
0.130 1 0.004 0.015 1 Unk
Technologies 5 9
Blue Canyon RWp05 7-
0.240 1 0.007 0.050 1 Unk
Technologies 0 9
Blue Canyon RWp10 7-
0.330 1 0.007 0.100 1 Unk
Technologies 0 9
Blue Canyon RWp50 7-
0.750 6 0.025 0.500 1 Unk
Technologies 0 9
Blue Canyon 7-
RW1 0.950 9 0.100 1.000 1 Unk
Technologies 9
Blue Canyon 7-
RW4 3.200 10 0.250 4.000 1 Unk
Technologies 9
Blue Canyon 7-
RW8 4.400 10 0.250 8.000 1 Unk
Technologies 9
CubeW
0.0002 7-
CubeSpace heel 0.060 0.65 0.00177 1 24
3 9
Small
CubeW
7-
CubeSpace heel 0.090 2.3 0.0023 0.0036 1 24
9
Small+
CubeW 7-
CubeSpace 0.150 2.3 0.001 0.0108 1 24
heel 9
125
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Mediu
m
CubeW
7-
CubeSpace heel 0.225 4.5 0.0023 0.0306 1 24
9
Large
NanoT
U
orque
GomSpace 0.940 0.3 0.0015 0.019 1 Unk n
GSW-
k
600
Hyperion 7-
RW210 0.48 0.8 0.0001 0.006 1 36
Technologies 9
Hyperion 7-
RW400 0.375 1.9 0.012 0.050 1 36
Technologies 9
7-
NanoAvionics RWO 0.137 3.25 0.003 0.020 1 20
9
7-
NanoAvionics 4RWO 0.665 6 0.006 0.037 4 20
9
NewSpace NRWA- 7-
1.2 0.4 0.01 0.050 1 10
Systems T005 9
NewSpace NRWA- 7-
1.55 0.8 0.02 0.65 1 10
Systems T065 9
NewSpace NRWA- 7-
2.2 1.08 0.09 2 1 10
Systems T2 9
Sinclair RW- 7-
0.185 1.8 0.002 0.040 1 20
Interplanetary 0.03 9
Sinclair RW- 5-
0.050 Unk 0.001 0.005 1 10
Interplanetary 0.003 6
Sinclair RW- 7-
0.120 1.05 0.001 0.018 1 20
Interplanetary 0.01 9
Sinclair RW3- 7-
0.226 23.4 0.020 0.180 1 20
Interplanetary 0.06 9
Sinclair RW4- 7-
0.6 Unk 0.1 0.2 1 60
Interplanetary 0.2 9
Sinclair RW4- 7-
0.77 Unk 0.1 0.4 1 60
Interplanetary 0.4 9
Sinclair RW4- 7-
1.38 45 0.1 1 1 60
Interplanetary 1.0 9
U
Vectronic VRW-
1.900 110 0.090 6.000 1 20 n
Aerospace A-1
k
U
Vectronic VRW-
1.000 45 0.020 0.200 1 20 n
Aerospace B-2
k
U
Vectronic VRW-
2.3 45 0.020 1.20 1 20 n
Aerospace C-1
k
U
Vectronic VRW-
2 65 0.05 2.0 1 20 n
Aerospace D-2
k
126
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
U
Vectronic VRW-
3 110 0.09 6 1 20 n
Aerospace D-6
k
Peak Radiation T
Mass Power #
Manufacturer Model Dipole Tolerance R
(kg) (W) Axes
(A m2) (krad) L
CubeTorquer
CubeSpace 0.028 0.42 0.24 1 24 7-9
Small
CubeTorquer
CubeSpace 0.036 0.37 0.66 1 24 7-9
Medium
CubeTorquer
CubeSpace 0.072 0.37 1.90 1 24 7-9
Large
CubeTorquer
CubeSpace 0.046 0.31 0.13 1 24 7-9
Coil(Single)
CubeTorquer
CubeSpace 0.074 0.64 0.27 1 24 7-9
Coil(Double)
Nano Torque
GomSpace 0.156 Unk 0.31 – 0.34 3 Unk Unk
GST-600
NanoTorque Z-
GomSpace 0.106 Unk 0.139 1 Unk Unk
axis Internal
Magnetorquer
ISISPACE 0.196 1.2 0.20 3 Unk 7-9
Board
Magnetic Torque
MEISEI Actuator for 0.5 1 12 1 Unk 7-9
Spacecraft
Hyperion
MTQ800 0.395 3 15 1 Unk 7-9
Technologies
NanoAvionics MTQ3X 0.205 0.4 0.30 3 20 7-9
127
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NewSpace
NCTR-M003 0.030 0.25 0.29 1 Unk 7-9
Systems
NewSpace
NCTR-M012 0.053 0.8 1.19 1 Unk 7-9
Systems
NewSpace
NCTR-M016 0.053 1.2 1.6 1 Unk 7-9
Systems
Sinclair
TQ-40 0.825 Unk 48.00 1 Unk 7-9
Interplanetary
Sinclair
TQ-15 0.400 Unk 19.00 1 Unk 7-9
Interplanetary
ZARM MT0.2-1 0.005 0.25 0.2 1 Unk 7-9
ZARM MT1-1 0.060 0.23 1 1 Unk 7-9
ZARM MT2-1 0.2 0.5 2 1 Unk 7-9
ZARM MT4-1 0.15 0.6 4 1 Unk 7-9
ZARM MT5-1 0.19 0.73 5 1 Unk 7-9
ZARM MT5-2 0.3 0.77 5 1 Unk 7-9
ZARM MT6-2 0.3 0.48 6 1 Unk 7-9
ZARM MT7-2 0.4 0.9 7 1 Unk 7-9
ZARM MT10-1-01 0.35 0.53 10 1 Unk 7-9
ZARM MT10-2-H 0.37 1 10 1 Unk 7-9
ZARM MT15-1 0.45 1.1 15 1 Unk 7-9
5.2.4 Thrusters
Thrusters used for attitude control are described in Chapter 4: In-Space Propulsion. Pointing
accuracy is determined by minimum impulse bit, and control authority by thruster force.
5.2.5 Star Trackers
A star tracker can provide an accurate, standalone estimate of three-axis attitude by comparing
a digital image captured with a focal plane array detector to an onboard star catalog (8). Star
trackers typically identify and track multiple stars and provide three-axis attitude (and often
attitude rate) several times a second, usually provided as a quaternion. Table 5-5 lists some
models suitable for use on small spacecraft. For example, Arcsec’s Sagitta Star Tracker was
launched on the SIMBA cubesat in 2020.
128
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Twist Radiation
Mass Power Cross axis
Manufacturer Model FOV accuracy Tolerance TRL
(kg) (W) accuracy (3s)
(3s) (krad)
129
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
8° half-
Sinclair Interplanetary ST-16RT2 0.185 1 5" 55" Unk 7-9
cone
Sodern Auriga-CP 0.210 1.1 Unk 2" 11" Unk 7-9
Sodern Hydra-M 2.75 8 Unk Unk Unk Unk 5-6
Sodern Hydra-TC 5.3 8 Unk Unk Unk Unk 5-6
Solar MEMS 13° x
STNS 0.14 1.4 40" 70" 20 7-9
Technologies 18°
Space Micro MIST 0.520 4 14.5° 15" 105" 30 7-9
Space Micro µSTAR-100M 1.800 5 Unk 15" 105" 100 Unk
Space Micro µSTAR-200M 2.100 10 Unk 15" 105" 100 Unk
Space Micro µSTAR-200H 2.700 10 Unk 3" 21" 100 Unk
Space Micro µSTAR-400M 3.300 18 Unk 15" 105" 100 Unk
20°
Terma T1 0.923 0.75 2.2" 9" 100 5-6
circular
20°
Terma T3 0.35 .5 2.6" 10" 8 5-6
circular
14° x
Vectronic Aerospace VST-41MN 0.900 2.5 27" 183" 20 7-9
14°
14° x
Vectronic Aerospace VST-68M 0.470 3 7.5" 45" 20 Unk
14°
130
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
5.2.6 Magnetometers
Magnetometers provide a measurement of the
local magnetic field and this measurement can
be used to provide both estimates of attitude (9).
The vast majority of CubeSats use commercial-
off-the-shelf (COTS) magnetometers and
improve their performance with software. Table
5-6 provides a summary of some three-axis
magnetometers available for small spacecraft, Figure 5.4: NSS Magnetometer. Credit:
one of which is illustrated in figure 5.4. NewSpace Systems.
Orth Radiation T
Mass Resolution
Manufacturer Model Power (W) ogon Tolerance R
(kg) (nT)
ality (krad) L
NanoSense
GomSpace 0.008 Unk Unk Unk Unk 7-9
M315
Hyperion
MM200 0.012 0.01 Unk Unk 30 7-9
Technologies
3-Axis
Magnetomet
MEISEI 0.220 1.5 Unk 1° Unk 7-9
er for Small
Satellite
NewSpace NMRM-
0.085 0.75 8 1° 10 7-9
Systems Bn25o485
Voltage
SpaceQuest MAG-3 0.100 Unk 1° 10 7-9
Dependent
Analogue
High-Rel
Fluxgate
ZARM 0.33 0.75 Unk 1° 50 7-9
Magnetomet
er
FGM-A-75
Digital AMR
Magnetomet
ZARM er 0.06 0.3 Unk 1° Unk 7-9
AMR-
RS422
Digital AMR
Magnetomet
er
ZARM 0.1 0.2 Unk 1° 30 5-6
AMR-D-
100-
EFRS485
131
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
132
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
133
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Fine Sensor
Better
Fine Pointing Pointing .95 ±4.25° x ±4.25°
Redwire Space <3 Digital than 2 100 7-9
Sun Sensor Sun Electroni (Typical)
±0.01°
Sensor cs 1.08
Sensor
Fine
Fine 0.109
Spinning Analog ±64° FAN 1
Spinning Sun Electroni
Redwire Space Sun 0.5 and SHAPED (each ±0.1° plus Sun 100 7-9
Sensor cs
Sensor Digital sensor) Pulse
(±64°) 0.475 –
(±64°)
0.725
Micro
Micro Sun
Redwire Space Sun < 0.002 < 0.02 Analog ± 85° MINIMUM ±5° 2 Approx. 10 5-6
Sensor
Sensor
Miniature
Miniature
Spinning ±87.5° (FROM 1
Spinning Sun
Redwire Space Sun <0.25 0.5 Digital NORMAL TO ±0.1° plus Sun 100 7-9
Sensor
Sensor SPIN AXIS) Pulse
(±87.5°)
(±87.5°)
FINE
FINE SUN
SUN Typically ±50 x ±0.01° TO 100, 150, or
Redwire Space SENSOR Unk Unk Digital 2 7-9
SENSOR ±50° ±0.05° 300
(±50°)
(±50°)
Bradford
CoSS Cosine 0.024 0 Analog 160° full cone 3° 1 40000 7-9
Engineering
Bradford
CoSS-R Cosine 0.015 0 Analog 180° full cone 3° 1 120000 7-9
Engineering
Bradford CSS-01,
Cosine 0.215 0 Analog 180° full cone 1.5° 2 70000 7-9
Engineering CSS-02
Bradford
FSS Quadrant 0.375 0.25 Analog 128° x 128° 0.3° 2 100 7-9
Engineering
Bradford
Mini-FSS Quadrant 0.050 0 Analog 128° x 128° 0.2° 2 20000 7-9
Engineering
CubeSpace CubeSense Camera 0.030 0.2 Digital 170° full cone 0.2° 2 24 7-9
NanoSense {±0.5°,
GomSpace Quadrant 0.002 Unk Digital {45°, 60°} 2 Unk Unk
FSS ±2°}
134
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Hyperion
SS200 Unk .003 .04 Digital 110° 0.3° Unk 36 7-9
Technologies
Lens R&D BiSon64-ET Quadrant 0.023 0 Analog ±58° per axis 0.5° 2 9200 7-9
BiSon64-ET-
Lens R&D Quadrant 0.033 0 Analog ±58° per axis 0.5° 2 9200 7-9
B
Lens R&D MAUS Quadrant 0.014 0 Analog ±57° per axis 0.5° 2 9200 7-9
NewSpace
NFSS-411 Unk 0.035 0.150 Digital 140° 0.1° TBD 20 7-9
Systems
NewSpace
NCSS-SA05 Unk 0.005 0.05 Analog 114° 0.5° TBD Unk 7-9
Systems
Solar MEMS nanoSSOC-
Quadrant 0.004 0.007 Analog ±60° per axis 0.5° 2 100 7-9
Technologies A60
Solar MEMS nanoSSOC-
Quadrant 0.007 0.076 Digital ±60° per axis 0.5° 2 30 7-9
Technologies D60
Solar MEMS
SSOC-A60 Quadrant 0.025 0.01 Analog ±60° per axis 0.3° 2 100 7-9
Technologies
Solar MEMS
SSOC-D60 Quadrant 0.035 0.315 Digital ±60° per axis 0.3° 2 30 7-9
Technologies
Quadrant
Solar MEMS &
ACSS 0.035 0.072 Analog ±60° per axis 0.5° 2 200 7-9
Technologies Redunda
nt
CSS-01,
Space Micro Cosine 0.010 0 Analog 120° full cone 5° 1 100 7-9
CSS-02
Space Micro MSS-01 Quadrant 0.036 0 Analog 48° full cone 1° 2 100 7-9
135
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
#
Peak Analog Rad T
Manufact Sensor Mass Accurac Measur
Model Power or Tolerance R
urer Type (kg) y ement
(W) Digital (krad) L
Angles
CubeSpac CubeSens
Camera 0.030 0.200 Digital 0.2° 2 24 7-9
e e
CubeSpac
CubeIR Infrared 0.050 0.230 Digital 1.5° 2 24 7-9
e
Voltage
Mini Pyroelec
Servo 0.050 Depende Digital 0.75° Unk Unk 7-9
Digital HCI tric
nt
Voltage
Pyroelec
Servo Mini HCI 0.0115 Depende Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk
tric
nt
RH 310 Pyroelec
Servo 1.5 1 Unk 0.015° Unk 20 Unk
HCI tric
Solar
MEMS
HSNS Infrared 0.120 0.150 Digital 1° 2 30 7-9
Technolog
ies
136
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
137
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
138
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Ty
Emcor pic N/ N
e SDG1400 Gyro MEMS 0.60 0.6 1 6 al N/A A N/A /A N/A
Emcor 0.22 2.2 N/ N
e SDD3000-A01 Gyro MEMS 7 5 1 0.5 1σ N/A A N/A /A N/A
Ty
Emcor ≤0.0 pic N/ N
e QRS11 Gyro MEMS 6 0.8 1 6 al N/A A N/A /A N/A
Emcor ≤0.0 N/ N/ N
e QRS14-102 Gyro MEMS 5 0.3 1 N/A A N/A A N/A /A N/A
Emcor ≤0.0 N/ N/ N
e QRS14-103 Gyro MEMS 5 0.7 1 N/A A N/A A N/A /A N/A
Emcor ≤0.0 N/ N/ N
e QRS28 Gyro MEMS 25 0.5 2 N/A A N/A A N/A /A N/A
Emcor ≤0.0 N/ N
e QRS116 Gyro MEMS 6 0.2 1 20 1σ N/A A N/A /A N/A
Emcor 18. 1
e EN-300-1 IMU FOG 0.82 0 3 0.1 1σ 0.008 3 150 σ 0.026
Emcor 18. 1
e EN-300-3 IMU FOG 0.82 0 3 0.2 1σ 0.015 3 300 σ 0.026
Emcor 18. 1
e EN-300-5 IMU FOG 0.82 0 3 0.4 1σ 0.03 3 500 σ 0.026
Emcor N/ N
e EG-120 Gyro FOG 0.08 5.0 1 1 1σ ≤0.04 A N/A /A N/A
Gladia
tor T
0.01 TB Un
Techn A40 Accel MEMS 0 N/A N/A 1 45 B 0.038
5 D k
ologie D
s
Gladia
tor
0.02 TB TB N
Techn G150Z Gyro MEMS 1 1.200 0.060 0 N/A N/A
8 D D /A
ologie
s
Gladia 0.01 0.2 TB N
G300D IRU MEMS 3 5.000 0.168 0 N/A N/A
tor 9 5 D /A
139
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Techn
ologie
s
Gladia
tor T
0.11 0.6 TB
Techn LandMark 60LX IMU MEMS 3 4.000 0.096 3 10 B 0.0016
5 00 D
ologie D
s
Gladia
tor T
0.01 0.4 TB
Techn LandMark 005 IMU MEMS 3 3.5 0.102 3 20 B 0.0024
9 00 D
ologie D
s
Gladia
tor T
0.02 0.2 TB
Techn LandMark 007 IMU MEMS 3 4.000 0.12 3 5000 B 0.3
5 70 D
ologie D
s
Gladia
tor T
0.02 0.4 TB
Techn LandMark 007X IMU MEMS 3 4.000 0.12 3 5000 B 0.3
5 50 D
ologie D
s
Gladia
tor T
0.11 0.6 TB 0.0016
Techn LandMark 60LX IMU MEMS 3 4.000 0.096 3 10 B
5 00 D 8
ologie D
s
Gladia
tor T
0.11 0.6 TB
Techn LandMark 65 IMU MEMS 3 7.000 0.120 3 10 B 0.0021
5 00 D
ologie D
s
Gladia T
0.12 1.0 TB
tor MRM60 IMU MEMS 3 3.000 0.096 3 25 B 0.0024
0 00 D
Techn D
140
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ologie
s
U
Honey Un U Un U
MIMU IMU RLG Unk Unk Unk Unk n Unk
well k nk k nk
k
Honey 3.0 1
HG1930 IMU MEMS 0.16 3 20.000 1σ 0.175 3 10 0.400
well 00 σ
Honey 5.0 1
HG1700 IMU RLG 0.9 3 1.000 1σ 0.125 3 1000 0.65
well 00 σ
IMU +
magnet
m
Inertial ometer 0.01 0.3 ma
µIMU MEMS 3 10.000 0.150 3 40 a 0.070
Sense s 1 40 x
x
+baro
meter
r
Inertial IMU-NAV-100 0.15 0.8 rm
IMU MEMS 3 0.500 0.100 3 3 m 0.008
Labs "Tactical" A 5 00 s
s
r
Inertial IMU-P "Tactical" 0.07 0.8 rm
IMU MEMS 3 1.000 0.200 3 5 m 0.015
Labs Standard A 0 00 s
s
0.70 8.0 1
KVH 1725 IMU IMU FOG 3 0.10 1σ 0.017 3 15 0.071
0 00 σ
0.70 8.0 1
KVH 1750 IMU IMU FOG 3 0.100 1σ 0.012 3 45 0.014
0 00 σ
IMU +
magnet 0.70 8.0 1
KVH 1775 IMU FOG 3 0.100 1σ 0.012 3 45 0.071
ometer 0 00 σ
s
15.
2.27 1
KVH CG-5100 IMU FOG 00 3 1 1σ 0.067 3 250 0.12
0 σ
0
U
0.60 8.0
KVH DSP-1760 IRU FOG 3 0.100 1σ 0.0120 0 N/A n N/A
0 00
k
141
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
U
0.27 3.0
KVH DSP-3000 Gyro FOG 1 1.000 1σ 0.067 0 N/A n N/A
0 00
k
U
0.20 3.0
KVH DSP-3100 Gyro FOG 1 1.000 1σ 0.067 0 N/A n N/A
0 00
k
U
0.30 3.0
KVH DSP-3400 Gyro FOG 1 1.000 1σ 0.067 0 N/A n N/A
0 00
k
U
2.36 9.0
KVH DSP-4000 Gyros FOG 2 1.000 1σ 0.067 0 N/A n N/A
0 00
k
40. U
15.4
L3 CIRUS Gyros FOG 00 3 0.000 1σ 0.100 0 N/A n N/A
00
0 k
LORD T
0.01 0.5 TB
Sensin 3DM-CV5-10 IMU MEMS 3 8.000 0.450 3 80 B 0.059
1 00 D
g D
LORD T
0.00 0.3 TB
Sensin 3DM-CX5-10 IMU MEMS 3 8.000 0.300 3 40 B 0.015
8 00 D
g D
LORD T
0.01 0.3 TB
Sensin 3DM-GX5-10 IMU MEMS 3 8.000 0.300 3 40 B 0.015
65 00 D
g D
IMU +
MEMS 0.02 0.6 ty
MS-IMU3020 magnet MEMS 3 1.060 typ 0.220 3 14.8 0.078
ENSE 0 50 p
ometer
IMU +
MEMS 0.01 0.8 ty
MS-IMU3025 magnet MEMS 3 0.80 typ 0.150 3 6.7 0.008
ENSE 9 50 p
ometer
IMU +
MEMS 0.02 1.3 ty
MS-IMU3030 magnet MEMS 3 0.550 typ 0.11 3 2.9 0.005
ENSE 5 50 p
ometer
142
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
IMU +
MEMS 0.07 2.5 ty
MS-IMU3050 magnet MEMS 3 0.300 typ 0.065 3 2.6 0.006
ENSE 9 00 p
ometer
NewS
Image-based U
pace 0.05 0.2
NSGY-001 IRU rotation 3 N/A N/A 0 N/A n N/A
Syste 5 00
estimate k
ms
Northr
op 0.74 1
LN-200S IMU FOG, SiAc 12 3 1.000 1σ 0.070 3 300 Unk
Grum 8 σ
man
Northr
U
op 0.15 2.3
µFORS-3U Gyro FOG 1 0.050 1σ 0.080 0 N/A n N/A
Grum 0 00
k
man
Northr
U
op 0.15 2.3
µFORS-6U Gyro FOG 1 0.050 1σ 0.047 0 N/A n N/A
Grum 0 00
k
man
Northr
U
op 0.11 2.2
µFORS-36m Gyro FOG 1 18.000 1σ 1.000 0 N/A n N/A
Grum 0 5
k
man
Northr
U
op 0.13
µFORS-1 Gyro FOG 2.5 1 1.000 1σ 0.100 0 N/A n N/A
Grum 7
k
man
Northr
r
op 0.68 8.0
µIMU-I-SP IMU MEMS 3 6.000 1σ 0.300 3 3000 m 0.147
Grum 0 00
s
man
Northr
r
op 0.68 8.0
µIMU-I-HP IMU MEMS 3 3.000 1σ 0.150 3 1500 m 0.041
Grum 0 00
s
man
143
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Northr
r
op 0.68 8.0
µIMU-IC-SP IMU MEMS 3 6.000 1σ 0.300 3 3000 m 0.147
Grum 0 00
s
man
Northr
r
op 0.68 8.0
µIMU-IC-HP IMU MEMS 3 9.000 1σ 0.150 3 1500 m 0.041
Grum 0 00
s
man
Northr
r
op 0.68 8.0
µIMU-M-SP IMU MEMS 3 9.000 1σ 0.450 3 3000 m 0.147
Grum 0 00
s
man
Northr
r
op 0.68 8.0
µIMU-M-HP IMU MEMS 3 4.500 1σ 0.230 3 1500 m 0.041
Grum 0 00
s
man
T
NovAt 2.50 8.0 TB
IMU-HG1900 IMU MEMS 3 1.000 0.090 3 700 B Unk
el 0 00 D
D
11. T
NovAt 2.57 TB
IMU-µIMU-IC IMU MEMS 00 3 6.000 0.300 3 3000 B 0.250
el 0 D
0 D
T
NovAt OEM-IMU-ADIS- 0.04 0.2 TB
IMU MEMS 3 6.25 0.300 3 100 B 0.029
el 16488 8 54 D
D
T
NovAt OEM-IMU- 0.01 0.1 TB
IMU MEMS 3 0.800 0.060 3 12 B 0.025
el EG370N 0 00 D
D
T
NovAt 0.46 3.0 TB
OEM-HG1900 IMU MEMS 3 1.000 0.090 3 700 B Unk
el 0 00 D
D
T
NovAt 0.20 3.0 TB
OEM-HG1930 IMU MEMS 3 2.000 0.125 3 3000 B Unk
el 0 00 D
D
144
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
T
NovAt OEM-IMU- 0.20 3.0 TB
IMU MEMS 3 Unk Unk 3 Unk B Unk
el HG4930P 0 00 D
D
T
NovAt OEM-IMU- 0.05 1.5 TB
IMU MEMS 3 0.500 0.150 3 50 B 0.060
el STIM300 5 0 D
D
T
Senso 0.05 1.5 TB
STIM202 IRU MEMS 3 0.400 0.170 0 N/A B N/A
nor 5 00 D
D
T
Senso 0.05 1.5 TB
STIM210 IRU MEMS 3 0.300 0.150 0 N/A B N/A
nor 2 00 D
D
T
Senso 0.05 2.0 TB
STIM300 IMU MEMS 3 0.300 0.150 3 50 B 0.070
nor 5 00 D
D
T
Senso 0.05 2.5 TB
STIM318 IMU MEMS 3 0.300 0.150 3 3 B 0.015
nor 7 00 D
D
T
Senso 0.05 2.5 TB
STIM320 IMU MEMS 3 0.300 0.100 3 3 B 0.015
nor 7 00 D
D
T
Senso 0.05 1.5 TB
STIM277H IRU MEMS 3 0.300 0.150 0 N/A B N/A
nor 2 00 D
D
T
Senso 0.05 2.0 TB
STIM377H IMU MEMS 3 0.300 0.150 3 50 B 0.070
nor 5 00 D
D
CRH03- CRH03-
010 – 010 –
Silicon 0.03 0.005
Sensin CRH03- CRH03-
0.2
g CRH03 Gyro MEMS 0.42 1 025 – 025 – 0 N/A - N/A
W
Syste 0.04 0.006
ms CRH03- CRH03-
100 – 100 –
0.04 0.006
145
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
CRH03- CRH03-
200 – 200 –
0.05 0.008
CRH03- CRH03-
400 – 400 –
0.1 0.010
CRH03- CRH03-
010 – 010 –
0.03 0.005
CRH03- CRH03-
025 – 025 –
Silicon 0.04 0.006
Sensin CRH03- CRH03-
CRH03 0.2
g Gyro MEMS 0.18 1 100 – 100 – 0 N/A - N/A
(OEM) W
Syste 0.04 0.006
ms CRH03- CRH03-
200 – 200 –
0.05 0.008
CRH03- CRH03-
400 – 400 –
0.1 0.010
Silicon
Sensin <0.
g RPU30 Gyro MEMS 1.35 8 3 0.06 0.006 0 N/A - N/A
Syste W
ms
Silicon
Sensin <1.
9 DoF
g DMU41 MEMS <2 5 3 0.1 0.015 3 15 - 0.05
IMU
Syste W
ms
Silicon
Sensin
6 DoF 0.4
g DMU11 MEMS 0.04 3 10 0.4 3 50 - 0.05
IMU 25
Syste
ms
146
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Silicon
Sensin 0.0
0.00
g CRM Gyro MEMS 16 1 12 0.2 0 N/A N/A
1
Syste 5
ms
CAS2X
CAS2X 1S -
1S - TBC
7.5 CAS2X
CAS2X 2S -
Silicon 2S - TBC
Sensin 7.5 CAS2X
0.00 Un
g CAS Acc MEMS 0 N/A N/A 2 CAS2X 3S -
4 k
Syste 3S - TBC
ms 7.5 CAS2X
CAS2X 4S -
4S - 25 TBC
CAS2X CAS2X
5S - 75 5S -
TBC
Systro
n 0.59 5.0 1
SDI50x-AE00 IMU MEMS 3 1.000 1σ 0.020 3 100 0.059
Donne 0 00 σ
r
InterSense T
0.00 0.1 TB
Thales NavChip Series 3 IMU MEMS 3 4.000 0.180 3 6 B 0.020
3 35 D
Class A D
InterSense T
0.00 0.1 TB
Thales NavChip Series 3 IMU MEMS 3 5.000 0.180 3 40 B 0.030
3 35 D
Class B D
T
InterSense 0.00 0.1 TB
Thales IMU MEMS 3 5.000 0.180 3 40 B 0.030
NavChip 3 35 D
D
U
InterSense 0.01 TB TB
Thales IRU MEMS 3 TBD TBD 0 N/A n N/A
InertiaCube4 1 D D
k
147
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
IMU +
magnet
m
Vector ometer 0.01 0.2 ma
VN-100 MEMS 3 10.000 0.210 3 40 a 0.082
Nav s 5 20 x
x
+baro
meter
IMU +
m
Vector magnet 0.12 2.5 ma
VN-110 MEMS 3 1.000 0.054 3 10 a 0.024
Nav ometer 5 00 x
x
s
Xsens
T
Techn 0.00 TB
MTi-610 IMU MEMS 1.0 3 8.000 0.420 3 10 B 0.035
ologie 9 D
D
s
148
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
149
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
150
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
151
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Another interesting approach to measuring angular velocity is the Stellar Gyro from NewSpace
Systems. This sensor estimates angular rates from star images taken by a camera; one
advantage of this approach is that it avoids the problem of gyro drift. Of course, such a sensor
does require a clear view of the sky.
5.4 Summary
Small spacecraft GNC is a mature area, with many previously flown, high TRL components
offered by several different vendors. Progress in developing integrated units will offer simple,
single vendor, modular devices for ADCS, which will simplify GNC subsystem design. Other areas
of GNC have potential for additional improvements as more research is being conducted. For
example, a team at the University of Michigan is developing a multi-algorithmic hybrid ADCS
system for CubeSats that can implement multiple estimation and control algorithms (22). Another
team from Johns Hopkins University is conducting ground simulations of docking, charging,
relative navigation, and deorbiting for a fully robotic CubeSat (23).
The rising popularity of SmallSats in general, and CubeSats in particular, means there is a high
demand for components, and engineers are often faced with prohibitive prices. The Space
Systems Design Studio at Cornell University is tackling this issue for GNC with their PAN
nanosatellites. A paper by Choueiri et al. outlines an inexpensive and easy-to-assemble solution
for keeping the ADCS system below $2,500 (25). Lowering the cost of components holds exciting
implications for the future and will likely lead to a burgeoning of the SmallSat industry.
For feedback solicitation, please email: [email protected]. Please include a business
email so someone may contact you further.
References
(1) Shepherd, L. C. G. and Shepherd, A. F. S. C.: “Space Surveillance Network.” Shared
Space Situational Awareness Conference. Olorado Springs. 2006.
(5) Wertz, J. R.: "Spacecraft attitude determination and control." Springer Science & Business
Media. Vol. 73. 2012,
(6) Jin, J, Ko, S and Ryoo, C K: “Fault Tolerant Control For Satellites With Four Reaction
Wheels.” vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 1250–1258. 2008.
(7) Kulczycki, R. and Wisniewski, P.: “Slew Maneuver Control For Spacecraft Equipped With
Star Camera And Reaction Wheels.” Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 349–356. 2005.
(8) Spratling, B. B. and Mortari, D.: “A Survey On Star Identification Algorithms.” Vol. 2, no. 1,
pp. 93–107. 2009.
(9) Psiaki, M L, Martel, F and Pal, P K.: “Three-Axis Attitude Determination Via Kalman
Filtering Of Magnetometer Data.” Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 506–514. 1990.
152
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(10) Wessels, J H.: "Infrared Horizon Sensor for CubeSat Implementation." Masters Thesis,
Stellenbosch University. 03 2018.
(11) Pelemeshko, A, et al.: "High-Precision Cubesat Sun Sensor Coupled With Infrared Earth
Horizon Detector." IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. Vol. 734. pp. 0121-8. 2020,
(12) Greenheck, D, et al.: “Design and Testing of a Low-Cost MEMS IMU Cluster for SmallSat
Applications.” 2014. 28th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites.
(13) Merhav, S.: Aerospace Sensor Systems and Applications. Springer New York, 1998.
(15) “Foreign Availability Determination Procedures And Criteria.” Office of the Federal
Register. Title 15 Part 768.7. 2015.
(16) Jeffery Foust: "GPS in Space." MIT Technology Review. [Online] 01 2002.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2002/01/01/275613/gps-in-space/.
(18) Aguirre, F. H.: “X-Band Electronics For The INSPIRE Cubesat Deep Space Radio." 2015.
IEEE Aerospace Conference.
(19) Baird, D.: "NASA Tests Atomic Clock for Deep Space Navigation." [Online] 2018.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7053.
(20) Cornwell, D.: "NASA’s Deep Space Atomic Clock and Optical Communications Program
for PNT Applications." [Online] 2016. [Cited: June 19, 2018.]
https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2016-12/cornwell.pdf.
(21) JW, Kolar, et al.: "High-Speed Magnetically Levitated Reaction Wheels For Small
Satellites." Anacapri, Capri: 23rd International Symposium on Power Electronics,
Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion (SPEEDAM 2016), 2016.
(22) Lee, D Y, Kuevor, P. and Culter, J.: "Multi-algorithmic Hybrid Attitude Determination and
Control System of the CubeSat 'CADRE'." [Online] 2016.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2016/S2CDH/2/.
(23) Mishra, S., Basescu, M. and Kobilarov, M.: "Laboratory Validation of Vision Based
Grasping, Guidance and Control with Two Nanosatellite Models." [Online] 2016.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2016/S5GuidCont/6/.
(24) Gunter, B. C., et al.: "The Ranging and Nanosatellite Guidance Experiment (RANGE)."
[Online] 2016. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2016/S5GuidCont/3/.
(25) Choueiri, M N, Bell, M and Peck, M A.: "Cost-Effective and Readily Manufactured Attitude
Determination and Control System for NanoSatellites." AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA SciTech Forum. 2018.
153
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(26) D. Dickinson: “NICER and SEXTANT demonstrate XNAV pulsar navigation system that
may be used on Artemis.” [Online] 2020. https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-
news/nasa-to-use-pulsar-navigation-for-deep-space-missions/
(27) Kapás, K., Bozóki, T., Dálya, G. et al. Attitude determination for nano-satellites – I.
Spherical projections for large field of view infrasensors. Exp Astron 51, 515–527 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-021-09730-y
(28) M. M. Kobayashi et al., "The Iris Deep-Space Transponder for the SLS EM-1 Secondary
Payloads," in IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 34-
44, 1 Sept. 2019, doi: 10.1109/MAES.2019.2905923.
154
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Contents
Glossary .......................................................................................................................... ii
6.0 Structure, Mechanisms, and Materials .............................................................. 155
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 155
6.2 State-of-the-Art – Primary Structures ............................................................. 156
6.2.1 Monocoque Construction ......................................................................... 156
6.2.2 Modular Frame Designs .......................................................................... 157
6.2.3 Card Slot Systems ................................................................................... 159
6.2.4 Custom Primary Structures...................................................................... 160
6.2.3 Mechanisms ............................................................................................ 161
6.3 State-of-the-Art – Additive Manufacturing (AM).............................................. 165
6.3.1 Applicability of TRL to Polymer AM ......................................................... 165
6.3.2 Thermoplastics and Photopolymers ........................................................ 166
6.3.3 AM Design Optimization .......................................................................... 173
6.4 Radiation Effects and Mitigation Strategies .................................................... 174
6.4.1 Shielding from the Space Environment ................................................... 174
6.4.2 Inherent Mass Shielding .......................................................................... 175
6.4.3 Shields-1 Mission, Radiation Shielding for CubeSat Structural Design ... 176
6.4.4 Ad Hoc Shielding ..................................................................................... 177
6.4.5 Charge Dissipation Coating ..................................................................... 178
6.4.6 LUNA Innovations, Inc. XP Charge Dissipation Coating .......................... 178
6.5 Summary ........................................................................................................ 178
References .................................................................................................................. 179
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Glossary
ii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
iii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
155
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
with flight hardware in the loop. Card slot systems not only provide those benefits, but when paired
with certain standards, they can still fulfill the same structural, mechanical, and thermal
requirements as the current CubeSat method of “stacking” electronics and payloads.
An overview of radiation effects and some mitigation strategies is included in this chapter because
radiation exposure can impact the structural design of small spacecraft. For SmallSats operating
out of low-Earth orbit with increased radiation exposure, mission planners may also want to
consider risk mitigation strategies associated with specific radiation environments. This includes
both interplanetary missions, where solar radiation dominates, and polar low-Earth orbit (PLEO)
missions, where solar radiation risk increases over the poles. In addition, as solar maximum
approaches in 2025 (1) with an increased number of solar particle events (SPEs), mission
planners will need to consider many orbital environments.
The information described below is not intended to be exhaustive but provides an overview of
current state-of-the-art technologies and their development status for a particular small spacecraft
subsystem. It should be noted that Technology Readiness Level (TRL) designations may vary
with changes specific to payload, mission requirements, reliability considerations, and/or the
environment in which performance was demonstrated. Readers are highly encouraged to reach
out to companies for further information regarding the performance and TRL of described
technology. There is no intention of mentioning certain companies and omitting others based on
their technologies or relationship with NASA.
156
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Pumpkin, Inc.
In the structural monocoque approach taken by Pumpkin for
their 1U – 3U spacecraft, loads are carried by the external skin
to maximize internal volume. Pumpkin provides several COTS
CubeSat structures intended as components of their CubeSat
Kit solutions, ranging in size from sub-1U to the larger 6U – 12U
SUPERNOVA structures (2). Pumpkin offerings are machined
from Al 5052-H32 and can be either solid-wall or skeletonized.
Pumpkin has developed the SUPERNOVA, a 6U and 12U
structure that features a machined aluminum modular
architecture. The 6U structure in figure 6.1 is designed to Figure 6.1: The 6U
integrate with the Planetary Systems Corporation (PSC) Supernova Structure Kit.
Canisterized Satellite Dispenser and accommodates the PSC Credit: Pumpkin, Inc.
Separation Connector for power and data during integration (2).
Configurations for other dispensers are also available.
AAC Clyde Space CS CubeSat Structure
AAC Clyde Space offers a monocoque CubeSat structure from 1U to 3U.
The 1U chassis has a total mass of 0.155 kg and dimensions of 100 x 100
x 113.5 mm. The 2U structure has a mass of 0.275 kg and dimensions of
100 x 100 x 227 mm. The 3U structure has a mass of 0.394 kg and
dimensions of 100 x 100 x 340.5 mm. AAC Clyde Space standardized their
components to facilitate spacecraft configuration, as both 1U and 3U
structures interface with all standard dispensers, such as NanoRacks (3). Figure 6.2: 3U CS
The 3U structure is seen in figure 6.2. Structure. Credit:
6.2.2 Modular Frame Designs AAC Clyde Space.
Modular frames allow for a flexible internal design for quick turn missions,
while still ensuring strict adherence to external dimensions of the CubeSat standard, especially
when deployment from a standardized, reusable dispenser is a requirement. Open frames are
suitable for low-Earth orbit, as radiation shielding is not provided by the structure. Care must also
be taken to design for thermal mass requirements, as modular frames are inherently light. The
following subsections contain examples of modular CubeSat frame designs. Table 6-1 lists
commercially available CubeSat structures.
NanoAvionics Modular Frame
NanoAvionics has developed what it calls
“standardized frames and structural element” that,
when assembled, form the primary structure for 1U
to 12U spacecraft. A modular 3U structure from
NanoAvionics is shown in figure 6.3. These
components are intended to be modular, made from
7075 aluminum, and like many COTS CubeSat
structures, compliant with the PC/104 form factor (4).
Innovative Solutions In SPACE Figure 6.3: NanoAvionics Small Satellite
Structures. Credit: NanoAvionics.
ISISPACE offers a wide array of CubeSat structures,
with the largest being a 16U structure. Several of
their 1U, 2U, 3U and 6U structures have been flown in low-Earth orbit (see table 6-1 for more
157
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
158
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
159
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Table 6-3: Spacecraft Physical Dimension and Weight Requirements from Deployers
160
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
6.2.3 Mechanisms
There are several companies offering mechanisms for small spacecraft. Although not exhaustive,
this section will highlight a few devices for release actuation, component pointing, and boom
extension, which represent the state-of-the-art for the CubeSat market. Please refer to the Deorbit
Systems chapter for deployable mechanisms used for deorbit devices.
Composite Technology Deployment (CTD): Deployable Booms
CTD has developed a composite boom
called the Stable Tubular Extendable
Lock-Out Composite (STELOC), that is
rolled up or folded for stowage and
deploys using stored strain energy. The
slit-tube boom, shown in figure 6.6
employs an innovative interlocking
SlitLock™ edge feature along the tube Figure 6.6: CTD’s Deployable Composite Booms.
slit that greatly enhances stability. The Credit: Composite Technology Development.
boom can be fabricated in many custom
diameters and lengths, offers a small stowed volume, and has a near-zero coefficient of thermal
expansion (CTE) (15). This technology has flown in low-Earth orbit.
AlSat-1N: AstroTube Deployable Boom
Oxford Space Systems collaborated with the Algerian Space
Agency to develop the AstroTube deployable boom (figure 6.7)
that was recently demonstrated in low-Earth orbit on a 3U
CubeSat called AlSat-1N. It is the longest retractable boom that
has been deployed and retracted on the 3U CubeSat platform. It
incorporates a flexible, composite structure for the 1.5 m-long Figure 6.7: The flexible
boom element, and a novel deployment mechanism for actuation. composite member that is
When retracted, the boom is housed within a 1U volume and has employed on the AstroTube.
a total mass of 0.61 kg (16). Credit: Oxford Space
Redwire Space: Deployable Booms and Manipulators Systems.
Redwire Space (previously ROCCOR) has developed several different deployable booms that
have a wide range of applications on small spacecraft. The Roll Out Composite (ROC) Booms
are designed to deploy instruments or provide deployment force and structure to antennas, solar
arrays, and other system architectures. These booms are 1 – 5 m in length and are fabricated
from fiber reinforced polymer composites and can be tailored to meet a wide range of
requirements for stiffness, force output, thermal stability, etc. These booms can also be made
either motor driven, or strain energy driven, and some versions have features for harness
management. Furthermore, several versions of these booms can be made to retract on-orbit.
There are currently three ROC Booms in orbit, with other systems awaiting launch in 2022 (17).
The CubeSat ROC Boom Deployer was developed for magnetometer applications, using a similar
high strain composite slit-tube boom, however it is implemented in a different way (17). The
CubeSat ROC Boom Deployer is root rolled and motorized while the ROC-FALL system is tip-
161
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
rolled and passively deployed. The CubeSat ROC Boom Deployer is awaiting a launch
opportunity to reach TRL 7.
Redwire Space's family of robotic manipulators provide a wide range of capabilities, including 5
to 7 DOF, 1 to 4 m reach, and 8 to 65 kg mass, supporting a variety of orbital and lunar surface
applications. The robotic arms are built from a suite of modular interchangeable elements,
enabling variable reach, torque applications, configuration, and grappling capabilities. This
technology is primarily for ESPA class satellites.
NASA: Deployable Composite Boom (DCB)
NASA Langley Research Center
(LaRC) has developed DCBs
through the Space Technology
Mission Directorate (STMD) Game
Changing Development (GCD)
program and a joint effort with the
German Aerospace Center. DCBs
have high bending and torsional
stiffness, packaging efficiency,
thermal stability, and a low weight
of less than 25% compared to
metallic booms (18). The Advanced
Composite Solar Sail project
(ACS3) will demonstrate DCB
technology for solar sailing
applications. The DCB/ACS3 7 m
boom technology is extensible to
16.5 m deployable boom lengths Figure 6.8: NASA Deployable Composite Boom (DCB)
(figure 6.8). Technology. Credit: NASA.
RSat-P and RECS: Robotic Arms
Repair Satellite-Prototype (RSat-
P) is a 3U CubeSat that is part of
the Autonomous On-orbit
Diagnostic System (AMODS) built
by the US Naval Academy
Satellite lab to demonstrate
capabilities for on-orbit repair
systems (19). RSat-P uses two
60 cm extendable robotic arms Figure 6.9: Robotic Experimental Construction Satellite
with the ability to maneuver (RECS). Credit: The Naval Academy.
around a satellite to provide
images and other diagnostic information to a ground team. RSAT-P launched with the ELaNaXIX
Mission in December 2018 and was lost during initial deployment. The robotic development has
continued with the Naval Academy Satellite Team for Autonomous Robotics (NSTAR) Robotic
Experimental Construction Satellite (RECS), a 3U CubeSat, which will demonstrate the robotic
arm capabilities in the ISS microgravity environment in late 2021 (20). The RECS robotic arms
were built using 3D Windform print technology. Figure 6.9 shows the robotic arms from RSAT
CubeSat heritage that are being developed further for RECS.
162
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The COBRA-Bee carpal-wrist mechanism was developed for the NASA Astrobee-- a small, free-
flying robot that assists astronauts aboard the ISS. The COBRA-Bee gimbal can enable Astrobee
to precisely point and position sensors, grippers, and other tools (23). COBRA-Bee is a small-
scale, tightly integrated COTS product, that can provide precise multi-purpose pointing and
positioning with an interface to support third-party sensors, end-effectors, and tools.
Honeybee: Solar Panel Drive Actuator
Honeybee, in cooperation with MMA, has developed a CubeSat Solar Array Drive Actuator
(SADA) that accommodates ±180° single-axis rotation for solar array pointing, can transfer 100
W of power from a pair of deployed panels, and features an auto sun-tracking capability (14).
Honeybee also offers the unit in a slip-ring configuration for continuous rotation. Table 6-5
highlights a few key specifications for this actuator. As of 2021, the SADA is in high-rate
production for the OneWeb satellite internet constellation (24).
163
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
164
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
165
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
166
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
accumulation occurs regardless. Please refer to the NASA Handbook 4002A, 5.2.1.5 Material
Selection for more information. Historically, ESD due to faulty grounding has been a leading cause
of spacecraft or subsystem failures (26). Volume resistivity and dielectric constant are two
material properties used to determine charge dissipation for the evaluation of electrostatic
discharge risk in the space environment (26). Please refer to NASA Handbook 4002A, Appendix
D.7 “Dielectric Constant, Time Constant” page 138 for determining the leakage time constant.
Polylactic Acid (PLA)
PLA is the most common filament used in AM and table 6-7 lists several PLA filaments. It exhibits
very low shrinkage and is extremely easy to print because it does not require a heated bed or
build chamber and requires a relatively low extruder (nozzle) temperature. It also has low
offgassing during printing, important in open-frame AM systems in rapid prototyping environments
such as lab settings. Unless the application has a very short-term exposure to harsh conditions,
and if the conditions are well characterized and controlled, it is not recommended to use PLA for
an application beyond TRL 3-4. For laboratory settings in controlled environments not subject to
excessive mechanical forces, ESD-compatible filaments are available.
Filament ISO ISO 179- ISO ASTM Nozzl Bed Densit Volume
Name 75/ASTM 1 527- D790/IS e Tem y Resistivit
(Citation) D648 Hardnes 1/AST O 178 Temp p (g/cc) y
Deflectio s (kJ/m2) M Flexural (°C) (°C)
(Ω-cm)
n Temp or Izod D638 strength
(°C) D256- ZX (MPa)
10A Tensile
(J/m) strengt
h
(MPa)
167
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Filament ISO ISO 179- ISO ASTM Nozzl Bed Densit Volume
Name 75/ASTM 1 527- D790/IS e Tem y Resistivit
D648 Hardnes 1/AST O 178 Temp p (g/cc) y
Deflectio s (kJ/m2) M Flexural (°C) (°C)
(Ω-cm)
n Temp or Izod D638 strength
(°C) D256- Tensile (MPa)
10A strengt
(J/m) h
(MPa)
ABS
Nylon
Versatile and tough, there are multiple formulations for nylon that allow for a very wide range of
applications and material properties. In general, nylon is more difficult to manufacture than ABS
on open-source FFF systems due to the need for an enclosure for thermal stability and additional
bed preparation due to the need for higher adhesion. Secondary structural pieces have been
flown through the TechEdSat program using Markforged Onyx carbon fiber filaments. Table 6-9
lists some examples of nylon filaments.
168
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ISO ISO
ISO 179-1 527- ASTM
75/AST Hardnes 1/ASTM D790/IS Nozzl Volume
Filament Bed Resistivi
M D648 s (kJ/m2) D638 O 178 e Density
Name Temp ty
Deflectio or Izod ZX Flexural Temp (g/cc)
(Citation) (°C)
n Temp D256- Tensile strength (°C) (Ω-cm)
(°C) 10A strength (MPa)
(J/m) (MPa)
Taulman3
250-
D Alloy 910 82 N/A 56 N/A 30-65 N/A --
255
(29)
Taulman3
285-
D Alloy 910 112 N/A 56 N/A 55 N/A --
300
HDT (29)
Taulman3
D Nylon 250-
N/A N/A 47 N/A 30-65 N/A --
680 Food 255
Grade (30)
Markforged
Onyx ESD 138 44 J/m 52 83 N/A N/A 1.2 105-107
316)
3DXTECH
CARBONX
™ HTN+CF 240 N/A 87 95 295 130 1.24 109
(32)
Stratasys
71-138
Nylon 12 92-95 33-42 55-57 N/A N/A 1.01 1013
J/m
(33)
Polycarbonate (PC)
Also known as Lexan™, this thermoplastic has some of the highest impact resistance, tensile
strength, and temperature resistance available for most open source-based AM systems. After
manufacturing, it is dimensionally stable and very stiff. However, it is difficult to print on open-
frame, open-source AM systems due to very high warping especially when printing large
components. Very high bed and nozzle temperatures are required, and poor adhesion to the bed
is a typical issue. It is also highly hygroscopic; if possible, filament should be baked out before
printing, or should be kept in a dedicated dry box while printing. Certain filaments, like the
Prusament PC Blend, have additives to mitigate some of the difficulties of printing PC. If PC is
desired for a smallsat structure, it should be printed on a commercial AM system. Table 6-10 lists
some polycarbonate filaments.
169
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ISO
ISO 179-
ISO 527- ASTM
1
75/ASTM 1/ASTM D790/ISO Volume
Filament Hardness Nozzle Bed
D648 D638 178 Density Resistivity
Name (kJ/m2) or Temp Temp
Deflection ZX Flexural (g/cc)
(Citation) Izod (°C) (°C) (Ω-cm)
Temp Tensile strength
D256-
(°C) strength (MPa)
10A (J/m)
(MPa)
Prusament No break
PC Blend 113 for ISO 63 88-94 275 110 1.22 --
(34) 179
Prusament
PC Blend
114 35 kJ/m2 55-65 85-106 285 110 1.16 --
Carbon
Fiber (35)
Stratasys 27-77
143 60 75 N/A N/A 1.20 --
PC (36) J/m
Windform
Manufactured by CRP USA, these proprietary materials are classified as a carbon fiber reinforced
polymer originally designed for the automotive racing industry. They are unique in that these
composites are manufactured through SLS (43). This results in higher dimensional stability and
more isotropic properties than FFF. Windform XT 1.0 and 2.0 have been used on CubeSat and
PocketQube platforms and have flight heritage through KySat-2 launched on ELaNa IV, and
TANCREDO-1, launched through the ISS via JEM in 2017 (37). Table 6-11 lists CRP Windform
filaments.
ISO
ISO 527-
179-1 1/AST
ISO ASTM
Hardnes M Volume
Filamen 75/AST D790/IS Bed
s D638 Densit Resistivit
t Name M D648 O 178 Manufacturi Tem
(kJ/m2) ZX y y
(Citation Deflectio Flexural ng process p
or Izod Tensil (g/cc)
) n Temp strength (°C) (Ω-cm)
D256- e
(°C) (MPa)
10A strengt
(J/m) h
(MPa)
170
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Windfor
4.72 N/A,
m XT 173 84 133 N/A, SLS 1.097 108
kJ/m2 SLS
2.0 (38)
Windfor
10.8
m RS 181 48-85 139 SLS SLS 1.10 108
kJ/m2
(39)
Polyetherimide
PEI, also known by the Saudia SABIC trade name Ultem™, is a very tough thermoplastic resin
with high thermal and chemical stability. It is inherently flame-resistant and can be machined.
Some formulations of PEI are FAA-approved for flame, smoke, and toxicity (FST), and may also
have ESD formulations. PEI is also known for extremely low offgassing, crucial in optical and
sensitive scientific packages. PEI is a common bed material for higher end open-source FFF
systems due to its adhesive properties with other thermoplastics at higher temperatures. PEI has
similar characteristics to polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Due to these similarities, PEI is only
practically printable on commercial FFF systems. Table 6-12 lists some PEI filaments.
THERMAX™
158 N/A 63 90 275 115 1.34 --
Ultem™ 9085
3DXSTAT™
Ultem™ 1010 205 N/A 62 115 395 150 1.34 107-109
CF-ESD (40)
Stratasys
22-27
Ultem™ 1010 212 81 82-128 N/A N/A 1.29 1014
J/m
CG (41)
Stratasys
39-88
Ultem™ 9085 153 69 80-98 N/A N/A 1.27 1015
J/m
(41)
Zortrax Z-PEI
186 N/A 54 90 N/A N/A 1.34 --
9085 (42)
171
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PAEK
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) – in the polyaryletherketone
(PAEK) family – are the highest performing thermoplastics developed as of writing. With certain
additives and matrix materials, they can rival the strength of stainless steel and withstand over
200°C continuously in some formulations, after annealing. PEEK/PEKK are naturally flame-
retardant; they are accepted for use in aviation ducting. They also achieve extremely low
offgassing in operation, which makes these thermoplastics good candidates for compatibility with
optical components in space. Due to the extreme conditions required for manufacturing and the
very high filament cost, these materials are only practically available for printing in extremely
robust commercial FFF systems with sealed and heated chambers. PEEK has heritage on long-
term, external ISS experiments, and structural elements on the Juno spacecraft, making it suitable
for extreme radiation environments (42). Table 6-13 lists some PAEK-based filaments.
ISO
ISO 179- 527-
ISO 1 1/AST ASTM
75/ASTM Hardnes M D790/IS Nozzl Bed Volume
Filament Densit Resistivit
D648 s (kJ/m2) D638 O 178 e Tem
Name y y
Deflectio or Izod ZX Flexural Temp p
(Citation) (g/cc)
n Temp D256- Tensile strength (°C) (°C) (Ω-cm)
(°C) 10A strengt (MPa)
(J/m) h
(MPa)
3DXSTAT
™ ESD- 380-
140 N/A 105 141 150 1.32 107-109
400
PEEK (44)
3DXSTAT
™ ESD- 185 N/A 109 135 375 140 1.34 107-109
PEKK
CarbonX™
CF PEKK- 285 N/A 126 178 390 140 1.33 107
Aerospace
Stratasys
28-43
Antero 840 150 95 87-139 N/A N/A 1.27 104-109
J/m
(45)
Zortrax Z-
160 N/A 100 130 N/A N/A 1.30 --
PEEK (42)
Photopolymers
Otherwise known as “thermosets,” these materials are liquid polymers cured by an optical and
thermal process. Compared to other AM processes, photopolymers and their manufacturing
172
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
processes allow for superior isotropic material properties, very high resolution, and the ability to
manufacture optical quality parts. Some formulations, especially from 3D Systems and Stratasys,
are designed for extreme temperature resistance and strength, desirable in aerospace
applications. In some cases, the listed heat deflection temperature (HDT) may be superior to
those of PAEK. As previously discussed, there are three major methods of curing photopolymers,
one of which is proprietary. Many photopolymers are specifically paired for commercial systems.
As a result, the following table includes the commercial system associated with the photopolymer.
Some of the photopolymers listed below have several additional characteristics not listable in this
table, including, but not limited to, elasticity, tear strength, optical clarity, water absorption, and
medical grade certifications. Such characteristics may be useful for biological experiments in
future SmallSats. Please consult the products’ specific websites and datasheets for additional
information. Additionally, photopolymers have the advantage of being able to be mixed, in-situ,
as the object is being manufactured. This allows for continuously varying material properties
throughout the object. Table 6-14 lists some photopolymers.
ISO
ISO 179- ESD
ISO 527- ASTM
Photopolymer 1/ASTM Density Risk Manufacturing
75/ASTM 1/ASTM D790
Name D256- (g/cc) and/or
D648 D638 Flexural (Ω-
(Citation) 10A at 25°C Machine Type
HDT (°C) Tensile (MPa) cm)
(J/m)
(MPa)
Accura
124- 3D Systems
Bluestone 267-284 13-17 66-68 1.78 ND
154 ProX 800
(46)
DSM Somos®
Stratasys
Watershed 50 25 50 69 1.12 ND
V650 Flex SL
XC
Henkel
LOCTITE®
N/A N/A 5.5 N/A 1.068 ND Several
IND402 A70
Flex (48, 49)
Henkel
DLP SLA
LOCTITE® 80 54 60 81 N/A ND
types only
3D 3843 (48)
173
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
generation, computer aided manufacturing (CAM), load analysis, and fill generation, help speed
up this process. The inherent advantage of AM to allow monolithic structural elements implies a
much-expanded design space compared to subtractive manufacturing. Software has kept up with
the pace of manufacturing advances and incorporates tools to assist with AM designs.
The manufacturing ecosystem includes software ranging from simple CAM solutions generating
toolpaths (G-code) to complete, structural analysis and high-fidelity manufacturing simulations.
As of writing, AM has gained significant traction and value in low-TRL demonstrations and
physical validation, partly due to the ease of fabrication in typical AM ecosystems. It is beginning
to displace traditional machining – “subtractive” manufacturing – as AM systems have matured
enough to print advanced thermoplastics, resins, and metals.
Infill Patterns
Due to the flexibility that AM offers, new methods of lightweighting are now possible.
“Lightweighting” refers to the reduction of mass of structural elements, without compromising
structural integrity. The best examples of well-proven heritage methods of lightweighting are
“honeycomb” sandwiched aluminum panels, subtractive machining, and truss structures.
However, such methods have certain limitations. Honeycomb panels for example, do not have
uniform, or isotropic, properties – they do not exhibit the same stiffness in all directions.
Lightweighting in AM encompasses what is called “infill,” or the internal structure of a hollow body
or panel. With a minimal increase in mass, an internal structure manufactured with AM can vastly
increase the strength of a body. Very recently, the AM community has renewed interest in the use
of the gyroid pattern, discovered by NASA researcher Alan Schoen in 1970, due to the ease of
generation in AM toolpath programs. Aside from honeycomb and gyroids, several options for infill
exist. Different options are offered with different AM-focused software packages.
Digital Materials
Both honeycomb panels and AM parts with infill have a common repetitive unit cell. By repeating
this unit cell throughout the interior of a part, or as a structure on its own, a larger structure can
be made. Further, by defining properties into this unit cell, information can effectively be encoded
into the design, allowing for differing behavior of different parts of the structure. Digital materials
can dramatically expand the design space of a structure, allowing for targeted optimization of
various properties such as mass to strength ratios, structural lightweighting, and others. As
previously discussed, with certain resin polyjet AM centers, resins can be mixed in real time to
form an object that has continuously varying properties.
174
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
with the spacecraft’s pre-existing mass (including the external skin or chassis, which exists in
every case whether desired or not), and spot/sector shielding. This type of shielding, known as
passive shielding, is only very effective against lower energy radiation, and is best used against
high particle flux environments, including the densest portions of the Van Allen belts, the Jovian
magnetosphere, and short-lived solar particle events. In some cases, increased shielding is more
detrimental than if none was used, owing to the secondary particles generated by highly
penetrating energetic particles. Therefore, it is important to analyze both the thickness and type
of materials used to shield all critical parts of the spacecraft. Due to the strong omni-directionality
of most forms of particle radiation, spacecraft need to be shielded from the full 4π steradian
celestial sphere. This brings the notion of "shielding-per-unit-solid-angle" into the design space,
where small holes or gaps in shielding are often only detrimental proportionally to the hole’s solid
angle as viewed by the concerned electrical, electronic and electro-mechanical (EEE)
components. Essentially, completely enclosing critical components should not be considered a
firm design constraint when other structural considerations exist.
6.4.2 Inherent Mass Shielding
Inherent mass shielding consists of using the entirety of the pre-existing spacecraft’s mass to
shield sensitive electronic components that are not heavily dependent on location within the
spacecraft. This often includes the main spacecraft bus processors, power switches, etc. Again,
the notion of "shielding-per-unit-solid-angle" is invoked here, where a component could be well
shielded from its “backside” (2π steradian hemisphere) and weakly shielded from the “front” due
to its location near the spacecraft surface. It would only then require additional shielding from its
front to meet operational requirements. The classic method employed here is to increase the
spacecraft’s structural skin thickness to account for the additional shielding required. This is the
classic method largely due to its simplicity, where merely a thicker extrusion of material is used
for construction. The disadvantage to this method is the material used, very often aluminum, is
mass optimized for structural and surface charging concerns and not for shielding either
protons/ions or electrons. Recent research has gone into optimizing structural materials for both
structural and shielding concerns and is currently an active area of NASA’s Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) program research and development.
The process to determine exactly how much inherent shielding exists involves using a reverse
ray tracing program on the spacecraft solid model from the specific point(s) of interest. After
generating the "shielding-per-unit-solid-angle" map of the critical area(s) of the spacecraft, a trade
study can be performed on what and where best to involve further additional shielding.
Numerous CubeSat and SmallSat systems use commercial, processors, radios, regulators,
memory, and SD cards. Many of these products rely on silicon diodes and metal oxide
semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) in these missions. A comprehensive NASA
guidance document on the use of commercial electronic parts was published for the ISS orbit,
which is a low-Earth orbit where the predominant radiation source is the South Atlantic Anomaly.
The hardness of commercial parts was noted as having a range from 2 – 10 kRad (54). For typical
thin CubeSat shielding of 0.20 cm (0.080 in) aluminum, yearly trapped dose is 1383 Rad; with an
additional estimated 750 Rad from solar particle events, the total dose increases to 2133 Rad for
the ELaNaXIX Mission environment at 85 degrees inclination and 500 km circular orbit (table 6-
9) (53). Adding a two-fold increase for the trapped belt radiation uncertainty brings the total
radiation near the TID lifetime of many commercial parts (54), even before estimating a SPE TID
contribution. The uncertainty of radiation model results of low-earth orbit below 840 km has been
estimated as at least two-fold; Van Allen Belt models are empirical and rely on data in the orbital
environment (55). The NASA Preferred Reliability Series “Radiation Design Margin
Requirements” also recommends a radiation design margin of 2 for reliability (56). Currently, The
175
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Aerospace Corporation proton (AP) (57) and The Aerospace Corporation electron (AE) (58)
Models do not have radiation data below 840 km, and radiation estimates are extrapolated for the
lower orbits (55). For spacecraft interplanetary trajectories near the sun or Earth, the radiation
contributions from SPEs will be higher than low-Earth orbit, where there is some limited SPE
radiation protection by the magnetosphere. By reducing the total ionizing dose on commercial
parts, the mission lifetimes can be increased by reducing the risk of electronic failures on sensitive
semiconductor parts.
6.4.3 Shields-1 Mission, Radiation Shielding for CubeSat Structural Design
Shields-1 has operated in polar
low-Earth orbit and was launched
through the ELaNaXIX Mission in
December 2018. The Shields-1
mission increased the
development level of atomic
number (Z) Grade Radiation
Shielding with an electronic
enclosure (vault) and Z-grade
radiation shielding slabs with
aluminum baselines experiments
(figure 6.15) (59). Preliminary
results in table 6-9 show a
significant reduction in total
ionizing dose in comparison to
typical modeled 0.20 cm (0.080
in) aluminum structures sold by
commercial CubeSat providers.
The 3.02 g cm-2 Z-Shielding vault
has over 18 times reduction in
total ionizing dose compared to
Figure 6.15: Shields-1 Z-shielding structure and final
modeled 0.20 cm aluminum
Preship picture, ELaNaXIX Mission. Credit: NASA.
shielding (53).
Z-shielding enables a low volume shielding solution for CubeSat and SmallSat applications where
reduced volume is important. AlTiTa, Z–shielding, at 2.08 g cm-2 reduces the dose from a SPE by
half when compared to a standard 0.2 cm aluminum structure (figure 6.16). NASA has innovated
“Methods of Making Z-Shielding” with patents in preparing different structural shieldings (60-63),
from metals to hybrid metal laminates and thin structural radiation shielding, to enable low-volume
integrated solutions with CubeSats and SmallSats (64).
Areal Density Thickness Trapped Belts TID Total SPE King Sphere
Shielding
(g/cm2) (cm) (Rad (Si)/Year) Model, (Rad (Si))
176
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
177
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The LUNA XP Charge Dissipation Coating has reduced Figure 6.17: Transparent LUNA
resistance compared to typical commercial conformal XP Charge Dissipation Coating
coatings as shown in table 6-10, which reduces surface on an Electronic Board. Credit:
charging risk on electronic boards. LUNA XP Coating (figure LUNA Innovations, Inc.
6.17) on an electronic board has transparency for visual parts
inspection. For extreme radiation environments, a combination of radiation shielding and charge
dissipation coating reduces the ionizing radiation that contributes to charging and provides a
surface pathway for removing charge to ground (26).
6.5 Summary
The Structures, Materials, and Mechanisms chapter was revised in 2020 to include custom
structure references with the dimensional and material requirements of integrating deployment
systems. The chapter has been updated with the current status of structures, materials, and
mechanisms for small satellite missions. The Mechanisms section has been updated with new
technology. In 2020, a radiation environment section was revised with radiation shielding
considerations for orbits and solar maximum with references for commercial parts and radiation
design margin. State-of-the-art radiation shielding and charge dissipation materials have been
updated.
178
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Reflecting the fast pace of developments in additive manufacturing, a new section was added in
2021 with a wide sampling of available thermoplastics and resin-based materials suitable for
different TRL levels. To complement additive manufacturing, a new section was added to bring
attention to the increasing importance of design optimization.
For feedback solicitation, please email: [email protected]. Please include a business
email so someone may contact you further.
References
(1) Space Weather Prediction Center. Solar Cycle 25 Forecast Update. [Online] 12 19, 2019.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cycle-25-forecast-update.
(2) Pumpkin, Inc. CubeSat Kit Structures. Pumpkin Space Systems. [Online] 2017.
(3) AAC Clyde Space. CS 3U CubeSat Structure. Clyde Space. [Online] 2018.
(4) NanoAvionics. NanoAvionics Structural Components. NanoAvionics. [Online] 2018.
(5) GomSpace. GomSpace’s fourth Demonstration Mission is Successfully Launched –
intended to Pioneer the Advanced. [Online] 2018.
https://gomspace.com/news/gomspaces-fourth-demonstration-mission-is-suc.aspx.
(6) Endurosat. 2017. "CubeSat-3u-structure." Accessed July 15, 2018.
https://www.endurosat.com/products/CubeSat-3u-structure/.
(7) Complex Systems & Small Satellites. C3S CubeSat Structure. Complex Systems &
Small Satellites. [Online] 2018.
(8) ELMA Electronic: "OpenVPX: VITA 65 Family of Standards." [Online]. 2021. [Cited:
June 17, 2021].
(9) NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center: " SpaceCube v3.0 Mini: NASA Next-Generation
Data-Processing System for Advanced CubeSat Applications." June 2019. NASA
Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program 2019 Electronics Technology
Workshop.
(10) P. Collier and M. walmsley: "SpaceVPX and the world of interconnect." [Online]. June
18, 2020. [Cited: July 12, 2021].
https://militaryembedded.com/unmanned/connectors/spacevpx-and-the-world-of-
interconnect
(11) NASA Goddard Technical Standards, “GSFC General Environmental Verification
Standard (GEVS) for GSFC Flight Programs and Projects”, GSFC-STD-7000B, 28 April
2021.
(12) Tyvak. “Launch Services”. [Online] 2021. [Accessed: August 24, 2021.
https://www.tyvak.com/launch-services/
(13) Planetary Systems Coporation. “Canisterized Satellite Dispenser.” [Online]. [Accessed:
August 28, 2021]. https://www.planetarysystemscorp.com/product/canisterized-satellite-
dispenser/
(14) ISISPACE. CubeSat Deployers. https://www.cubesatshop.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/ISIS-CubeSat-deployers-Brochure-v2-compressed.pdf
(15) Composite Technology Development: “STELOC Composite Booms. Composite
Technology Development.” 2018. [Online].
(16) Reveles, J., et al.: “In-Orbit Performance of AstroTube: AlSat Nano's Low Mass
Deployable Composite Boom Payload.” Logan, UT : s.n., 2017. 31st Annual AIAA/USU
Conference of Small Satellites.
(17) Redwire Space: “CubeSat Boom Deployer.”
179
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(18) NASA: "Deployable Composite Booms (DCB)." [Online]. August 26, 2020. [Cited May 18,
2021].
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/game_changing_development/projects/dc
(19) Wenberg, D. L., B. P. Keegan, M. E. Lange, E. A. S. Hanlon, and J. S. Kang. 2016. "RSat
Flight Qualification and Test Results for Manipulable Robotic Appendages Installed on
3U CubeSat Platform." 30th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites. Logan,
UT.
(20) Knight, A. N., T.R. Tetterton, A.J. Engl, P.M. Sinkovitz, B.J. Ward, J.S. Kang, "Design
and Development of On-orbit Servicing CubeSat-class Satellite", 34h AIAA/USU Conf.
on Small Sat SSC20-V-01, 1-6 August 2020, Logan, UT
(21) Tethers Unlimited, Inc. Cobra Gimbal. Tethers Unlimited. [Online] 2018.
(22) NASA. COBRA-Bee Carpal-Wrist Gimbal for Astrobee. [Online] February 2017. [Cited:
July 18, 2018.] https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/1426639.
(23) Tethers Unlimited. 2018. "KRAKEN Robotic Arm." Accessed July 2018.
http://www.tethers.com/SpecSheets/Brochure_KRAKEN.pdf.
(24) Honeybee Robotics. CubeSat Solar Array Drive Assembly. Honeybee Robotics. [Online]
2018.
(25) Ensign-Bickford Aerospace & Defense. TiNi™ Mini Frangibolt® Actuator: Small, SImple,
Powerful. [Online] 2020. https://www.ebad.com/tini-mini-frangibolt.
(26) NASA: Technical Handbook, “Mitigating In-Space Charging Effects – A Guideline.”
NASA-HDBK-4002A. October 19, 2017.
(27) ColorFabb: Technical Datasheet, “PLA/PHA”. April 8, 2020.
(28) Stratasys: Datasheet, “PLA: Economy Thermoplastic for Stratasys F123 Series Printers.”
2018
(29) Taulman3D: “Alloy 910 Specifications .” [Online] [Cited July 12, 2021].
https://taulman3d.com/alloy-910-spec.html
(30) Taulman3D: “Alloy 680 Specifications .” [Online] [Cited July 12, 2021].
https://taulman3d.com/nylon-680-spec.html
(31) Markforged: Datasheet, “Onyx ESD™.” [Online] [Cited July 12, 2021].
https://markforged.com/materials/plastics/onyx-esd
(32) 3DXTech Additive Manufacturing: “CARBONX HTN+CF [HIGH TEMP CF NYLON].”
[Online] [Cited July 12, 2021]. https://www.3dxtech.com/product/carbonx-htn-cf/
(33) Statasys: “Nylon 12.” [Online] [Cited July 12, 2021].
https://www.stratasys.com/materials/search/fdm-nylon-12
(34) Prusa Polymers: Technical Datasheet, “Prusament PC Blend.”
(35) Prusa Polymers: Technical Datasheet, “Prusament PC Blend Carbon Fiber.”
(36) Stratasys: Datasheet, “PC (Polycarbonate): FDM Thermoplastic Filament.” [Online]
[Cited July 12, 2021]. https://www.stratasys.com/-/media/files/material-spec-
sheets/mds_fdm_pc_0920a.pdf
(37) CRP USA: “Windform 3D Printing materials launch into Orbit on KySat-2.” [Online]. [
Cited July 12, 2021] https://www.crp-usa.net/windform-3d-printing-materials-
launch-orbit kysat-2/
(38) Winform: Technical Datasheet, “Winform XT 2.0” [Online] [Cited July 12, 2021].
http://www.windform.com/windform-xt-2-0.html
(39) Winform: Technical Datasheet, “Winform XT 2.0” [Online] [Cited July 12, 2021].
http://www.windform.com/windform-rs.html
180
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
181
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(61) U.S. Patent No. 10,039,217, 31 July 2018, “Methods of Making Z-Shielding.” D.L.
Thomsen III, R.J. Cano, B.J. Jensen, S.J. Hales, and J.A. Alexa.
(62) U.S. Patent No. 10,600,52212, 24 March 2020, “Method of Making Thin Atomic (Z) Grade
Shields”, D.L. Thomsen III.
(63) U.S. Patent No. 10,919,650, 16 February 2021, “Atomic Number (Z) Grade Shielding
Materials and Methods of Making Atomic Number (Z) Grade Shielding.” D.L. Thomsen
III, S.N. Sankaran, and J.A. Alexa.
(64) U.S. Patent No. 11,043,311, 22 June 2021, “Method of Making Atomic Number (Z) Grade
Small SAT Radiation Shielding Vault”, D.L. Thomsen III and W.R. Girard.
(65) Arathane.
https://apps.huntsmanservice.com/WebFolder/ui/browse.do?pFileName=/opt/TDS/Hunt
sman%20Advanced%20Materials/English%20US/Long/Arathane%205750%20AB_LV_
US_e.pdf
(66) Chase Electronic Coatings: "HumiSeal® 1B73 Acrylic Conformal Coating Technical Data
Sheet." https://chasecorp.com/humiseal1/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2018/10/1B73-
TDS.pdf
(67) LUNA: Blog: "Luna coating provides radiation protection in space." [Online]. February 2,
2018. [Cited June 28, 2020]. https://lunainc.com/blog/luna-coating-provides-radiation-
protection-space
(68) NASA: “What is KickSat-2?” [Online] June 3, 2019. [Cited July 12, 2021].
https://www.nasa.gov/ames/kicksat
182
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Contents
Glossary .......................................................................................................................... ii
7.0 Thermal Control..................................................................................................... 183
7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 183
7.2 State-of-the-Art – Passive Systems ............................................................... 184
7.2.1 Paints, Coatings, and Tapes.................................................................... 186
7.2.2 Multi-layer Insulation ................................................................................ 187
7.2.3 Thermal Straps ........................................................................................ 188
7.2.4 Thermal Interface Materials and Conductive Gaskets ............................. 190
7.2.5 Sunshields ............................................................................................... 191
7.2.6 Thermal Louvers ...................................................................................... 191
7.2.7 Deployable Radiators .............................................................................. 191
7.2.8 Heat Pipes ............................................................................................... 192
7.2.9 Phase Change Materials/ Thermal Storage Units.................................... 193
7.2.10 Thermal Switches .................................................................................... 194
7.2.11 Multifunctional Thermal Structures .......................................................... 194
7.3 State-of-the-Art – Active Systems .................................................................. 194
7.3.1 Heaters .................................................................................................... 195
7.3.2 Cryocoolers ............................................................................................. 195
7.3.3 Thermoelectric Coolers (TEC) ................................................................. 197
7.3.4 Fluid Loops .............................................................................................. 198
7.3.5 Active Thermal Architecture..................................................................... 198
7.4 Summary ........................................................................................................ 199
References............................................................................................................... 199
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Glossary
iii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
also applicable to SmallSats and given the increased interest in small spacecraft over the last
decade, some spacecraft thermal control technologies have been miniaturized or otherwise
adapted to apply to SmallSats. Thermal control methods and technologies as applied to large
spacecraft are considered state-of-the-art for the purposes of this review but may have a
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) value less than 9 for small spacecraft applications.
Challenges of designing a thermal control system for a SmallSat stem from four intrinsic
properties, summarized in table 7-1.
The information described in this section is not exhaustive but provides an overview of current
state-of-the-art thermal technologies and their development. TRL designations may vary with
changes specific to the payload, mission requirements, reliability considerations, and/or the
environment in which performance was demonstrated. Readers are highly encouraged to reach
out to companies for further information regarding the performance and TRL of described
technology. There is no intention of mentioning certain companies and omitting others based on
their technologies or relationship with NASA.
• Thermal interfaces
o Dictation of thermal contact between components through specific mounting
methods can thermally isolate components or allow more heat to be transferred to
a structural element (or radiator area) when each is needed.
Heat transfer can be reduced by mounting a component through multiple
stacked washers with low thermal conductivity.
Heat transfer can be increased by mounting components with more
fasteners (if applicable) and can be further increased by using thermal
interface materials between a component and mounting surface.
• Circuit board design considerations
o Copper layers within each board can be increased to conduct heat away from
electrical components through the boards to their structural connection points.
o Circuit boards can be mounted to increase heat transfer away from the boards to
the structure, such as by mounting with wedge locks.
Table 7-2 is a list of current passive thermal control technology as applied to SmallSats. One key
factor to consider when choosing thermal control technology, both passive and active, is the
temperature limits of the technology, itself. The goal is to use the appropriate technology to
maintain the temperatures of spacecraft components within their limits, but the technology used
to achieve this also has limits. It is recommended to verify that the technology used is applicable
to the given design not only with respect to needed function, but to the environment (temperature
limits), as well.
185
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 7.2: Electromagnetic spectrum showing the range of Thermal Radiation. Credit: NASA.
Thermal radiation heat transfer is controlled by using materials that have specific optical surface
properties, namely: solar absorptivity and IR emissivity. Solar absorptivity governs how much
incident heating from solar radiation a spacecraft absorbs, while IR emissivity determines how
much heat a spacecraft emits to space, relative to a perfect blackbody emitter, and what fraction
of thermal radiation from IR sources (e.g., the Earth, Moon, any particularly hot spacecraft
components) are absorbed by that spacecraft surface.
186
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The surface properties of a spacecraft can be modified by adding specialized paints, coatings,
surface finishes, or adhesive tapes, depending on the needs of the spacecraft. For example,
matte black paint has a high solar absorptivity and high IR emissivity for surfaces required to
absorb a high percentage of solar heating and emit a high percentage of spacecraft heat.
Alternatively, matte white paint has a low solar absorptivity and high IR emissivity (1) for surfaces
required to absorb a low percentage of solar heating and emit a high percentage of spacecraft
heat. Second-surface silver Fluorinated Ethylene Propylene (FEP) tapes offer excellent
performance as radiator coatings, reflecting incident solar energy (low solar absorptivity) while
simultaneously emitting spacecraft thermal energy efficiently (high IR emissivity). The selection
between paints, coatings, and tapes depends on the application. Tape is typically easy to apply
and remove, is comparatively inexpensive, and has a longer usable lifetime than paint (2). Tape
can also be added later in the assembly process if changes to thermal control need to be made
after the spacecraft has already begun assembly. Some tapes, however, must be handled
carefully to maintain optical properties and can be difficult to bond properly to curved surfaces.
Coatings and paints must often be applied earlier in the assembly process but can cover non-flat
surfaces more easily. Some paints, like Parker-Lord’s Aeroglaze 306/307, are expensive and
require extensive and highly specialized processes to apply, however. Different options may also
have different temperature limits. All these factors must be considered with regard to the needed
application when selecting the final solution.
AZ Technology, MAP, Astral Technology Unlimited, Inc., Parker-Lord, Inc., Sheldahl, and
AkzoNobel Aerospace Coatings manufacture thermal paint, coatings, and tapes for aerospace
use that have been demonstrated on multiple small spacecraft missions. Most manufacturers
have catalogs and/or guidebooks that provide detailed product information, including optical
properties, and application guidance (for example, Sheldahl provides “The Red Book,” (3)) to aid
design selection.
One example, BioSentinel, a 6U spacecraft in development at NASA Ames Research Center
(ARC) that is currently slated to be launched as a secondary payload on the Artemis I mission
(2021), makes extensive use of Sheldahl metallized tape coatings and second-surface silvered
FEP tapes to control its external thermal radiative properties and overall energy balance (4).
Another example, Picard, a 150 kg SmallSat, used white paint on the Sun pointing face to reduce
the amount of solar flux absorbed and lower temperatures. For most small spacecraft projects to
date, adhesive tapes, such as silver FEP, or other standard surface finishes (e.g., polishing,
anodize, alodine) have been the preferred choices.
7.2.2 Multi-layer Insulation
A MLI blanket is typically comprised of multiple inner layers of a thin material with low IR emissivity
and a durable outer layer. The amount of radiative heat transfer allowed is limited by the many
layers of reflectors. The low IR emissivity layers are either perforated or alternated with thin netting
to prevent conduction through the layers, thus forcing any heat transport to be limited to radiative
heat transfer. The perforations allow the MLI to vent trapped gas once arriving on-orbit. MLI is
used as a thermal radiation barrier to both protect spacecraft from incoming solar and IR flux, and
to prevent undesired radiative heat dissipation. It is commonly used to maintain temperature
ranges for electronics and batteries in-orbit.
MLI is delicate and performance drops drastically if compressed (causing a thermally conductive
“short circuit”), so it should be used with caution or avoided altogether on the exterior of small
satellites that fit into a deployer (e.g., P-POD, NLAS). MLI blankets can also pose a potential
snagging hazard in these tight-fitting, pusher-spring style deployers. Additionally, MLI blankets
tend to drop efficiency as size decreases because heat transfer through the blanket increases
187
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
closer to the blanket edges, and the specific attachment method has a large impact on
performance because attachment to the spacecraft creates a heat path.
Due to these challenges, MLI generally does not perform as well on small spacecraft (more
specifically CubeSat form factors) as on larger spacecraft. Surface coatings are typically less
delicate and more appropriate for the exterior of a small spacecraft that will be deployed from a
dispenser. Internal MLI blankets that do not receive direct solar thermal radiation can often be
replaced by a variety of low emissivity tapes or coatings that perform equally well in that context,
using less volume and at a potentially lower cost.
Dunmore Aerospace provides an option for cubesat developers to make their own MLI blanket
with Satkit. (5) Satkit provides Dunmore’s STARcrest MLI materials cut into manageable sizes,
including a roll of outer layer material, a larger roll of inner layer material, and polyimide tapes for
assembly and edge binding. The materials included in the kit have been flown in spaceflight
applications before, but Satkit is currently TRL 6. Dunmore also offers polyimide film tape and
MLI tape designed to insulate wires and cables on SmallSats and is TRL 7.
7.2.3 Thermal Straps
A thermal strap is a flexible, thermally conductive link added
between a heat source and sink to conductively transfer heat.
They are often used between high heat dissipating chips or
components and a chassis wall or other radiator surface. Their
flexibility prevents the addition of structural loads. Thermal straps
can be made metal, traditionally copper or aluminum, or high
conductivity carbon materials, such as graphite. They can be
formed of multiple foil sheets or wound cables (also referred to as
ropes and braids), with end blocks at each end to hold the
sheets/cables in place and to mount or otherwise attach to the
needed surfaces. Straps with more than two end blocks and
multiple material combinations can also be produced and have
been used on large spacecraft.
There are multiple companies that manufacture thermal straps for
spaceflight. For example, Thermal Management Technologies
manufactures standard flexible thermal straps in aluminum and
copper foil layers or copper braids as shown in figure 7.3.
Figure 7.3: Flexible Thermal
Custom thermal straps are also commonly fabricated and tested Straps. Credit: Thermal
(6). Space Dynamics Laboratory (SDL) has pioneered solderless Management Technologies.
flexible thermal straps that contain no solder, epoxy, or other filler
materials to maximize thermal performance. Figure 7.4 shows a comparison of the as-tested
conductance for the same strap geometry fabricated with three different foil materials of
aluminum, copper, and pyrolytic graphite sheets (PGS). SDL has supplied Utah State University
with a PGS strap for the Active Thermal Architecture (ATA) project, a follow on to the ACCS
project referenced in the cryocooler section. Advances in thermal straps are being developed to
further increase heat transfer capability. Aavid, Boyd Corporation’s thermal division, has designed
thermal straps using their patented k-core technology that has an annealed pyrolytic graphite
(APG) core within an encapsulating structure. These have greater conduction efficiency
compared to traditional aluminum straps (7), as the k-Core increases the overall thermal
conductivity. This technology has been fully designed and tested and is TRL 5 for small spacecraft
application.
188
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
189
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
CubeSat in 2017 and is planned to be used on the Mars 2020 rover mission.
7.2.4 Thermal Interface Materials and Conductive Gaskets
Thermal interface materials are materials that are inserted between two components in order to
increase the conductive heat transer between them. They are often made as a sheet or pad of
material to be sandwiched between surfaces, but there are many different types that vary in
material, thickness, thermal conductivity, temperature limits, and vacuum-compatibility. Thermal
interface materials can also be a grease or paste.
Thinner sheets of materials are commonly used between heat dissipating electronics boxes and
mounting surfaces to thermally sink the hot components to a colder surface and reduce the
temperature of the electronics. The performance of these types of materials depends on reaching
a certain contact pressure between components to ensure the needed heat transfer. Laird
Performance Materials has developed many different types of thermal interface materials for a
variety of applications. For example, their Tflex series, shown in figure 7.7, is about 1 to 5 mm
thick with a thermal conductivity of 6 W mK-1 (11), whereas their Tgon series of materials are
about 0.13 to 0.5 mm thick with a thermal conductivity of 5 W mK-1 (12).
Figure 7.7: Laird Tflex HD80000 series sheets (left) and Thermal Resistance vs. Pressure
(right). Credit: Laird Performance Materials.
Thicker pad-like materials, such as Henkel brand GAP PADs®, are often used between high heat
dissipating chips on an electronics boards and the electronics enclosure. These are also made to
fit a variety of applications, with varying material, thickness, conformability, tear-resistance,
electrical isolation, thermal conductivity, and more (13). Several additional thermal interface
materials developed by Henkel Corporation are shown in figure 7.8.
190
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
7.2.5 Sunshields
A sunshield, or sunshade, is an often-
deployed device made up of a material with
low solar absorptivity that reduces the amount
of incident solar flux impinging a spacecraft,
by blocking the view to the sun. Sunshields
are commonly used for spacecraft thermal
control, although only recently on small
spacecraft. Sierra Lobo developed a
deployable sunshield that flew on CryoCube-
1, shown in figure 7.9, which was launched on
Dragon CRS-19 in February 2020. In low-
Earth orbit, this sunshield can support a Figure 7.9: Deployed Sunshield on CryoCube-1
multiple month-long duration lifetime and can (left) and CryoCube-1 in orbit with shield stowed
provide temperatures below 100 K and below (right). Credit: Sierra Lobo (left) and NASA (right).
30 K with additional cooling (14).
7.2.6 Thermal Louvers
Thermal louvers are thermally activated shutters that regulate how much heat the louvered
surface can dissipate. As the louvers open, the average IR emissivity of the surface changes,
changing how much heat the surface dissipates. Full-sized louvers on larger spacecraft have high
efficacy for thermal control, however, integration on small spacecraft is challenging. Typical
spacecraft louvers are associated with a larger mass and input power, which are both limited on
small spacecraft.
Although commonly defined as active thermal control, here
we consider louvers as a passive thermal control component
because the Cubesat-adapted design considered does not
require a power input from the spacecraft. NASA GSFC has
developed a passive thermal louver that uses bimetallic
springs to control the position of the flaps; when the
temperature of the spacecraft rises, the springs expand,
opening the louvers to modify the average IR emissivity of the
exterior surface. Similarly, when the spacecraft cools and the
flaps close, the exterior surface returns to the previous optical
properties (15). The louvers were developed for a 6U
CubeSat, Dellingr, which was released from the NanoRacks
CubeSat Deployer on the International Space Station (ISS) Figure 7.10: Passive
into low-Earth orbit in late 2017 (16), and has a demonstrated Thermal Louver on 6U
thermal dissipation of 14 W. This louver design is illustrated CubeSat Dellingr. Credit: NASA
in figure 7.10. GSFC.
7.2.7 Deployable Radiators
A radiator is a dedicated surface for dissipating excess heat via radiative heat transfer and has a
high IR emissivity and low solar absorptivity, an optical property combination typically referred to
as “radiator properties.” A deployable radiator is stowed during transit or when the radiator is not
needed and deployed when excess heat dissipation is required. Deployable radiators on small
spacecraft can be challenging due to volumetric constraints. While paint has been widely used to
create efficient radiator surfaces on larger spacecraft, the relatively limited available external
surface area on SmallSats that already have body-mounted solar cells reduces the potential for
creating dedicated radiative surfaces. For a system that requires a large amount of heat
191
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
192
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
194
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
7.3.1 Heaters
Electrical resistance heaters used on small spacecraft are most often Kapton heaters, which
consist of a polyimide film with etched foil circuits that produce heat when a current is applied.
Kapton heaters also often have a pressure sensitive adhesive on one side for easy application.
Heaters are typically used in cold environments to maintain battery temperature, which is usually
the component with the narrowest temperature limits, and are controlled by a thermostat or
temperature sensor. The low mass of SmallSats requires little additional heater power to maintain
temperature limits, and so heaters do not typically need to be very high power to effectively
manage temperatures.
The 1U CubeSats Compass-1, MASAT-1, and OUTFI-1 each required an electrical heater
attached to the battery in addition to passive control for the entire spacecraft system to maintain
thermal regulation in eclipses (27). Additionally, as biological payloads become more common on
small spacecraft, their temperature limits must be considered and maintained as well. NASA ARC
biological nanosats (GeneSat, PharmaSat, O/OREOS, SporeSat, EcAMSat, and BioSentinel) all
use actively-controlled heaters for precise temperature maintenance for their biological payloads,
with closed-loop temperature feedback to maintain temperatures.
7.3.2 Cryocoolers
Cryocoolers are refrigeration devices designed to cool around 100K and below. A summary of
cryocooler systems is given in figure 7.15 and a detailed review of the basic types of cryocoolers
and their applications is given by Radebaugh (28). The first two systems (a) and (b) are
recuperative cycles, and (c), (d), and (e) are regenerative cycles. Cryocoolers are used on
instruments or subsystems requiring cryogenic cooling, such as high precision IR sensors.
Instruments such as imaging spectrometers, interferometers and midwave infrared (MWIR)
sensors require cryocoolers to function at extremely low temperatures. The low temperature
improves the dynamic range and extends the wavelength coverage. The use of cryocoolers is
also associated with longer instrument lifetimes, low vibration, high thermodynamic efficiency, low
mass, and supply cooling temperatures less than 50K (29).
195
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
196
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
197
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Heat Out
Miniature Cryocooler
Figure 7.20: Conceptual operation of the ATA thermal control system. Credit: CSE/
USU/ NASA/JPL.
198
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Ultrasonic additive manufacturing (UAM) techniques were used to simplify and miniaturize the
ATA system by embedding the MPFL fluid channels directly into the integrated HX, CubeSat
chassis, and the external radiator. The ATA system also features a dual rotary fluid union design,
and an integrated geared micro-motor which allows for the two-stage deployment and solar
tracking of the ATA radiator. The ATA also features passive vibration isolation and jitter
cancellation technologies such as a floating wire-rope isolator design, particle damping, flexible
PGS thermal links and a custom Kevlar isolated cryogenic electro-optical detector mount. Figure
7.21 shows some of the technologies developed for ATA as well as the ground-based prototype
CubeSat.
Figure 7.21: From top left: ATA CubeSat prototype, 1U ATA subsystem, ATA prototype,
UAM radiator with copper backing, UAM heat exchanger, Kevlar isolated Cryogenic Electro-
optical prototype mount. Credit: CSE/USU/NASA/JPL.
7.4 Summary
As thermal management on small spacecraft is limited by mass, surface area, volume and power
constraints, traditional passive technologies, such as paints, coatings, tapes, MLI, and thermal
straps, dominate thermal design. Active technologies, such as thin flexible resistance heaters
have also seen significant use in small spacecraft, including some with advanced closed-loop
control. Many technologies that have to date only been integrated on larger spacecraft are being
designed, evaluated, and tested for small spacecraft to meet the growing needs of SmallSat
developers as small satellites become more and more advanced. Passive louvers that have
successfully flown on 6U Dillengr, and deployable solar panels that have been used by many
other SmallSats are paving the way for thermal deployable components, while advanced
deployable radiators and thermal storage units are still undergoing testing for small spacecraft.
199
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Technology in active thermal control systems has started expanding to accommodate volume and
power restrictions of a smaller spacecraft; cryocoolers are being designed to fit within 0.5U
volume that will allow small spacecraft to use optical sensors and imaging spectrometers.
For feedback solicitation, please email: [email protected]. Please include a business
email.
References
(1) A. Anvari, F. Farhani, and K. S. Niaki. Comparative Study on Space Qualified Paints Used
for Thermal Control of a Small Satellite. 2009.
(2) Soulage, M. Personal Correspondence. 2013.
(3) Sheldahl. "The Red Book". [Online] 2020.
https://www.sheldahl.com/sites/default/files/2020-02/RedBook_0.pdf.
(4) Benton, Josh. 2018.
(5) Dunmore MLI: Satkit. Dunmore. [Online] https://www.dunmore.com/products/satkit-
mli.html.
(6) Thermal Management Technologies. Flexible Thermal Straps. 2015.
(7) Thermacore. Thermal Straps: Efficient Cooling without Structural Loading. 2015.
(8) Technology Applications Inc. Graphite Fiber Thermal Straps (GFTS). 2015.
(9) E. Urquiza, C. Vasquez, J. Rodriguez, and B. V. Gorp. Development and testing of an
innovative two-arm focal-plane thermal strap (TAFTS). 2012.
(10) Thermotive. Products. [Online] 2014.
(11) Laird Technologies. Tflex HD80000 Series Thermal Gap Filler. Laird Technologies.
[Online] https://www.laird.com/sites/default/files/tflex-hd80000-datasheet.pdf.
(12) Tgon 800 Series Electrically and Thermally Conductive Interface Pad. Laird Technolgies.
[Online] https://www.laird.com/sites/default/files/tgon-800-datasheet.pdf.
(13) Henkel Corporation. Bergquist Thermal Interface Materials Selection Guide. Bergquist.
[Online] 2019. https://dm.henkel-dam.com/is/content/henkel/lt-8116-brochure-thermal-
interface-materials-selection-guidepdf.
(14) Sierra Lobo. CryoCube-1. 2014.
(15) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Dellingr. 2014.
(16) NASA. NASA Begins Checkout of Dellingr Spacecraft Designed to Improve Robustness
of CubeSat Platforms. [Online] November 2017.
(17) Thermal Management Technologies. Thermally Efficient Deployable Radiators. 2020.
(18) Thermophysical Properties of a High-thermal-conductive Graphite Sheet and Application
to a Deployable/Stowable Radiator. Ono, S, et al. Vail : International Conference on
Environmental Systems, 43rd International Conference on Environmental Systems, 2013.
(19) Urquiza, Eugenio , et al. Folding Elastic Thermal Surface — FETS. Tech Briefs. [Online]
07 2013.
https://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/tb/pub/techbriefs/mechanics-and-
machinery/16598.
200
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(20) ESA. BIRD (Bi-Spectral Infrared Detection). eoPortal: Earth Observation Directory
&News. [Online] ESA. https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/b/bird.
(21) Nakamura, Y. Small Demonstration Satellite-4 (SDS-4): Development, Flgith Results, and
Lessons Learned in JAXA’s Microsatellite Project. 2013.
(22) Redwire Space. Thermal Products. Roccor. [Online] 2020.
https://www.roccor.com/thermal_products/.
(23) Gilmore, David. Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook, Volume I, Fundamental
Technologies, Chapter 10: Heat Switches. 2002.
(24) NASA. NASA Technology Roadmaps TA14: Thermal Management Systems, July 2015.
[Online]
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2015_nasa_technology_roadmaps_ta
_14_thermal_management_final.pdf.
(25) Thermal Management Technologies. Products: Small Spacecraft Structures. Thermal
Management Technologies. [Online] https://www.tmt-ipe.com/small-spacecraft-
structures.
(26) Hogstrom, K. State-of-the-Art Thermal Analysis Methods and Validations for Small
Spacecraft. 2013.
(27) D. Hengeveld, J. Braun, E. Groll, and A. Williams. Review of Modern Spacecraft Thermal
Control Technologies and Their Application to Next- Generation Buildings. 2010.
(28) Refrigeration for superconductors. Radebaugh. 2004, IEEE, pp. 1719 - 1734 .
(29) R. Hon, C. Kesler, and D. Sigurdson. Integrated Testing of a Complete Low Cost Space
Cryocooler System. 2009.
(30) M. V. Zagarola, R. W. Hill, J. R. Gagne, and R. W. Kaszeta. Ultra Low Power Cryo-
Refrigerator for Space Applications. 2012.
(31) Sunpower Inc. CryoTel® DS 1.5. 2015.
(32) D. Durand, E. Tward, G. Toma, and T. Nguyen. Efficient High Capacity Space Microcooler.
2014.
(33) Nast, J. Olson and T. Lockheed Martin Microcryocooler. 2013.
(34) Thales Cryogenics. LPT9510 1400 mW / 18 mm slip-on. 2018.
(35) Champagne, P. Development of a J-T Micro Compressor. 2015.
(36) Thermal Management Technologies. Isothermal, compact, energy dense phasechange
thermal storage units for thermal management. 2015.
201
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Contents
Glossary .......................................................................................................................... ii
8.0 Small Spacecraft Avionics ................................................................................ 202
8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 202
8.2 Chapter Scope and Organization .................................................................. 203
8.3 State-of-the-Art (TRL 5-9): Command and Data Handling ............................ 204
8.3.1 Avionics and On-board Computing Form Factors ..................................... 205
8.3.2 Highly Integrated On-Board Computing Products ..................................... 206
8.3.3 Radiation-Hardened Processors and FPGAs ............................................ 210
8.3.4 Memory, Electronic Function Blocks, and Components ............................ 211
8.3.5 Bus Electrical Interfaces ............................................................................ 212
8.3.6 Radiation Mitigation and Tolerance Schemes ........................................... 212
8.4 State-of-the-Art (TRL 5-9): Flight Software ................................................... 215
8.4.1 Implication of C&DH Processors on FSW ................................................. 216
8.4.2 Frameworks............................................................................................... 217
8.4.3 Operating Systems .................................................................................... 218
8.4.4 Software Languages ................................................................................. 219
8.4.5 Mission Operations and Ground Support Suites ....................................... 220
8.4.6 Development Environment, Standards, and Tools .................................... 220
8.5 On the Horizon (TRL 1-4): Command and Data Handling ............................ 224
8.5.1 Open-Source Platforms ............................................................................. 224
8.6 On the Horizon (TRL 1-4): Flight Software .................................................... 225
8.7 Avionics Systems Platform and Mission Development Considerations ......... 225
8.7.1 Flight Payload and Subsystems Avionic elements examples .................... 226
8.7.2 Platform Size Ranges and Configurations ................................................. 226
8.7.3 Integrated Avionics Platform Architectures ................................................ 227
8.7.4 SS Mission Avionics Configurations .......................................................... 227
8.7.5 Spacecraft and Mission Autonomy ............................................................ 227
8.7.6 Industry 4.0, Foundational and Enabling Technologies and Products ....... 228
8.8 Summary....................................................................................................... 228
References .............................................................................................................. 229
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Glossary
ii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
iii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 8.1: Functional block diagram of the LADEE spacecraft. Credit: NASA.
202
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
As new generation avionics systems will integrate most of the electronic equipment on the
spacecraft, an avionics system designed with networked real-time multitasking distributed system
software, which can also implement dynamic reconfiguration of functions and task scheduling and
improves the failure tolerance may minimize the need for expensive radiation-hardened electronic
components. The improved avionics composition can include high-performance computing
hardware to handle the large amount of anticipated data generated by more complex small
spacecraft; embedded system software networked for real-time multitasking distributed system
software; and software partition protection mechanisms. Some systems now implement a
heterogeneous architecture in mixed criticality configurations, meaning they contain multiple
processors with varying levels of performance and capabilities.
An example of new generation SSA/PSA distributed avionics application is the integration of Field
Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA)-based software defined radios (SDR) on small spacecraft. A
software defined radio can transmit and receive in widely different radio protocols based on a
modifiable, reconfigurable architecture, and is a flexible technology that can "enable the design
of an adaptive communications system." This can enable the small spacecraft to increase data
throughput and provides the ability for software updates on-orbit, also known as re-
programmability. Additional FPGA-based functional elements include imagers, AI/ML processors,
and subsystem-integrated edge and cloud processors. The ability to reprogram sensors or
instruments while on-orbit have benefited several CubeSat missions when instruments do not
perform as anticipated, or they enter into an extended mission and subsystems or instruments
need to be reprogrammed quickly. Figure 8.2 is a block diagram of an FPGA-based SDR system.
Figure 8.2: Functional block diagram example of a Software Defined radio. Credit: Renesas (IDT
is now part Renesas).
203
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
modern, small spacecraft avionics, flight payload and subsystems avionic elements are also
included, but only describes the avionics (electronics) elements, while the more detailed small
spacecraft subsystems specifics are discussed in their respective chapters.
The chapter organizes the state-of-the-art in small spacecraft avionics into C&DH (8.3) and FSW
(8.4), where modern requirements of avionics systems are identified to meet the need of complex
small spacecraft systems, and the technological progression of SSA systems avionics
architecture and composition is expanded upon. Some of the challenges this technology may
encounter are also identified, and on the horizon activities (TRL <5) (8.5) highlight the
development of new generational small spacecraft avionics systems. Finally, a summary
discussion of Avionics Systems Platform and Mission Development Considerations (8.6) is
provided that discusses how these considerations are being addressed and/or mitigated by state-
of-the-art advances in C&DH FSW, and Payload/Subsystems avionics products, and some
projections for future Small Spacecraft Avionic systems (8.7).
The information described below is not intended to be exhaustive but provides an overview of
current state-of-the-art technologies and their development status. It should be noted that
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) designations may vary with changes specific to payload,
mission requirements, reliability considerations, and/or the environment in which performance
was demonstrated. Readers are highly encouraged to reach out to companies for further
information regarding the performance and TRL of described technology. There is no intention of
mentioning certain companies and omitting others based on their technologies or relationship with
NASA.
8.3 State-of-the-Art (TRL 5-9): Command and Data Handling
Current trends in small spacecraft C&DH generally appear to be following those of previous, larger
scale C&DH subsystems. The current generation of microprocessors can easily handle the
processing requirements of most C&DH subsystems and will likely be sufficient for use in
spacecraft bus designs for the foreseeable future. Cost and availability are likely primary factors
for selecting a C&DH subsystem design from a given manufacturer. The ability to spread non-
recurring engineering costs over multiple missions, and to reduce software development through
reuse, are desirable factors in a competitive market. Heritage designs are desirable for customers
looking to select components with proven reliability for their mission. This C&DH Section is
organized as follows:
Avionics and on-board computing form factors
1. Highly Integrated On-Board Computing Products
2. Radiation-Hardened Processors and FPGAs
3. Memory, Electronic Function Blocks, and Components
4. Bus Electrical Command and Data Interfaces
5. Radiation Mitigation and Tolerance Schemes
As small satellites move from the early CubeSat designs with short-term mission lifetimes to
potentially longer missions, radiation tolerance also comes into play when selecting parts. These
distinguishing features, spaceflight heritage and radiation tolerance, are the primary
differentiators in the parts selection process for long-term missions, verses those which rely
heavily on commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) parts. Experimental missions typically focused on
low-cost, easy-to-develop systems that take advantage of open-source software and hardware
provide an easy entry into space systems development, especially for hobbyists or those who
lack specific spacecraft expertise.
204
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Small spacecraft C&DH technologies and capabilities have been continuously evolving, enabling
new opportunities for developing and deploying next-generation small spacecraft avionics. When
small spacecraft were first introduced, a primary purpose was to observe and send information
back to Earth. As awareness and utility has expanded, there is a need to improve the overall
capability of collecting data in a specific mission environment. Small spacecraft, including
nanosatellites and CubeSats, currently perform a wide variety of science in low-Earth orbit and
these smaller platforms are emerging as platform candidates for more formidable missions
beyond low-Earth orbit.
Since the publication of the earlier editions of this report, several CubeSats using COTS
components and integrated systems have successfully flown in the low-Earth orbit environment
with short mission durations of typically less than one year. As an example of open-source
compilation resources, the Nanosatellite Database (https://www.nanosats.eu) describes itself as
the “World’s largest database of nanosatellites, [with] over 3000 nanosats and CubeSats…”.
Significant differences in mission requirements between short-term experimental missions and
long-term high reliability missions can impact how state-of-the-art is perceived for flight units. As
CubeSats become larger and SmallSats become smaller, technology maturation and
miniaturization will further increase capabilities. The Mars Cube One (MarCO) mission was the
first CubeSat to operate in deep space, and in late 2021 Artemis I will release seven 6U spacecraft
into lunar orbit, and five 6U spacecraft that will demonstrate a variety of technologies in deep
space. Although not technically a spacecraft, the Mars Helicopter Ingenuity successfully
integrated and demonstrated the use of COTS hardware and open-source software during its
successful technology demonstration as a component of the NASA Perseverance Mars Rover
mission currently in operation on the Mars surface.
As spacecraft manufacturers begin to use more space qualified parts, they find that those devices
can often lag their COTS counterparts by several generations in performance but may be the only
means to meet the radiation requirements placed on the system. Presently there are several
commercial vendors who offer highly integrated systems that contain the on-board computer,
memory, electrical power system (EPS), and the ability to support a variety of Input & Output (I/O)
for the CubeSat class of small spacecraft. A variety of C&DH developments for CubeSats have
occurred due to in-house development by new companies that specialize in CubeSat avionics,
and the use of parts from established companies who provide spacecraft avionics for the space
industry in general. While parallel developments are impacting the growth of CubeSats, vendors
with ties to the more traditional spacecraft bus market are increasing C&DH processing
capabilities within their product lines.
In-house designs for C&DH units are being developed by some spacecraft bus vendors to better
accommodate small vehicle concepts. While these items generally exceed CubeSat form factors
in size, they can achieve similar environmental performance and may be useful in small satellite
systems that replicate more traditional spacecraft subsystem distribution. In anticipation of
extended durations in low-Earth orbit and deep space missions, vendors are now incorporating
radiation hardened or radiation tolerant designs in their CubeSat avionics packages to further
increase the overall reliability of their products.
8.3.1 Avionics and On-board Computing Form Factors
The CompactPCI and PC/104 form factors continue generally to be the industry standard for
CubeSat C&DH bus systems, with multiple vendors offering components that can be readily
integrated into space rated systems. Overall form factors should fit within the standard CubeSat
dimension of less than 10 x 10 cm. The PC/104 form factor was the original inspiration to define
standard architecture and interface configurations for CubeSat processors. But with space at a
premium, many vendors have been using all available space exceeding the formal PC/104 board
205
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
size. Although the PC/104 board dimension continues to inspire CubeSat configurations, some
vendors have made modifications to stackable interface connectors to address reliability and
throughput speed concerns. Many vendors have adopted the use of stackable "daughter" or
"mezzanine" boards to simplify connections between subsystem elements and payloads, and to
accommodate advances in technologies that maintain compatibility with existing designs. A few
vendors provide a modular package which allows users to select from a variety of computational
processors.
The form factors used in more traditional spacecraft designs frequently follow "plug into a
backplane" VME standards. 3U boards offer a size (roughly 100 x 160 mm) and weight advantage
over 6U boards (roughly 233 x 160 mm) if the design can be made to fit in the smaller form factor.
It should be noted that CubeSats also use "U" designations, but these refer to the volume of the
vehicle based on initial CubeSat standards of 1U (100 x 100 x 100 mm), 3U (100 x 100 x 300
mm), and 6U (100 x 200 x 300 mm). Some small spacecraft bus designers consider using just a
single board C&DH unit as a means of saving weight.
A hybrid form factor configuration is that of the Qseven Computer-on-Module (Q7). “The Qseven
concept is an off-the-shelf, multi-vendor, Computer-On-Module that integrates all the core
components of a common PC and is mounted onto an application specific carrier board. Qseven
modules have a standardized form factor of 70 x 70 mm or 40 x 70 mm and have specified pinouts
based on the high speed MXM system connector that has a standardized pinout regardless of the
vendor. The Qseven module provides the functional requirements for an embedded application.
These functions include, but are not limited to, graphics, sound, mass storage, network and
multiple USB ports. A single ruggedized MXM connector provides the carrier board interface to
carry all the I/O signals to and from the Qseven module. This MXM connector is a well-known and
proven high speed signal interface connector that is commonly used for high-speed PCI Express
graphics cards in notebooks (https://sget.org/standards/qseven/).
8.3.2 Highly Integrated On-Board Computing Products
A variety of vendors are producing highly integrated, modular, on-board computing systems for
small spacecraft. These C&DH packages combine microcontrollers and/or FPGAs with various
memory banks, and with a variety of standard interfaces for use with the other subsystems on
board. The use of FPGAs and software-defined architectures also gives designers a level of
flexibility to integrate uploadable software modifications to adapt to new requirements and
interfaces. Table 8-1 summarizes the current state-of-the-art of these components. Since
traditional CubeSat designs are based primarily on COTS parts, spacecraft vendors often try to
use parts that have radiation tolerance or have been radiation-hardened (rad-hard), as noted in
the pedigree column in table 8-1. The vehicle column shows which spacecraft classification
corresponds to each on-board unit; "general satellite" classification refers to larger SmallSat
platforms (i.e., larger than CubeSats). It should be noted that while some products have achieved
TRL 9 by virtue of a space-based demonstration, what is relevant in one application may not be
relevant to another, and different space environments and/or reliability considerations may result
in lower TRL assessments. Some larger, more sophisticated computing systems have
significantly more processing capability than what is traditionally used in SmallSat C&DH systems,
however the increase in processing power may be a useful tradeoff if payload processing and
C&DH functions can be combined (note that overall throughput should be analyzed to assure
proper functionality under the most stressful operating conditions).
206
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
GomSpace Nanomind A3200 Atmel AT32UC3C MCU COTS CubeSat Ukn (1)
ISISPACE iOBC ARM 9 COTS CubeSat 9 (2)
PPM A1 TI MSP430F1612 COTS CubeSat 9
PPM A2 TI MSP430F1611 COTS CubeSat 9
PPM A3 TI MSP430F2618 COTS CubeSat 9
PPM B1 Silicon Labs C8051F120 COTS CubeSat 9
Pumpkin Microchip (3)
PPM D1 COTS CubeSat 9
PIC24FJ256GA110
Microchip
PPM D2 COTS CubeSat 9
PIC33FJ256GP710
Microchip
PPM E1 COTS CubeSat 9
PIC24FJ256GB210
COTS Nano-,
Q7S Xilinx Zynq 7020 Arm 9 w/SEE Micro- and 9 (4)
mitigation SmallSats
Xiphos
COTS Nano- Micro-
Xilinx Ultrascale+ ARM
Q8S w/SEE and 8 (5)
Cortex-A53
mitigation SmallSats
General
RAD750 RAD750 rad-hard 9 (6)
Satellite
BAE
rad-hard by General
RAD5545 RAD5545 Ukn (7)
design Satellite
207
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
208
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
209
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
System developers are gravitating towards ready-to-use hardware and software development
platforms that can provide seamless migration to higher performance architectures. As with non-
space applications, there is a reluctance to change controller architectures due to the cost of
retraining and code migration. Following the lead of microcontrollers and FPGA vendors, CubeSat
avionics vendors are now providing simplified tool sets and basic, cost-effective evaluation
boards.
Two such example units have been identified which may be able to support small satellite designs
beyond the CubeSat form factors (see table 8-2). Spacecraft bus vendors may also have
preferred sources for C&DH units, such as those developed in-house.
210
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Several radiation-hardened embedded processors have recently become available. These are
being used as the core processors for a variety of purposes including C&DH. Some of these are
the Vorago VA10820 (ARM M0) and the VA41620 and VA41630 (ARM M4); Cobham GR740
(quad core LEON4 SPARC V8) and the BAE 5545 quad core processor. These have all been
radiation tested to at least 50 kRad total ionizing dose (TID).
Xilinx and Microchip (formerly Microsemi), leaders in the space-grade FPGA market, have both
released new radiation-tolerant FPGA families in the past two years rated to 100 kRad TID. The
Xilinx RT Kintex UltraScale, a 20 nm device, has 726 k logic cells and supports 12.5 Gbps serial
data transmission. The Microchip RT PolarFire is a 28 nm device with 481k logic cells and up to
10.3125 Gbps data transmission. These both offer far more capability than either company's
previous families of rad-tolerant FPGA (Xilinx Virtex-5 and Microchip RTG4) and may be adopted
for more complex payload data processing needs than merely C&DH use. The Kintex UltraScale
is integrated within the Innoflight CFC-500 and Moog Steppe Eagle and Ryzen, listed in the table
above.
8.3.4 Memory, Electronic Function Blocks, and Components
The range of on-board memory for small spacecraft is wide, typically starting around 32 KB and
increasing with available technology. For C&DH functions, on-board memory requires high
reliability. A variety of different memory technologies have been developed for specific traits,
including Static Random Access Memory (SRAM), Dynamic RAM (DRAM), flash memory (a type
of electrically erasable, programmable, read-only memory), Magnetoresistive RAM (MRAM),
Ferro-Electric RAM (FERAM), Chalcogenide RAM (CRAM) and Phase Change Memory (PCM).
SRAM is typically used due to price and availability. A chart comparing the various memory types
and their performance is shown in table 8-3.
211
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1.5 MB
Package 4 MB 128 MB 128 – 256 MB 1 MB (12 chip Unk
package)
There are many manufacturers that provide a variety of electronic components that have high
reliability and are space rated (see table 8-4 for a noncomprehensive list). A visit to any of their
respective websites will show their range of components and subsystems including processors,
FPGAs, SRAM, MRAM, bus interfaces, Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), and Low-
Voltage Differential Signaling (LVDS).
212
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
hard) equivalent devices as well. While there are many commercially available rad-hard
components, using these components impacts the overall cost of spacecraft development. To
keep costs as reasonable as possible, C&DH developers will need to address appropriate use of
rad-hard components, along with other radiation mitigation techniques for developing an overall
radiation tolerant design as discussed in the following section.
For space applications, radiation can damage electronics in two ways. TID is the amount of
cumulative radiation received, and single event effects (SEEs) are disturbances created by single
particles hitting the electronics (20). Total dose is measured in kilorads and can affect transistor
performance. Single Event Upsets (SEU) can affect the logic state of memory. A Single Event
Latch-up (SEL) can affect the output transistors on Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductors
(CMOS) logic, potentially causing a high-current state.
This section summarizes techniques used to mitigate system failures caused by radiation effects.
C&DH element areas of consideration include: memory, imaging, protection circuits (watchdog
timers, communications watchdog timers, overcurrent protection, and power control), memory
protection (error-correction code memory and software error detection and correction),
communication protection (several components), and parallel processing and voting.
Memory
FRAM is a non-volatile random-access memory that is persistent like Flash memory. FRAM
memory cells are latched using a Lead-Zirconium-Titanium oxide (PZT) film structure, which is
more likely to maintain state during a single event effect than traditional capacitive latches found
in RAM (21) (22).
MRAM is another type of non-volatile random-access memory that is persistent. It is different than
FRAM and others in that it has virtually unlimited read and write cycle endurance. MRAM has
been built into some processors (TI MSP430FR) as well as separate chips.
Imaging
Charge Couple Devices (CCD) and CMOS are image sensors that are useful in radiation
environments. However, CCDs are preferred in space applications, while the CMOS detectors
are a newer technology for rad hardened image sensors (23) (24) (25) (26).
Protection Circuits
Watchdog Timers
Watchdog timers are often used to monitor the state of a processor. A watchdog timer is a
hardware circuit, external or internal to the processor, which resets the processor when the timer
expires unless refreshed by the processor. If the processor jumps to an erroneous memory
location through a SEU or a software exception, the watchdog timer resets the processor to
restore operations.
Communication Watchdog Timer
A dedicated communication watchdog timer circuit can monitor commands and responses to
determine if the system is locked up. Such a circuit resets power after a specific number of failed
transmissions.
Overcurrent Protection
Single Event Latch-up (SEL) can cause device failure due to an elevated current state. Hardware
and software overcurrent protection can be implemented to watch for elevated current levels and
213
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
then issue a power reset to the offending circuit. The sampling frequency for software overcurrent
protection must be sufficient to detect and reset the subsystem before the elevated current causes
permanent damage. For hardware protection, a shunt resistor and bypass diode can be used in
conjunction to filter voltage and current spikes for rad hardened devices.
Power Control
Since many components are more prone to radiation effects when powered on, a candidate
mitigation strategy is to power off devices when they are not operationally needed.
Memory Protection
Error-Correcting Code Memory
Error-Correcting Code (ECC) memory is capable of detecting and correcting bit errors in RAM
and flash memory. In general, ECC works by storing a checksum for a portion of the memory.
This checksum can be used to simply mark a portion of memory unstable. Additional processing
can use the memory and checksums to correct single and sometimes multi-bit errors. The memory
controller is responsible for managing the ECC memory during read and write operations (30).
Software Error Detection and Correction
Bit errors can be detected and corrected using software. In general, Error Detection and
Correction (EDAC) algorithms use Hamming codes or three copies of the memory to detect and
correct bit discrepancies. Software routinely "scrubs" the memory, compares each of the three
stored memory values, selects the majority value, and corrects the erroneous memory location.
Software EDAC can be performed at the bit or byte level. Memory lifetime needs to be considered
for software EDAC implementations, since every correction increases the write count to a memory
location.
Communication Protection
Shared Bus Switching
Another option is to decouple the clock and data lines so that each peripheral has its own pair.
Additional data lines can be used on the master controller. Alternatively, an external FPGA could
be used to assign a unique clock/data pair to each peripheral and, optionally, include a method
to reconfigure those assignments in flight.
Cyclic Redundancy Check
Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) is a common method for detecting memory or communication
errors. Parity is a single-bit implementation of a CRC where the bit of summary information is
calculated by the XOR of the data to be communicated or stored to memory. For communication
channels, a CRC is calculated prior to sending the message, and is appended to the message
stream in a known location. When the message is received, the CRC is calculated again and
compared to the previously generated CRC appended to the data stream. For memory, the CRC
is calculated prior to writing the data to memory. When the data is read out, a new CRC is
calculated and compared to the previously generated CRC. CRCs help detect data corruption but
cannot be used to correct the defective data.
Forward Error Correction
214
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Forward Error Correction (FEC) transmits redundant data to help the receiver recover corrupted
data. In its simplest form, FEC could transmit three bits for every bit of data and then vote to
restore the original data. More efficient algorithms balance the data overhead with the correction
accuracy (27).
Parallel Processing and Voting
Triple Modular Redundancy
SEU can interrupt discrete logic, including processing. Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR) is a
fault mitigation technique where logic is replicated three times, and the output of the logic is
determined by a majority vote.
Firmware Protection
Many spacecraft subsystems include a processor to handle and optimize operations. These
processors require firmware which is written into onboard program memory. Like data memory,
program memory is also susceptible to single-event upsets and device failure. To counter this
issue, a bootloader may be used to check the validity of the firmware and provide a mechanism
for uploading new versions. Additionally, multiple copies of the firmware may be stored in memory
in case the primary version is corrupt.
8.4 State-of-the-Art (TRL 5-9): Flight Software
The FSW is, at a fundamental level, the instructions for the spacecraft to perform all operations
necessary for the mission. These include all the science objectives as regular tasks (commands)
to keep the spacecraft functioning and ensure the storage and communication of data (telemetry).
The FSW is usually thought of as the programs that run on the C&DH avionics but should also
include all software running on the various subsystems and payload(s).
There are many factors in the selection of a development environment and/or operating system
used for a space mission. A major factor is the amount of memory and computational resources.
There are always financial and schedule concerns. Another factor is what past software an
organization may have used and their experiences with that software. Also, the maturity of the
software as well as its availability on the target are additional factors to be considered in the final
selection.
Flight Software complexity refers to the amount of operations to be performed and is not based
on the size of the spacecraft, only the overall requirements and mission objectives. The more
software is required to do, the bigger the task and cost. This complexity is what primarily drives
the cost and schedule for the program or mission. Required reliability and fault management can
also increase complexity and cost, regardless of the size of the spacecraft.
With the increase in processing capability with C&DH and other processors, more capabilities
have been enabled with FSW. Previously, larger processors have only been in larger spacecraft
and would not be possible in CubeSats and MicroSats. There have been several advances that
make more processing capability now available for CubeSats. Low-power ARM-based
processors, as well as advances in radiation hardened processors, have brought similar
processing capabilities down to the small size of CubeSats. All of this has brought increased
demands and requirements on FSW.
FSW must operate in a real-time environment. This definition can have numerous interpretations.
Generally, C&DH and other subsystems need to be able to supervise several inputs and outputs
as well as process and store data within a fixed time-period. These all need to be performed in a
215
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
reliable and predictable fashion throughout the lifetime of the mission. The needs of each mission
can vary greatly, but this basic deterministic and reliable processing is a fundamental requirement.
8.4.1 Implication of C&DH Processors on FSW
The processor and memory available on the C&DH can put significant limitations on the FSW.
For some of the smaller jobs, or to reduce electronic complexity, smaller processors are used.
These have typically been thought of as embedded processors, with many of them containing
dedicated memory. Modern integrated space avionics, including heterogeneous and mixed
criticality architectures, also impact the nature and operational constructs, and can contribute to
advanced configurations such as Multiple Modular Redundant systems architectures which can
allow advanced paradigms for radiation tolerance and system redundancies in critical small
spacecraft missions.
Software code and programs are very integrated with the hardware, requiring careful
implementation and integration. Software development environments for these kinds of
processors usually come from the microprocessor themselves, or from third party vendors. Some
of the past tools (and processors used) have been MPLAB (Microchip PIC family), and TI
CCStudio (TI MSP430). On some of these types of processors a “bare bones” approach to the
software design is usually implemented with limited to no operating system. This is primarily
because of memory and processor limitations. These programs tend to be highly optimized. Part
of the challenge with these systems is development and testing. Most interactions with the
software must be done remotely through a secondary processor, usually a PC. This type of
development usually requires unique skills and can involve a significant learning curve for
developers. Efficient programmers need to have a good understanding of both the software and
hardware and how they function together. Timing and performance matter greatly, so that they
need to be able to write code in an efficient manner. Typically, these projects have up to 20,000
lines of code.
Larger processors have been increasing in popularity with current missions, especially CubeSats.
With increases in power production as well as lower power processors, radiation tolerant
processors have been available in both SmallSats and CubeSats. Several vendors have large
processors that can run Real-Time Operating Systems (RTOS) such as VxWorks, RTEMS and
FreeRTOS that were described earlier. Linux has been used, usually with real-time extensions.
In other instances, functionality is distributed between a large capability processor and a smaller
dedicated flight controller whereby the controller conducts and manages the real-time aspects,
allowing efficient management of power and operational complexity. These give software
developers a significant advantage with a software development environment and usually a base
implementation on the processing target. RTOS have been designed to operate in minimal
processor/memory environments with real-time needs. These projects typically have for small
projects 50K to 70K lines of code, to larger projects that can exceed a million.
This FSW Section is organized as follows:
1. Frameworks: In the context of Small Spacecraft Avionics, a Flight Software Framework
can be described as a hierarchal systems-of-systems architecture, sometimes described
as a set of Lego-like building block constructs, partitions, and functions
2. Operating Systems (OS): System software that manages computer
hardware, software resources, and provides common services for
computer programming.
3. Software Languages: System programming involves designing and writing computer
programs that allow the computer hardware to interface with the programmer and the
216
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
user, leading to the effective execution of application software on the computer system
(Techopedia).
4. Mission Operations Suites: Software and systems used to monitor, control, communicate,
and display command, control, status, and data dissemination of all aspects of a space
mission, include spacecraft performance and procedures, systems health, science and
technology data handling and management, and telemetry tracking and control.
5. Development environment, standards, and tools: the collection of hardware and software
systems tools to design, develop, validate, and operate small spacecraft missions, with
adherence to accepted software and space mission standards.
8.4.2 Frameworks
cFS – https://cfs.gsfc.nasa.gov
The core Flight System (cFS) is a generic flight software architecture framework. cFS has been
used in dozens of space missions ranging from flagship spacecraft to small satellite and
CubeSats. cFS is actively being used in a number of missions both in flight and in development.
The core Flight Executive (cFE) and Executive Services (ES) are a set of applications, application
framework, and runtime environment developed by Goddard Space Flight Center. cFE includes
core services like messaging, timekeeping, events, and table-driven commanding and
configuration (18). cFS is built on an Operating System Abstraction Layer (OSAL) that leads to
the same code base running on different operating systems. cFS provides most of the basic
functionality to operate a spacecraft. The core Flight System, as well as supporting infrastructure,
has been used by NASA on numerous missions and is being used by other organizations. cFS,
as well as the supporting OSAL, are open-source and currently released under the Apache 2.0
license (29).
F’ – https://github.com/nasa/fprime
F’ is a software framework for rapid development and deployment of embedded systems and
spaceflight applications. Originally developed at JPL, F´ is open-source software that has been
successfully deployed for several space applications. It has been used for, but is not limited to,
CubeSats, SmallSats, instruments, and deployables. F’ is currently released under the Apache
2.0 license (33, 34). Most recently, F’ was used to operate the Mars Helicopter, Ingenuity, along
with other open-source SW and HW products.
NanoSat Mission Operations Framework –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NanoSat_MO_Framework
From the above webpage: “…The NanoSat MO Framework (NMF) is a software framework
for nanosatellites based on [Consultative Council for Space Data Systems] (CCSDS) Mission
Operations services. It facilitates not only the monitoring and control of the nanosatellite software
applications, but also the interaction with the nanosatellite platform. This is achieved by using the
latest CCSDS standards for monitoring and control, and by exposing services for common
peripherals among nanosatellite platforms. Furthermore, it is capable of managing the software
on-board by exposing a set of services for software management.[1]
In simple terms, it introduces the concept of apps in space that can be installed, and then simply
started and stopped from the ground. Apps can retrieve data from the nanosatellite platform
through a set of well-defined platform services. Additionally, it includes CCSDS standardized
services for monitoring and control of apps. An NMF App can be easily developed, distributed,
and deployed on a spacecraft. [2]
217
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
There is a Software Development Kit (SDK) to help develop software based on the NanoSat MO
Framework. This SDK allows quick development of software that can run on ground and/or in
space. The reference implementation of the NanoSat MO Framework will be used in ESA's OPS-
SAT mission.”
SpaceCloud
The SpaceCloud Framework (SCFW) revolutionizes satellite software development, converting
purpose-built, custom space hardware into flexible and reusable compute nodes. This allows for
simplified space missions, providing an all-inclusive solution for on-orbit data processing and on
the ground management software. Like cloud computing on ground, it also allows orchestration
of operations each node (or satellite) will perform, including approving execution of applications
and upgrading the SCFW software. SpaceCloud® offers common types of cloud resources such
as processors, GPU or dedicated AI accelerators, and in some cases optimized resources in
FPGA technology. For storage, the S3 application programming interfaces (API) is compatible
with Amazon Web Services. Machine learning and inference can be done with TensorFlow, TVM,
PlaidML, OpenVINO / OneAPI, among others.
ROS – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Operating_System
Taken directly from webpage: “…Robot Operating System (ROS or ros) is an open-source
robotics middleware suite. Although ROS is not an operating system but a collection of software
frameworks for robot software development, it provides services designed for a heterogeneous
computer cluster such as hardware abstraction, low-level device control, implementation of
commonly used functionality, message-passing between processes, and package management.
Running sets of ROS-based processes are represented in a graph architecture where processing
takes place in nodes that may receive, post and multiplex sensor data, control, state, planning,
actuator, and other messages. Despite the importance of reactivity and low latency in robot
control, ROS itself is not a Real Time Operating System (RTOS). It is possible, however, to
integrate ROS with real-time code.[3] The lack of support for real-time systems has been
addressed in the creation of ROS 2.0,[4][5][6] a major revision of the ROS API which will take
advantage of modern libraries and technologies for core ROS functionality and add support for
real-time code and embedded hardware.”
8.4.3 Operating Systems
VxWorks
Windriver calls VxWorks the industry-leading RTOS. VxWorks is fully featured and has been used
by the industry for many years, and by NASA for over 20 years since the Clementine mission. It
is used in satellites as well as robotics such as Robonaut and MER. It has many features of a
user operating system with tasks and processes, memory protection and separation. VxWorks
has a commercial license, with several advanced development and diagnostic tools licensed
separately. Due to the cost, VxWorks needs to be budgeted for the life of the mission.
VxWorks currently supports 32-, 64-bit, and multi-core processors including Intel, Arm, Power
Architecture and RISC-V. Multi-core processors support both asymmetric and symmetric
multiprocessing. There are numerous board support packages for enabling early prototyping and
aiding software development (31).
RTEMS
From the RTEMS.org website: “the Real-Time Executive for Multiprocessor Systems (RTEMS) is
an open-source RTOS that supports open standard API such as POSIX. It is used in space flight,
medical, networking and many more embedded devices. RTEMS currently supports 18 processor
architectures and approximately 200 [broadband service providers] (BSPs). These include ARM,
218
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PowerPC, Intel, SPARC, RISC-V, MIPS, and more. RTEMS includes multiple file systems,
symmetric multiprocessing (SMP), embedded shell, and dynamic loading, as well as a high-
performance, full-featured IPV4/IPV6 TCP/IP stack from FreeBSD which also provides RTEMS
with USB.”
RTEMS is considered open-source, released under a modified GNU General Public License.
Support is available through the primary manager OAR. It has been sponsored, deployed, and
used widely on several NASA and ESA missions. RTEMS has been in development since the
1980s. RTEMS could be considered a simpler operating system with no provided memory or
process management. Although build environments are provided, development tools are not as
featured as commercial products (32).
FreeRTOS
FreeRTOS is a small, real-time operating system kernel designed for embedded devices. It is
open-source and released under the MIT license. FreeRTOS is designed to be small and simple;
however, it lacks some of the more advanced features found on larger operating systems.
FreeRTOS has been used on several CubeSat projects where memory is limited.
Linux
Linux is another operating system that is being implemented on several spacecraft. Linux is
deployed on PowerPC-, LEON-, and ARM-based processors. It is readily available and widely
used in both government and commercial sectors. There are several distributions and guides that
have been developed for embedded use that would be suitable for spacecraft use. Some of the
distributions have been Yocto (Xilinx ZYNQ) and Debian (BeagleBone Black and PowerPC).
There are real-time extensions, as well as additional extensions such as Xenomai, to improve
critical real-time performance. Numerous development and diagnostic tools are available. Linux
is a full featured operating system that has been used for desktop applications. Linux tends to be
larger, requiring more memory and processing capability. It is popular on the ARM processors
because those issues tend not to be a factor.
Debian – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian
Taken directly from webpage: “Debian also known as Debian GNU/Linux, is a Linux distribution
composed of free and open-source software, developed by the community-supported Debian.
The Debian Stable branch is the most popular edition for personal computers and servers. Debian
is also the basis for many other distributions, most notably Ubuntu. Debian is one of the oldest
operating systems based on the Linux kernel.“
8.4.4 Software Languages
Rather than list details for each listed software language, reference links to examples of relevant
software languages are provided from Wikipedia and other sources listed below in table 8-5.
219
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
220
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Additional tools have been used with these version control tools to provide more process control
and configuration management. The Atlassian tools are an example of these that interface directly
to Git or Subversion and provide issue/bug tracking (Jira), documentation (Confluence),
continuous integration (Bamboo) and others. The Atlassian tools are a licensed product that is
free for trial and suitable for a small number of users. There are several other tools for each of
these functions that are used. For instance, Trac is an open-source, web-based project
management and bug tracking system.
Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)
Excerpted from (https://www.omgwiki.org/MBSE/doku.php?id=start)
“The Object Management Group Standards Development Organization, in accordance with The
INCOSE SE Vision 2020 (INCOSE-TP-2004-004-02 September, 2007), defines Model-based
systems engineering (MBSE) as “the formalized application of modeling to support system
requirements, design, analysis, verification and validation activities beginning in the conceptual
design phase and continuing throughout development and later life cycle phases. MBSE is part
of a long-term trend toward model-centric approaches adopted by other engineering disciplines,
including mechanical, electrical and software. In particular, MBSE is expected to replace the
document-centric approach that has been practiced by systems engineers in the past and to
influence the future practice of systems engineering by being fully integrated into the definition of
systems engineering processes.” Applying MBSE is expected to provide significant benefits over
the document centric approach by enhancing productivity and quality, reducing risk, and providing
improved communications among the system development team.
Modeling has always been an important part of systems engineering to support functional,
performance, and other types of engineering analysis. Wayne Wymore introduced a mathematical
foundation for MBSE in his book entitled Model-Based Systems Engineering in 1993. However,
the growth in computing technology and the introduction of modeling standards such as SysML,
UPDM, Modelica, HLA, and others, are helping to enable MBSE as a standard practice, and
provide a foundation to integrate diverse models needed to fully specify and analyze systems.…”
Auto-Generation of Software
Automatic generation of source code from higher symbolic languages is being adopted by a wide
number of missions. This technique is commonly being used by several NASA centers including
ARC, GSFC and JSC. Key advantages of using this approach are rapid development and testing,
and significant time and cost savings. There are a variety of tools that have been used in the past,
but the most popular is MATLAB/Simulink. This allows an engineer to completely develop the
algorithms in a graphical or higher-level language and have flight code automatically generated.
Simulations and tests are also developed within MATLAB/Simulink. A common way that these
kinds of tools are used are within the GNC development, but other missions such as LADEE have
used it for almost the entire FSW with over 85% of the new code generated in this manner (35,
36).
Using these tools has advantages. They are designed for analysis and have built-in simulation
tools. They are usually seen as being easier to understand due to their graphical nature. These
tools are familiar to many engineers since they have been used by several colleges and
universities. One thing to be aware when developing software with this method is that good
modeling practices need to be adopted so that the resultant models produce good code. These
include all the best practices performed with traditional software development. An example is to
establish and use modeling guidelines so that the resultant code is consistent.
221
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
222
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Code reviews: all code should be inspected prior to being accepted by the project. These
reviews can be performed in a variety of methods, from off-line informal peer reviews to
more formal meetings such as perspective-based code inspections. Some developers
believe that this is a poor use of time and are hesitant to have others look at their work.
Code reviews lead to a higher quality product and better understanding of the software.
• Documentation: documentation can be both within the code or developed separately.
Some documentation tools process the software code to produce formal documentation.
The documentation should be consistent with the overall software effort.
• Testing: testing can come as three different parts.
o Unit- and component-level tests: each software module should have a unit test
(function level) and/or component test (module level) that is required to pass before
that code is accepted for release. A record of these tests should be kept as part of
the overall software release procedure. When fixing a discrepancy or bug the unit
test should be modified to test those fixes.
o Manual or interface testing: software is tested against the actual devices or a copy
to ensure that both the hardware and software can successfully communicate and
control each subsystem. Tests should be repeated, and edge cases should be
tested whenever possible.
o Integrated testing: integrated testing is the main time that all the FSW can be tested
together. This ensures that the overall system operates in an expected and reliable
manner. Ideally subsystems have actual hardware, but simulations can be used.
• Continuous integration: Continuous Integration (CI) works with the CM tools to know when
changes have been committed. The CI tools automatically build executables and run
configured tests (unit and integrated tests). This removes the burden of building and
testing from the developers and finds any issues with new code much faster. CI does
require setup time and an understanding of the tools.
*Software planning is a whole topic unto itself. There are several software development
approaches. Currently agile software development is one of the most popular. The overall cost of
the software development effort needs to be understood, and a detailed cost estimate should be
performed. As the complexity of the FSW increases, so does the cost and the effort of estimating
that cost. There are a number of different methods for estimating those costs, including analogy,
parametric models such as Cocomo, and bottoms-up cost estimates (16) (17) (18). Typically,
there is a lot of uncertainty in software cost estimates, so it is important to try to understand the
bounds of that uncertainty and, if possible, to give confidence in the estimate.
In order to ensure that all NASA projects follow best software practices NASA Software
Engineering Requirements standard NPR 7150.2 (currently NPR7150.2C – for updated NPR
standards please see https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/) is mandated for all NASA Flight Software
(and NASA developed software in general). It covers requirements for software management and
planning, software engineering life cycle requirements, and supporting software life cycle
requirements. Overall NPR 7150.2 addresses:
• Roles and responsibilities for tailoring requirements
• Software management
o Software lifecycle planning
o Cost estimates
o Training
o Classification assessments
o Software assurance and software verification and validation
• Software engineering life cycle requirements
o Requirements
223
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
o Architecture
o Design
o Implementation
o Testing
o Operations, maintenance, and retirement
• Supporting software life cycle requirements
o Configuration management
o Risk management
o Peer reviews/inspections
o Measurements
o Non-conformance or defect management
• Recommended software documentation
224
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
225
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
226
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
227
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
as well as science data real-time adaptive analysis (we used to call these co-processors, now
heterogeneous architectures). This allows lower performance onboard processors and FPGAs
etc. to conduct the routine spacecraft operations functions and interact with the subsystems which
also may include distributed performance cascades.
8.7.6 Industry 4.0, Foundational and Enabling Technologies and Products
In keeping with the trends seen in other disciplines and industries, the Industry 4.0 and “digitally
managed everything” is absolutely of critical importance for technological and programmatic
efficiencies in small spacecraft avionic systems development and utilization. The following is just
a short list of 21st century tools, technologies, and approaches that must be considered in
development and deployment of next-generation small spacecraft avionic systems:
1. Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning / Machine Vision
2. Robotics and Automation
3. Model-Based Systems Engineering
4. Embedded Systems / Edge Computing
5. Internet-of-Space-Things
6. Cloud Computing
7. Augmented Reality/ Virtual Reality / Mixed Reality
8. Software-Defined-Everything
9. Advanced manufacturing
10. Digital Twin
8.8 Summary
Space applications now require considerable autonomy, precision, and robustness, and are
refining technologies for such operations as on-orbit servicing, relative and absolute navigation,
inter-satellite communication, and formation flying. An exciting trend is that small spacecraft
missions are becoming more complex in the anticipation of these platforms being used for lunar
and deep space science and exploration missions. Small spacecraft technology must expand to
meet the needs of this increasing small spacecraft mission complexity, to achieve the next
generational goals of collecting important science in deep space using small spacecraft, as well
as risk mitigation for larger more complex and mission-critical situations. In parallel, spacecraft
electronic components have matured to have higher performance, higher reliability, and are being
miniaturized to meet the growing needs of these now very capable spacecraft.
With the combination and integration of the previously separate C&DH and FSW chapters, the
2021 Small Spacecraft Avionics chapter has attempted to cast these elements in a broader,
interrelated framework, and attempts to show that C&DH, FSW, and smart payloads are not just
independent space platform subsystems but are part of an integrated avionics ecosystem of all
electronic elements of a space platform, now primarily digitally based and or managed. Also, SSA
should not be considered as an isolated spaceflight technology component, but rather as a core
digital engineering technology emphasis area, capable of taking advantage of and integrating
products, processes, and technologies from other disciplines. To continue to be relevant and
efficient, the small spacecraft avionics communities must remain cognizant and receptive of the
continuously evolving nature of the digital based Industry4.0 technology revolution now being
evidenced in other related and/or associated vertical disciplines and solutions.
For feedback solicitation, please email: [email protected]. Please include a business
email for further contact.
228
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
References
(1) GomSpace. NanoMind A3200 - Datasheet. [Online] 2019.
https://gomspace.com/shop/subsystems/command-and-data-handling/nanomind-
a3200.aspx.
(2) ISIS. ISIS On board computer - Datasheet. [Online] 2019. https://www.isispace.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/IOBC-Brochure-web-compressed.pdf.
(3) Pumpkin Space Systems. "Processor-specific CubeSat Kit™ Components." Pumpkin
Products/Store. [Online] 2020. https://www.pumpkinspace.com/store/c19/Processor-
specific_CubeSat_Kit%E2%84%A2_Components.html.
(4) Xiphos. Q7S Specifications - Datasheet. [Online] 2020. http://xiphos.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/XTI-2001-2020-e-Q7S-Spec-Sheet.pdf.
(5) Xiphis. Q8S SPECIFICATIONS - Datasheet. [Online] 2020. http://xiphos.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/06/XTI-2001-2025-f-Q8S-Rev-B-Spec-Sheet-1.pdf.
(6) BAE Systems. "RAD750 3U CompactPCI single-board computer." BAE Systems: Space
product literature. [Online] 2008. https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/our-company/inc-
businesses/electronic-systems/product-sites/space-products-and-processing/radiation-
hardened-electronics.
(7) BAE Systems. "RAD5545 Space VPX single-board computer." BAE Systems: Space
products literature. [Online] 2017. https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/our-company/inc-
businesses/electronic-systems/product-sites/space-products-and-processing/radiation-
hardened-electronics.
(8) AAC Clyde Space. Command & Data Handling KRYTEN-M3 - Datasheet. [Online] 2020.
https://www.aac-
clyde.space/assets/000/000/179/AAC_DataSheet_Kryten_original.pdf?1600342763.
(9) AAC Clyde Space. Command & Data Handling Sirius OBC LEON3FT - Datasheet.
[Online] 2020. https://www.aac-
clyde.space/assets/000/000/181/AAC_DataSheet_Sirius_OBC_-
_updated_tables_original.pdf?1599046187.
(10) Innoflight. CFC-300: Compact Flight Computer - Datasheet. [Online] 2020.
https://www.innoflight.com/product-overview/cfcs/cfc-300/.
(11) Innoflight. CFC-400: Compact Flight Computer - Datasheet. [Online] 2020.
https://www.innoflight.com/product-overview/cfcs/cfc-400/.
(12) Innoflight. CFC-500: Compact On-Board Computer - Datasheet. [Online] 2020.
https://www.innoflight.com/product-overview/cfcs/cfc-500/.
(13) Space Micro. CubeSat Space Processor (CSP). Datasheets. [Online] 2019.
https://www.spacemicro.com/assets/datasheets/digital/slices/CSP.pdf.
(14) Nanoavionics. CubeSat On-Board Computer - Main Bus Unit SatBus 3C2 - Datasheet.
[Online] 2020. https://nanoavionics.com/CubeSat-components/CubeSat-on-board-
computer-main-bus-unit-satbus-3c2/.
(15) Moog. Radiation Tolerant, 75GLOP 3U SPaceVPX GPU Single Board Computer -
Datasheet. Moog: Space Defense: Space Literature. [Online] 2020.
https://www.moog.com/content/dam/moog/literature/Space_Defense/spaceliterature/avio
nics/Moog-Rad-Tolerant-75GFLOP-3U-SpaceVPX-GPU-Single-Board-Computer-
Datasheet.pdf.
229
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
230
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(41) Bruhn, F.C., Tsog, N., Kunkel, F. et al. Enabling radiation tolerant heterogeneous GPU-
based onboard data processing in space. CEAS Space J 12, 551–564 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12567-020-00321-9
(42) Ibeos: “Standard Products.” [Online] 2021. Accessed August 8, 2021.
https://www.ibeos.com/standard-products
231
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Contents
Glossary .......................................................................................................................... ii
9.0 Communications ................................................................................................ 232
9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 232
9.1.1 Document Organization ........................................................................... 232
9.2 Public Data Sources and Disclaimers ............................................................ 233
9.3 Definitions ...................................................................................................... 233
9.4 Technological Maturity ................................................................................... 233
9.4.1 Application of the TRL Scale to SmallSat Communications Systems ...... 233
9.5 Radio Frequency Communications ................................................................ 234
9.5.1 Frequency Bands .................................................................................... 234
9.5.2 System Architecture ................................................................................ 235
9.5.3 Definitions ................................................................................................ 236
9.5.4 Design Considerations............................................................................. 237
9.5.5 Policies and Licensing ............................................................................. 237
9.5.6 Encryption................................................................................................ 238
9.5.7 Antennas ................................................................................................. 238
9.5.8 Radios ..................................................................................................... 239
9.5.9 On the Horizon RF Communications ....................................................... 240
9.6 Optical Communications ................................................................................ 241
9.6.1 System Architecture ................................................................................ 241
9.6.2 Design Considerations............................................................................. 242
9.6.3 Policies and Licensing ............................................................................. 242
9.6.4 Missions................................................................................................... 243
9.6.5 On the Horizon Optical Communications ................................................. 243
9.7 Summary ........................................................................................................ 244
References .................................................................................................................. 251
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Glossary
ii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
iii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
9.0 Communications
9.1 Introduction
The communication system is an essential part of a spacecraft, enabling spacecraft to transmit
data and telemetry to Earth, receive commands from Earth, and relay information to one another.
A communications system consists of the ground segment: one or more ground stations located
on Earth, and the space segment: the spacecraft(s) and their respective communication payloads.
The three functions of a communications
system are receiving commands from Earth
(uplink), transmitting data down to Earth
(downlink) and transmitting or receiving
information from another satellite (crosslink or
inter-satellite link). There are two types of
communication systems: radio frequency (RF)
and free space optical (FSO) also referred to as
laser communications (lasercom).
Most spacecraft communications systems are
radio frequency based. They are conducted in
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) radio bands of 300 MHz to 40 Figure 9.1: Satellite uplink, downlink, and
GHz. A RF system communicates by sending crosslink. Credit: D. Stojce (2019).
data over electromagnetic waves to and from
antennas. Information is encoded onto radio frequency waves using modulation and sent to the
receiving system where it is demodulated and decoded.
Recent development in FSO communications has made it a strong alternative to RF systems.
FSO systems consist of a transmitting terminal and receiving terminal. Much like an RF system,
information is encoded onto electromagnetic waves using modulation and sent to the receiving
system. FSO links operate at a much higher frequency than RF links, generally at infrared or
visible bands. Higher frequencies result in wider bandwidths which result in higher data rates.
Figure 9.2: Radio and optical spectrum used by spacecraft for communication. Credit: NASA.
232
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Each of these categories is further subdivided by the system background and prevailing
technology types. The subsections organize data as follows:
a. System Introduction
i. Frequency Bands
ii. System Architecture
iii. Design Considerations
iv. Policies and Licensing
b. Hardware
i. Device Introduction
ii. Device Tables
c. On the Horizon
9.2 Public Data Sources and Disclaimers
This chapter is a survey of small spacecraft communications technologies as discussed in open
literature and does not endeavor to be an original source. This chapter only considers literature
in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include
manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with
government agencies, and news articles.
9.3 Definitions
• Device refers to a component, subsystem, or system, depending on the context.
• Technology refers to a broad category of devices or intangible materials, such as
processes.
• System refers to the integration of components from a multitude of manufacturers, which
may be mixed-and-matched to create a unique mission-appropriate subsystem solution.
9.4 Technological Maturity
9.4.1 Application of the TRL Scale to SmallSat Communications Systems
NASA has clear guidelines for Technology Maturity Assessments (TMA) outlined in the NASA
SP-2016-6105 NASA Systems Engineering Handbook Appendix G: Technology
Assessment/Insertion. An assessment determines a device’s maturity level, and the Technology
Readiness Level (TRL) as the frequently used system of measure. The TRL scale is defined in
NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7123. In general, technologies rated TRL 5 have been
demonstrated in a laboratory, TRL 7 has been demonstrated in a flight-like environment, and TRL
9 is flight ready and space-qualified. TRL is used to communicate the maturity and risk levels
associated with a particular technology. TRLs are applied across all technology categories,
resulting in broad definitions for each level. Assessment of a device’s TRL level requires the
consideration of a subject matter expert (SME). Without the in-depth technical knowledge of the
specific subject, the TRL level could be applied incorrectly.
The information described below is not intended to be exhaustive but provides an overview of
current state-of-the-art technologies and their development status for particular small spacecraft
subsystems. It should be noted that TRL designations may vary with changes specific to payload,
mission requirements, reliability considerations, and/or the environment in which performance
was demonstrated. This chapter will be reviewing state-of-the-art technology on the order of TRL
7-9, spanning early flight testing to production flight hardware. Due to the limited technical
knowledge of the reviewer(s) about specific hardware, TRL assessment for RF hardware and
lasercom terminals will not be provided. The technology reviewed for this chapter will all be at a
certain threshold of development; therefore, it can be assumed by the reader that it is at minimum
TRL 7. Hardware used in notable missions will be identified, and those devices can be assumed
233
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
In L-band, CubeSats can take advantage of legacy communications networks such as Globalstar
and Iridium by using network-specific transponders to relay information to and from Earth. These
networks remove dependence on dedicated ground station equipment. However, they can only
be used at orbital altitudes below the communication constellation and require experimental
frequency authorization.
Ku-, K-, and Ka-band communication systems are the state-of-the-art for large spacecraft,
especially in spacecraft-to-spacecraft communications, but they are still young technologies in the
CubeSat world. They are becoming more attractive to SmallSat designers as the lower
frequencies become more congested. At the higher frequencies, rain fade becomes a significant
problem for communications between a spacecraft and Earth (1). Nonetheless, the benefits of
operating at higher frequencies have justified further research by both industry and government
alike. At JPL, the Integrated Solar Array and Reflectarray Antenna (ISARA) mission demonstrated
high bandwidth Ka-band CubeSat communications with over 100 Mbps downlink rate (2). The
back of the 3U CubeSat was fitted with a high gain reflectarray antenna integrated into an existing
solar array. The successful demonstration of the reflectarray on ISARA became the basis for the
Mars Cube One (MarCO) mission to Mars. The MarCO mission uses two twin CubeSats for a
communications relay between the InSight lander and Earth. Using a X-band reflectarray they
were able to successfully complete their mission (3).
CubeSats have also used the unlicensed Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) bands for
communications. The Ames TechEdSat team has successfully demonstrated WiFi to downlink
data at 1 Mbps. Notably, a group at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University used a 2.4
GHz ZigBee radio on its VELOX-I mission to demonstrate commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) land-
based wireless systems for inter-satellite communication (4). Similarly, current investigations are
looking at using wireless COTS products, such as Bluetooth-compatible hardware, for inter-
satellite communications (5).
9.5.2 System Architecture
A small satellite RF communications system consists of a transceiver comprised of a radio, an
amplifier, and an antenna. Radios receive a message from the Command and Data Handling
(CDH) subsystem, then produce and modulate an electromagnetic wave to create a signal. They
are responsible for generating the signal and modulating or demodulating it. The radio is also
where coding may be added to the signal. Modulation and coding are added to achieve
communication efficiency and adequate performance under the conditions imposed by the
satellite transmission path (6). From Shannon’s Equation (6), it is known that the information
capacity of a channel is related to its bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The channel
capacity (information flow) can be increased by increasing the SNR or the bandwidth, and many
modulation and coding schemes make effective use of this tradeoff.
Radios offer some power amplification, but often the signals from small satellites require a greater
boost. The power amplifier will take the signal from the radio and increase the RF output power
before sending it to the transmit antenna. On the receive side, a low noise amplifier will take the
weak signal from the receive antenna and increase it while reducing interference noise using a
bandpass filter. The radio will then be able to process the stronger signal with higher accuracy. In
RF communications the role of the antenna is to increase and focus the strength of the signal in
a specific direction. The digital message encoded on the RF carrier signal will be sent to and from
the antennas of each system.
235
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 9.2: Transmit and receive block diagram. Credit: Karim et al. (2018).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
9.5.3 Definitions
• Radio or Modulator: On the transmit side it produces, modulates, codes, and amplifies an
electromagnetic wave to create a signal. Adds modulation and coding as needed. As a
receiver it decodes and demodulates received signals.
• Filters and mixers: Bandpass filters (BPF) and RF mixers are used in communications
systems to change the frequency of the signal. If the frequency generated by the radio is
not the desired transmit frequency, then an upconverter will be used to convert the signal
to a higher frequency for transmit. Similarly, the downconverter will down convert a receive
frequency to a lower one for processing.
• Amplifier: For a transmit system, a power or gain amplifier is required. For a receive
system, a low noise amplifier (LNA) is required.
• Antenna: Increases the strength of a signal in a specific direction, relative to the same
signal strength without directionality. Receives signals sent towards it by the transmitter.
• Encryption: A cryptographic unit is an integrated encryptor/decryptor device that provides
secure uplink, downlink, or crosslink for satellite communication links. Most small satellite
designers will not require a cryptographic payload unit based on their threat level and may
be able to use the communications radio for simple encryption schemes.
• Spread-spectrum communication applies a known frequency spreading function to the
signal, which helps reduce interference from other transmitters and is often used for multi-
way communication networks. For example, the NASA Tracking and Data Relay Satellite
(TDRS) multiple-access mode requires spread spectrum signals to support multiple
simultaneous communication links.
236
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
237
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
with 10 or lesser number of satellites under a single license. All individual satellites will have to
be 10 cm or larger in the smallest dimension and weigh less than 180 kg. The maximum in-orbit
lifetime of each individual satellite will be six years, including de-orbiting time, and they would
have to be deployed under 600 km altitude. Each satellite will have a unique telemetry marker for
tracking and will not release any debris (9).
9.5.6 Encryption
Encryption is the process of encoding information to conceal it from outside actors. Small satellites
can use a cryptographic unit to encrypt or decrypt data prior to transmission. When data is being
prepared for transmission, it is broken up into packets. These packets are then scrambled
according to the encryption scheme being used. An encryption scheme uses an encryption key
generated by an algorithm to encode the data. The authorized receiver of the encrypted data will
be able to decrypt the message using the appropriate key. Without the authorized key, decrypting
the data will be extremely difficult.
With the increased proliferation of small satellites in low-Earth orbit comes an increase in
vulnerabilities. Many SmallSats are comprised of COTS hardware and/or open source software.
While this strategy allows for a more flexible design approach, adversaries can gain insight into
the design. Additionally, the improvement in propulsion technology for small satellites creates a
potential collision threat for other low-Earth orbit spacecraft. Encryption of data in transit prevents
other actors from commanding satellites or intercepting transmissions.
NASA requires any of its propulsive spacecraft within 2 million kilometers of Earth to protect their
command uplink with encryption that is compliant with Level 1 of the Federal Information
Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-3 (10). The FCC has also considered requiring encryption on
the telemetry, tracking, and command communications as well as mission data for propulsive
spacecraft, but decided not to incorporate a specific requirement at this time. A satellite with an
amateur license cannot encrypt transmissions in any way and must consist of open information.
The eligibility rules are listed in 47 CFR Part 97 (11).
9.5.7 Antennas
Antennas are used for propagating
data through free space using
electromagnetic waves. RF
antennas are typically sized for
their respective frequencies. This
means that antennas are often
chosen or designed specifically for
their mission. COTS antennas are Figure 9.3: (from left to right) CubeSat-compatible S-band
available for SmallSats and can be patch antenna (IQ Wireless), X-band high-gain antenna and
built to order. For missions that pointing mechanism (Surrey Satellite Technology, Ltd.), and
don’t have high data rate Ka-band transmitter with a horn antenna (Astro Digital).
requirements, a simple patch or
monopole antenna with low gain and efficiency will suffice. Due to their low directionality, these
antennas can generally maintain a communication link even when the spacecraft is tumbling,
which is advantageous for CubeSats lacking good attitude and accurate pointing control. New
developments in antenna design have put technologies like the deployable reflector antenna,
reflectarray, and passive or active array antennas on the horizon for small satellites.
There are two primary classifications of antenna: fixed or deployable. Fixed antennas do not
require any power or triggering mechanisms. They remain stationary in the position that they are
attached to the spacecraft. This includes patch antennas, array antennas, monopole antennas,
238
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
omni-directional antennas, and horn antennas, see figure 9.3. Deployable antennas require power
to deploy and use mechanisms to configure into their final position. This includes whip antennas,
parabolic reflectors, reflectarrays, helical and turnstile antennas, see figure 9.4.
A communications link is often characterized by the frequency and data rate. The antenna is a
key design decision for meeting data rate objectives by increasing link margin. By increasing the
aperture or diameter of an antenna it inceases the link margin, which can allow designers to
increase the data rate of the system or reduce the necessary transmit power.
Figure 9.4: (from left to right) Example of deployable quadrifilar helical antenna.
(Helical Communication Technologies), SNaP spacecraft with Haigh-Farr’s
deployable UHF Crossed Dipole antenna (Space Missile and Defense
Command), and EnduroSat UHF antenna with EnduroSat solar panels
(EnduroSat).
9.5.8 Radios
Radios for small sat downlink are transceivers (transmitter and
receiver in one). Transceivers convert digital information into an
analog RF signal using a variety of modulation and coding
schemes. Radios for TT&C are designed to be low data-rate,
with high reliability and only need to transmit health data and
receive commands. Traditional radios may be locked to a single
frequency band and modulation/coding scheme based on their
design and build. Software defined radios (SDR) have some or
Figure 9.5: Example of
all of the radio’s functions implemented in Digital Signal
software defined radio,
Processing (DSP) software rather than hardware, see figure 9.5
tunable in the range 70 MHz
for an example of an SDR. Furthermore, spacecraft teams can
to 6 GHz. Credit:
change such characteristics in-flight by uploading new settings
GomSpace.
from the ground. By using Field Programmable Gate Arrays
(FPGAs), SDRs have great flexibility that allows them to be used with multiple bands, filtering,
adaptive modulation and coding schemes, without much (if any) change to hardware (12). SDRs
are especially attractive for use on CubeSats, as they are becoming increasingly small and
efficient as electronics become smaller and require less power. Since 2012, NASA has been
operating the Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Testbed on the International Space
Station for the purpose of SDR TRL advancement, among other things (13). Many radios can
provide RF output power to the antenna directly. For higher power applications, an external RF
amplifier or high gain antenna may be used.
239
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
This report recommends efficient modulation and coding schemes for spacecraft power and
bandwidth to increase the data rate and meet bandwidth constraints with the limited power and
mass for CubeSat spacecraft. Advanced coding, such as the CCSDS Low-density parity-check
code (LDPC) family, with various code rates is a powerful technique to provide bandwidth and
power tradeoffs with high-order modulation to achieve high data rate requirements for CubeSat
missions. Digital Video Broadcast Satellite Second Generation (DVB-S2), a significant satellite
communications standard, is a family of modulations and codes for maximizing data rates and
minimizing bandwidth use, along with size, weight, and power (SWaP). DVB-S2 uses power and
bandwidth efficient modulation and coding techniques to deliver performance approaching
theoretical limits of RF channels. NASA’s NEN has conducted testing at NASA Wallops Flight
Facility (WFF) to successfully demonstrate DVB-S2 over a S-band 5 MHz channel achieving 15
Mbps with 16 APSK LDPC 9/10 code (14).
9.5.9 On the Horizon RF Communications
As CubeSat missions employ more automation, constellations could exchange information to
maintain precise positions without input from the ground. Radiometric ranging is a function
recently incorporated into CubeSat transceivers. A timing signal is embedded into the radio signal
and is used to determine the range to the spacecraft. Using this method along will directional
vectors obtained from ground antennas allows for trajectory determination of satellites beyond
low-Earth orbit. Spacecraft may relay data to increase the coverage from limited ground stations.
Inter-CubeSat transponders may very well become a vital element of eventual deep space
missions, since CubeSats are typically limited in broadcasting power due to their small size and
may be better suited to relay information to Earth via a larger, more powerful mothership.
A CubeSat constellation may involve numerous CubeSats in the constellation (e.g., tens or
hundreds). Each CubeSat is typically identical from a communication perspective. One CubeSat
may be mother ship-capable while the others may be subordinate (e.g., daughterships), however,
multiple CubeSats may have the ability to fulfill the role of a mothership.
CubeSat constellations optimize coverage over specific areas or improve global revisit times to
fulfill mission objectives. There is growing interest among the NASA science community in using
constellations of CubeSats to enhance observations for Earth and space science. NASA GSFC
has conducted research on future CubeSat constellations. This includes CubeSat swarms,
daughter ship/mother ship constellations, NEN S- and X-band direct-to-ground links, TDRS
Multiple Access (MA) arrays, and Single Access modes. The MA array requires the use of spread-
spectrum to support multiple simultaneous communications links to increase coverage and link
availability.
Spacecraft routinely use transponders, however, networked swarms of CubeSats that pass
information to each other and then eventually to ground, have not flown. Developing networked
swarms is less of a hardware engineering problem than a systems and software engineering
problem in that one must manage multiple dynamic communication links.
As of this 2021 edition, only the two MarCO SmallSats have operated beyond low-Earth orbit.
Both satellites used a deployable reflectarray panel at X-band and were equipped with a full-
duplex radio providing both UHF and X-band coverage. This allowed for near real-time updates
of the InSight rover’s landing. After this success, more SmallSats may be deployed beyond low-
Earth orbit. The ability to provide crosslink relay hops for large spacecraft will prove to be critical
for deep space missions.
IRIS Version 2 is a CubeSat/SmallSat compatible transponder developed by NASA Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL) as a low volume and mass, lower power and cost, software/firmware defined
telecommunications subsystem for deep space technology demonstration missions (15). IRIS is
240
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
designed to be radiation-hardened for deep space missions and interoperable with the NASA
Deep Space Network (DSN). Launch date is currently TBD.
9.6 Optical Communications
Optical communications or lasercom, is the use of optical wavelengths of electromagnetic
radiation to transmit messages wirelessly between user terminals. Optical communication is the
forefront of current wireless communication technologies for small satellites. The technology is
relatively new, and as such few proven
optical communications terminals exist.
Most available data is produced by
government laboratories.
Optical communications offer better
performance than RF systems due to larger
bandwidths available at sub-millimeter
wavelengths. Laser communications have a
low probability of intercept, are difficult to
jam and encounters very little interference
because of its narrow beamwidth. At the
present, optical frequencies are unregulated
and allow for large bandwidths and high Figure 9.6: Laser vs RF link and data downlink.
channel throughput. Figure 9.6 displays the Credit: NASA.
differences between Laser and RF link and
data downlink.
CubeSats have successfully demonstrated laser
communication in space, and the technology is quickly
maturing. The Aerospace Corporation, in cooperation with
NASA ARC, launched three CubeSats in its AeroCube Optical
Communication and Sensor Demonstration; see figure 9.7. In
March 2018, a systems checkout was completed, and the
mission entered the operational phase. AeroCube’s optical Figure 9.7: An artist rendering of
system successfully transmitted in mid-2018. laser communications for the
OCSD. Credit: NASA.
9.6.1 System Architecture
Lasercom terminals (LCT) are comprised of an optical modem, optical amplifier, and optical head,
see figure 9.8 for a laser terminal diagram. This is not always the case, as the Lunar Laser
Communications Demonstration (LLCD) on NASA's Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment
Explorer (LADEE) spacecraft had the
modem separated from the optical
head (16). The key parameters of an
optical comm system are frequency,
aperture size, and range. Successful
optical communications links require
extremely high pointing accuracy;
thus the system relies heavily on the
attitude determination and control
system (ADCS). Optical modems
may be software defined and can
support multiple modulation and
Figure 9.8: Laser terminal architecture diagram. Credit: M. coding schemes, similar to RF. The
Guelman et al. (2004). optical head is very similar to a RF
241
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
antenna, it uses optics to concentrate energy through an aperture to form a very narrow
beam. The narrower the beam, the higher the power density and the higher the data rate or
range of the link.
242
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
9.6.4 Missions
The first attempt to demonstrate laser communication on a CubeSat was on-board FITSAT-1, a
1U system developed at the Fukuoka Institute of Technology in Japan. The satellite carried two
arrays of high-power LEDs along with an experimental RF transceiver. The robotic arm of the
International Space Station (ISS) deployed FITSAT-1 in October 2012. The German Aerospace
Center is currently flying two lasercom terminals as part of its OSIRIS program. The Small Optical
Transponder (SOTA) developed by the National Institute of Information and Communications
Technology in Japan (NICT) has successfully demonstrated a laser space-ground link from a 50
kg microsatellite (20). Tesat-Spacecom offers the CubeLCT laser communication terminal (0.3U,
0.4 kg, 8 W), also known as OSIRIS4 CubeSat (21) and offers high bandwidth space-to- ground
data transmissions of up to 100 Mbit/s. CubeLCT was launched in January 2021 as part of
SpaceX’s first SmallSat rideshare program, Transporter-1, aboard a Falcon 9 (22).
There are several up and coming laser communications technologies, all lower TRL than existing
missions. Future endeavors include the NASA-sponsored Miniature Optical Communication
Transmitter (23) and the CLICK mission (24). CLICK is a two-part mission, sponsored and
overseen by NASA’s SST Program and involving MIT, and University of Florida for the payload
and BCT for the bus. CLICK-A will demonstrate a laser downlink, CLICK-B/C a laser cross-
link. All CLICK spacecraft are 3U spacecraft and the payload occupies approximately 1.5U.
9.6.5 On the Horizon Optical Communications
Spacecraft parameters like power, mass, and volume are constrained
by cost and current capability. Ground operations, on the other hand, are
not subject to the same limitations. Asymmetric laser communications
leverage this imbalance. Asymmetric laser communication uses a
remotely generated laser (e.g., does not require an on-board signal
carrier) and Modulating Retro-Reflector (MRR) to reflect and modulate a
laser beam (encoding it with spacecraft data) back to Earth. The laser is
located on Earth, where power and volume constraints are not as tight,
while the communications payload on the spacecraft is limited to only a
few watts for operation, see figure 9.9. NIWC is developing this
technology using a MEMS-based MRR (20), The Navy has funded
Boston Micromachines via small business innovative research (SBIR) to
develop a Large Aperture Micro-Electro-Mechanical (MEMS) MRR. The
goal of the project is to develop MRRs with a clear aperture of 25.4mm
with packaging to survive the launch environment and operate in the Figure 9.9: Scheme for
vacuum of space. using land-based laser
to transmit data from
Fibertek developed a 2U CubeSat lasercom system in 2018 based on CubeSat using on-
work performed under a NASA ARC SBIR and continues to make board MRR. Credit:
substantial progress in lasercom and LiDAR technologies. Sinclair Salas et al. (2012).
Interplanetary is developing the DCL-17 (TRL 5), a self-contained optical communications
terminal that incorporates a built-in star tracker and a 1 Gbps laser downlink. CubeSat LCT are
also in development by General Atomics and Hyperion Technologies. The CubeSat
lasercom module by Hyperion Technologies enables a bidirectional space-to-ground
communication link between a CubeSat and an optical ground station, with downlink speeds
of up to 1 Gbps and an uplink data rate of 200 Kbps. In addition to CubeSat terminals,
larger terminals for SmallSats are under development by Tesat, Mynaric (26),
SpaceMicro (27), and SA Photonics.
243
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
9.7 Summary
There is already strong flight heritage for many UHF/VHF and S-band communication systems
for CubeSats. Less common, but with growing flight heritage, are X-band systems. Higher RF
frequencies and laser communication already have CubeSat flight heritage, but with limited (or
yet to be demonstrated) performance. Although there are limited Ka-band systems for CubeSats
today, high rate transmitters such as the Astro Digital AS-10075 demonstrated 320 Mbps in the
Landmapper-BC 3 v2 mission. On the other hand, laser communication is a spaceflight-ready
technology that should see future onboard laser systems with increased performance.
Alternatively, a few groups are working on asymmetric laser communication, but this is still a
relatively low TRL technology. Since optical communications uplink and downlink can be blocked
by clouds, RF is considered complementary to maintain contact under all conditions. There is
growing interest among the NASA science community in using constellations of CubeSats to
enhance observations for Earth and space science.
For feedback solicitation, please email: [email protected]. Please include a business
email for further contact.
244
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
245
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
S-band Patch
Haigh-Farr, Inc. Patch 2245-2245 S -- RHCP 48 4.8x6.5x6.5 Y
Antenna
X-band Patch
EnduroSat Patch 8025-8400 X 6 RHCP 2.2 -- Y
Antenna
Syrlinks SPAN-X-T2 Patch 8025-8450 X 7.6 RHCP 68 10x10x7 Y
Syrlinks SPAN-X-T3 Patch 8025-8400 X 11.5 Circular 65 7.3x7.3x11 Y
Cesium Astro Nightingale Phased Array 27000-40000 Ka 30 Circular 1200 18x18x2 N
Oxford Space 862 – 928
Helical antenna Deployable -- 6.5 RHCP ~300 33 Y
Systems MHz
Oxford Space 156.5 -162.5
Yagi antenna Deployable -- 6.5 Dual Linear <1kg 100 x 70 Y
Systems MHz
Deployable 25kg
Oxford Space 46 -
Cassegrain Wrapped Deployable -- X-band Linear to 300 - 500 N
Systems 49
Rib Antenna 38kg
from
Oxford Space Deployable Parabolic 12kg
Deployable -- C-band 42 Linear 200 - 600 N
Systems Offset Reflector to
21kg
Oxford Space Deployable Hinged ~2-
Deployable -- K/Ka-band 41 Linear ~60 N
Systems Rib Metal Mesh 3kg
0.003 1.25U x
Redwire Space Narwhal Antenna Helical 100 – 4 GHz L 6-18 Circular N
2 1.25U x 2U
246
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
247
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1610-1626.5
Qualcomm GSP-1720 Transmitter L, S 9.6 31 dBm 60 11.9x6.5x1.5 Y
2483.5-2500
Iridium
NAL Research
NAL Iridium 9602-LP, Satellite 1616-1626.5 L -- 1W 136 6.9x5.5x2.4 Y
Corporation
Tracker
NearSpace Launch EyeStar-S3 Transmitter 1616.25 L 600 20 dBm 22 1.5x2.6x5.5 Y
L3Harris CXS-1000 Transponder 1700-2100 L,S 20,000 1-5 W 1360 10x10x11 Y
Tethers Unlimited SWIFT-SLX SDR 1700-2500 S 6,000 33 dBm 300 9x9.8x3.6 Y
SWIFT-XTS
1700-2500 6,000-
Tethers Unlimited S Transceiver SDR S, X 34 dBm 800 9x9.8x6 Y
7000-8500 25,000
X Transmitter
SpaceQuest TX-2400 Transmitter 2000 to 2300 S 6,000 2.5 70 6.8x3.5x1.5 Y
EWC27 + OPT27- 27-33
Syrlinks Transceiver 2025-2110 S 100,000 400 9x9.6x3.9 Y
SRX S/X Transceiver dBm
Tx: 2200-2300
Innoflight, Inc. SCR-104 SDR Rx: 1760-1840 L, S 4500 1 290 9.8x8x3 Y
2025-2110
IQ Wireless GmbH HISPICO Transmitter 2100-2500 S 1,000 27 dBm 100 9.5x4.6x1.5 Y
Emhiser Research,
ETT-01EBA102-00 Transmitter 2200-2400 S -- 1W 57 3x8.6x0.8 Y
Inc.
Reque
Quasonix NanoTX Transmitter 2200.5-2394.5 S 50 1-10 W 3.3x8.6x0.8 Y
st
2200-2290
IQ Wireless GmbH SLINK-PHY Transceiver S 64-4,000 30 dBm 275 6.5x6.5x13.7 Y
2025-2110
27-33
ISISPACE TXS Transceiver 2200-2290 S 4.3 132 9.8x9.3x1.4 Y
dBm
S-band Transponder 2200–2290 27-33
Syrlinks Transponder S 8-2,000 -- -- Y
EWC31 2025–2110 dBm
2200-2290
EnduroSat S-band Transmitter Transmitter S 20,000 0.5-2 W 250 -- Y
2400-2450
Tx: 2200-2300
General Dynamics S-Band TDRSS/DSN Transponder S 12,000 0.03 W 4900 19x23x15 Y
Rx: 2025-2220
248
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
249
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
German Aerospace
OSIRIS Flying Laptop 200 600 1.3 26 7.2017 Datasheet
Center (DLR)
German Aerospace
OSIRIS BiROS 1,000 1,000 5.0 50 6.2016 Datasheet
Center (DLR)
250
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
References
(1) Pelton, J.N.: "The Basics of Satellite Communications." s.l.: Professional Education
International, Inc., 2006.
(2) National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Integrated Solar Array and Reflectarray
Antenna (ISARA) for High Bandwidth CubeSats. NASA. [Online] 2016.
(3) JPL. Mars Cube One (MarCO). Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of
Technology | CubeSat. [Online] https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/marco.php.
(4) Xie, Shuanglong, et al. "Wireless Sensor Network for Satellite Applications: A Survey and
Case Study." 2014, Unmanned Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 261-277.
(5) Schoemaker, R. and Bouwmeester, J.: "Evaluation of Bluetooth Low Energy Wireless
Internal Data Communication for Nanosatellites." 2014. Small Satellites Systems and
Services Symposium. pp. 1-15.
(6) Farrell, P. G. and Clark, A. P.: "Modulation and coding." 1984, International Journal of
Satellite Communications.
(7) Datta, Anusuya. New FCC rules make small satellite licensing easier, faster, and cheaper.
Geospatial World | Advancing Knowledge for Sustainability. [Online] August 22, 2020.
https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/new-fcc-rules-make-small-satellite-licensing-
easier-faster-and-cheaper/.
(8) Buxton, Jerry and Glasbrenner, Drew. AMATEUR RADIO AND EXPERIMENTAL
LICENSING FOR CUBESATS.
(9) CalPoly. CubeSat Licensing Support. CubeSat. [Online]
https://www.cubesat.org/cubesatlicensingsupport.
(10) National Institute of Standards and Technology: " Security Requirements for
Cryptographic Modules, Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS). ISO/IEC
19790:2012; ISO/IEC 24759:2014
(11) 47 CFR Part 97 - AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-97
(12) Wertz, James R., Everett, David F. and Puschell, Jeffery J.: "Space Mission Engineering:
The New SMAD." Hawthorne, CA : Microcosm Press, 2015.
(13) Johnson, S.K., Reinhart, R.C. and Kacpura, T.J.: "CoNNeCT's approach for the
development of three Software Defined Radios for space application." Big Sky, MT : s.n.,
2012. 2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference. pp. 1-13.
(14) Wong, Yen, et al. "NASA Near Earth Network (NEN) DVB-S2 Demonstration Testing for
Enhancing Data Rates for CubeSats." Logan : 31th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on
Small Satellites, 2019.
(15) JPL. "Iris V2 CubeSat Deep-Space Transponder (IRIS)." Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology | CubeSat. [Online]
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/iris.php
(16) NASA. Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration NASA’s First Space Laser
Communication System Demonstration. NASAfacts. [Online]
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/llcdfactsheet.final_.web_.pdf.
251
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(17) Kogan, A. and Guelman, Mauricio Moshe. Acquisition and pointing control for inter-
satellite laser communications. 2004, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic
Systems
(18) Panahi, Allen and Kazemi, Alex A. Optical Laser Cross-Link in Space-Based Systems
used for Satellite Communications. [book auth.] Alex A. Kazemi. Photonics in the
Transportation Industry: Volume III: Auto to Aerospace. s.l. : SPIE Press, 2010.
(19) American National Standard for Safe Use of Lasers Outdoors”: ANSI Z136.6 (2015) - Safe
Use Of Lasers Outdoors (Electronic Version)
(20) National Institute of Information and Communications Technology. World's First
Demonstration of Space Quantum Communication Using a Microsatellite. NICT. [Online]
2017.
(21) Tesat. CubelC: "SmalleSt laSer CommuniCation tranSmitter" WorldWide datasheet.
Products. [Online] 2020. https://www.tesat.de/images/tesat/products/CubeLCT_Data-
Sheet.pdf.
(22) Exolaunch. "DLR mission PIXL-1 is integrated by Exolaunch for SpaceX’s Falcon 9
upcoming launch from Cape Canaveral." Exolaunch. [Online]
https://exolaunch.com/news-block-23.html.
(23) Serra, P., et al.: "Deep Space Laser Communication Transmitter and High Precision
Timing System for Small Satellites." Logan, UT : s.n., 2016. 30th Annual AIAA/USU
Conference on Small Satellites.
(24) NASA. CubeSat Laser Infrared CrosslinK. [Online] 07 31, 2020.
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/small_spacecraft/cubesat_laser_infrared_c
rosslink/
(25) Mynaric. Mynaric on track to become industry-first supplier of satellite constellation-grade
laser communication. [Online] 04 03, 2020. https://mynaric.com/news/mynaric-on-track-
to-become-industry-first-supplier-of-satellite-constellation-grade-laser-communication/) .
(26) SpaceMicro. Laser Communication Terminals. [Online] 2020.
https://www.spacemicro.com/products/lasercom.html.
(27) Wayne, D., et al.: "Design and Testing of a CubeSat-Sized Retroreflector Payload ." 2015.
29th Annual AIAA/USU Conference of Small Satellites.
(28) Salas, A.G., Stupl, J. and Mason, J.: "Modulating retro-reflectors: technology, link budgets
and applications." 2012. 63rd International Astronautical Congress.
(29) Ilčev, Stojče Dimov. Ground Communication Segment. Global Aeronautical Distress and
Safety Systems (GADSS). s.l.: Cham Springer, pp. 227-313.
252
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Contents
Glossary .......................................................................................................................... ii
10.0 Integration, Launch, and Deployment ................................................................ 253
10.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 253
10.2 State-of-the-Art – Launch Integration Role ..................................................... 253
10.2.1 Launch Brokers and Services Providers .................................................. 254
10.3 Launch Paradigms ......................................................................................... 255
10.3.1 Dedicated Launches ................................................................................ 255
10.3.2 Traditional Rideshare Launches .............................................................. 255
10.3.3 Dedicated Rideshare Launches ............................................................... 256
10.4 Deployment Methods ..................................................................................... 256
10.4.1 CubeSat Dispensers ................................................................................ 256
10.4.2 SmallSat Separation Systems ................................................................. 257
10.4.3 Integration Hardware ............................................................................... 258
10.4.4 Orbital Maneuvering / Transfer Vehicles.................................................. 260
10.5 International Space Station Options ............................................................... 261
10.5.1 Deployment from ISS .............................................................................. 261
10.5.2 Deployment Above ISS............................................................................ 262
10.6 On the Horizon ............................................................................................... 263
10.6.1 Integration................................................................................................ 263
10.6.2 Launch ..................................................................................................... 263
10.6.3 Deployment ............................................................................................. 263
10.7 Summary ........................................................................................................ 263
References .................................................................................................................. 264
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Glossary
ii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
253
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
launch service integration contractor (3). When launching on either a multi-mission or rideshare
launch, the launch integration becomes even more complex.
When flying as a secondary spacecraft on a rideshare launch, it is generally the primary
spacecraft customer who decides whether secondary spacecraft will share a ride with the primary
spacecraft and, if so, how and when the secondary spacecraft are dispensed. This is not always
the case, however, as there are occasions where the launch vehicle contractor or a third-party
integration company can determine rideshare possibilities. More flexibility may be available to
secondary spacecraft that are funded through such a program, although the mission schedule is
normally still determined by the primary spacecraft.
There are several options for identifying and booking a ride for a SmallSat. For rideshare and
multi-mission launches, the spacecraft customer may choose to use a launch broker or
aggregator to facilitate the manifesting, or work directly with the launch service provider. A launch
broker matches a spacecraft with a launch opportunity whereas an aggregator provides additional
services related to manifesting. In the event of a dedicated launch, the spacecraft customer
generally does not use a launch broker or aggregator. In both cases, however, key aspects for
integration must be managed and a launch integrator can assist or coordinate those activities for
the spacecraft customer.
Whether a spacecraft customer chooses to use a launch integrator or not, certification of flight is
a key spacecraft responsibility. Requirements for radio frequency licensing, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) remote sensing licensing, and laser usage approval are all
the responsibility of the spacecraft operator to obtain (4) (5). The launch integrator or the launch
service provider will require proof of licensure before launching the satellite. They will also require
additional analyses and supporting data prior to launch. This may include safety documentation,
orbital debris information, materials and venting data, and spacecraft specific models (6).
For rideshare and multi-mission launches, many satellites are subject to a “do no harm”
requirement to protect the primary satellite or other satellites on a multi-mission launch. A list of
do no harm requirements are imposed on the rideshare satellite by the launch provider, launch
integrator, or primary mission owner. These requirements vary by launch provider and launch
integrator, but usually include restrictions on transmitters, post separation mechanical
deployments, and hazardous materials. A comprehensive list of typical do no harm requirements
is provided in TOR-2016-02946 Rev A (7).
10.2.1 Launch Brokers and Services Providers
A launch broker for small satellites is an individual or organization which matches a spacecraft
with a launch opportunity, usually as a rideshare satellite or a multi-mission manifest spacecraft.
Typically, a launch broker does not provide any additional launch integration services beyond
coordinating the relationship between the spacecraft manufacturer or customer and the launch
service provider. Their purpose is to fill excess capacity on a launch and can bolster negotiations
between the launch provider and payload for scheduling, integration, safety testing, and cost (39).
Further services can include working with the satellite customer and the launch vehicle provider
to ensure that the customer’s spacecraft is compatible with the launch vehicle’s mission, and by
performing analyses and physical integration. This service can also provide the integration
hardware, such as CubeSat dispenser, separation system, or other hardware as described below,
or this hardware may be provided by either the spacecraft customer or the launch services
provider. It should be noted that there is no universally accepted definition of “launch broker” and
the term can be used interchangeably with “launch aggregator” and “launch integrator.”
254
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
255
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
craft that want to fly as a secondary spacecraft. On the other hand, there are downsides of hitching
a ride. The launch date and trajectory are determined by the primary spacecraft, and the smaller
craft must take what is available. In some cases, they need to be delivered to the launch provider
and be integrated on the adapter weeks before the actual launch date. Generally, the secondary
spacecraft are given permission to be deployed once the primary spacecraft successfully
separates from the launch vehicle, but there are instances where the rideshare spacecraft
separate prior to the primary satellite (14).
10.3.3 Dedicated Rideshare Launches
Dedicated rideshare launches, also known as multi-mission launches, are those that use launch
vehicles to exclusively launch multiple SmallSats. These launches have shown the ability to hold
and deploy dozens of satellites to multiple altitudes, though these orbits tend not to be vastly
different. While this type of mission would seem to offer more opportunities to launch small
satellites, dedicated rideshare missions are not as common as traditional rideshare missions. This
is likely due to difficulties in the logistics of managing so many entities with unique visions and
needs, which requires a dedicated systems integrator (15).
This type of launch is particularly important to megaconstellations, however. Megaconstellations
place hundreds of satellites in orbit, and using small launchers will not allow for these
constellations to be operational within a reasonable amount of time. Dedicated rideshares provide
the opportunity to place large numbers of satellites into orbit on a single launch. In fact, dedicated
rideshares for megaconstellations accounted for over 450 SmallSats launched in Q1 2021 (14),
(17) (18).
10.4 Deployment Methods
The method by which SmallSats are deployed into orbit is a critical part of the launch process.
The choice of deployment method depends on the form factor of the satellite. This section will
discuss the deployment of CubeSats, which generally use CubeSat dispensers, and the
deployment of freeflying SmallSats.
10.4.1 CubeSat Dispensers
The CubeSat form factor is a very common standard for spacecraft up to approximately 24 kg
(12U CubeSat) but can also be extended to approximately 54 kg in a 27U configuration. The
CubeSat form lends itself to container-based integration systems, or dispensers, which serve as
an interface between the CubeSat and the launch vehicle. It’s a rectangular box with a hinged
door and spring mechanism. Once the door is commanded to open, the spring deploys the
CubeSat.
Many companies currently manufacture
dispensers for the CubeSat form factor
which follow one of two constraint systems,
the rail-type dispenser, and the tab-type
dispenser. Due to the large number of
dispenser manufacturers, the different
companies are not listed here. Instead, a
brief overview of the two types of dispensers
is provided.
A rail-type dispenser (figure 10.1) supports
CubeSats that have rails which extend the
length of the CubeSat on four parallel edges. Figure 10.1: The Rail-type CubeSat. Credit:
The rails on the CubeSat prevent it from CalPoly’s CubeSat Program.
256
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
rotating while inside the dispenser. After the dispenser door has been commanded to open, the
rails slide along guides inside the dispenser and the CubeSat is deployed. This type of dispenser
is the most widely manufactured configuration, with more than fifteen manufacturers worldwide.
A tab-type dispenser (figure 10.2) supports
CubeSats with tabs which run the length of the
CubeSat on two parallel edges. Typically, the
dispenser grips the tabs to hold the CubeSat in
place, only releasing it after the door has been
commanded to open. This type of dispenser is
not widely manufactured as Planetary Systems
Corporation holds the patent for the design
(19). There are some tab based dispensers
that do not grip the tabs. Rather, they provide
a slot to accommodate the tab, which slides
freely within the slot.
The choice of dispenser is not always a
decision made by the CubeSat. In many cases,
the launch vehicle provider or launch Figure 10.2: The Tab-type CubeSat. Credit:
aggregator/integrator has already determined Planetary Systems Corporation.
which dispensers will be installed on the launch vehicle. As each dispenser manufacturer has
slightly different volumes and requirements, it is beneficial for the CubeSat to design for as wide
a range of dispensers as possible to maximize launch opportunities. Additionally, some dispenser
manufacturers offer accommodations which may violate the Do No Harm requirements set forth
by the launch vehicle or launch integrator, such as inhibits on deployables and transmitters.
Therefore, it is beneficial for the CubeSat to evaluate Do No Harm recommendations from a
variety of organizations, as these requirements can vary from flight to flight on the same LV based
on the risk posture of the primary payload and/or the mission “owner” (7).
10.4.2 SmallSat Separation Systems
Small satellites which do not meet the form factor of a CubeSat, or will not be using a CubeSat
dispenser for integration to the launch vehicle, require a different separation mechanism.
Separation systems for SmallSats generally follow either a circular pattern or a multi-point (3 or 4
point) pattern. Depending on the launch vehicle, separation systems may already be in place and
available to secondary spacecraft.
Circular separation systems use two rings, held together by a clamping mechanism. One ring is
attached to the launch vehicle and the
other ring is attached to the
spacecraft. Once the clamping
mechanism is released, the two rings
separate and are pushed apart by
springs. Each ring then remains with
the spacecraft or the launch vehicle.
There are two primary types of
clamping configurations, the
motorized light bands (MLB) and
Marman clamps.
Figure 10.3: MkII Motorized Lightband. Credit:
The MLB (figure 10.3) is a motorized
Planetary Systems Corporation.
separation system that ranges from 8
inches to 38 inches in diameter.
257
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Smaller MLB systems are used to deploy spacecraft less than 180 kg, while larger variations may
be used to separate larger spacecraft or other integration hardware such as orbital maneuvering
systems, which are discussed below. The MLB’s separation system eliminates the need for
pyrotechnic separation, and thus deployment results in lower shock with no post-separation
debris.
Marman band separation systems use energy stored in a clamp band, often along with springs,
to achieve separation. The Marman band is tensioned to hold the spacecraft in place. Some
Marman bands use pyrotechnic devices to cut the clamping bolt, however many companies offer
a low shock release mechanism which is potentially better for the spacecraft. Sierra Nevada
produces a Marman band separation system known as Qwksep, which uses a series of
separation springs to help deploy the spacecraft after clamp band release. RUAG Space provides
several circular separation systems which use their Clamp Band Opening Device (CBOD) release
mechanism to reduce shock impact on the spacecraft (20).
Several companies are now providing
multi-point separation systems instead
of the circular band. Using a multi-point
separation system may result in mass
savings over a circular separation
system. However, some systems
require additional simultaneous
signals from the launch vehicle
provider to ensure proper release. The
RUAG PSM 3/8B is a low-shock
separation nut developed to fit the
OneWeb satellites (21). It requires
additional firing commands from the
launch vehicle or a dedicated
sequencing system. ISISPACE has
also developed the M3S Micro Satellite
Separation System, see figure 10.4,
which is designed for satellites up to Figure 10.4: ISISPACE M3S Micro Satellite System.
100 kg but can be configured for higher Credit: ISISPACE.
masses (22).
10.4.3 Integration Hardware
A main driver for CubeSat utility is their adhesion to a standard that can be integrated into several
different launch configurations. The physical hardware that attaches both a containerized and
non-containerized small spacecraft and keeps it insulated from a rocket body include deployers,
adapters, dispensers, and launchers. The purpose of this hardware is to eject the spacecraft
safely into orbit, and most services offer different features, interfaces, connections, and designs
for small spacecraft specifications. The exact configuration and standards vary by launch vehicle,
and the determination of an appropriate and reliable launch option is part of the qualification
launch process (39). CubeSat constellations make up an average of 50% of CubeSat launches
since 2014, and the integration hardware capable of launching multiple SmallSats simultaneously
and consecutively is now a standard. This section will highlight some of the existing examples of
integration flight support hardware that is applicable to both SmallSats and CubeSats, and the
reader is highly encouraged to identify other integration services.
258
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 10.7: The European Space Agency Small Spacecraft Mission Service Dispenser for the
Vega Launch Vehicle (24). Credit: European Space Agency.
259
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
260
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Spaceflight Sherpa
In addition to Moog and Northrop Grumman,
Spaceflight will also offer a series of orbital
transfer vehicles beginning no later than the end
of 2021 (27). Spaceflight’s platform, the Sherpa,
is a SmallSat deployer and space tug that can
host payloads. Two of the three next generation
Sherpa orbital transfer vehicles are equipped
with propulsion, and one is a free flyer. There is
an expected launch of the Sherpa-FX2 and
Sherpa-LTE1 on a SpaceX transporter-2
mission in mid-end 2021 (43). Figure 10.10: Nanoracks CubeSat Deployer.
Credit: Nanoracks.
ION CubeSat Carrier
D-Orbit is an Italian space company which has developed a free-flying propulsive dispenser, the
ION CubeSat Carrier. This carrier can host CubeSats from 3U to 12U in size and up to a total
volume of 48U. Once the dispenser has separated from the launch vehicle, it can ferry satellites
around in low-Earth orbit or carry them up to medium earth orbit and release them into distinct
orbital slots (28). The first launch of the ION CubeSat Carrier occurred September 3, 2020, and
twelve 3U Dove CubeSats by Planet Labs were deployed from the Carrier for the first time on
October 28, 2020 (41). The second mission occurred in May 2021 where the ION CubeSat Carrier
deployed twenty spacecraft and performed maneuvers for the first time, with a third mission
expected summer 2021 (42).
Vigoride
Momentus Space is developing an in-space orbit transfer service for SmallSats, named Vigoride.
The maximum payload mass on Vigoride is 700 kg, and it can be launched from an ESPA or
ESPA Grande ring, from ISS airlocks, or a launch vehicle. It uses water plasma engines to change
the orbit prior to releasing payloads at their final orbit (29). The first flight for Vigoride is planned
for December 2021.
The orbital maneuvering and transfer vehicles listed here are not an exhaustive list of all those
being developed, but they provide an overview of current state-of-the-art technologies and their
development status. There was no intention of mentioning certain companies and omitting others
based on their technologies.
10.5 International Space Station Options
The International Space Station (ISS) provides several methods for deploying CubeSats and
SmallSats. The sections below discuss SmallSat deployment from the ISS as well as deployment
above the ISS. The ISS also accommodates hosted payloads for experiments, but those
accommodations are outside the scope of this chapter as they are for individual payloads
themselves and are not satellites.
10.5.1 Deployment from ISS
The ISS also provides several options for deploying satellites. Generally, the satellites are
launched below the ISS to avoid potential contact with the ISS. Below are several options
available for launching from the ISS.
Nanoracks ISS CubeSat Deployer (NRCSD)
Nanoracks CubeSat Deployer (NRCSD) (figure 10.10) is a self-contained CubeSat dispenser
system that mechanically and electrically isolates CubeSats from the ISS, cargo resupply
261
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
vehicles, and ISS crew. The NRCSD is a rectangular tube that consists of anodized aluminum
plates, base plate assembly, access panels, and deployer doors. The inside walls of the NRCSD
are a smooth bore design to minimize and/or preclude hang-up or jamming of CubeSat
appendages during deployment, should they become released prematurely.
For deployment, the platform is moved outside via the Kibo Module’s Airlock and slide table, which
allows the Japanese Experimental Module Remote Manipulator System (JEMRMS) to move the
dispensers to the correct orientation and provides command and control to the dispensers. Each
NRCSD can hold six CubeSat units as large as a 6U (1 x 6U). The NRCSD DoubleWide can
accommodate CubeSats up to 12U (2 x 6U) with Nanoracks being able to launch up to 48U per
cycle. The CubeSats deploy at a 51.6° inclination, 400 – 415 km orbit 1 to 3 months after berthing
at the station. Nanoracks completed its 20th mission as of June 30, 2020 (28).
Nanoracks ISS MicroSatellite Deployment – Kaber Deployer Program
Nanoracks Kaber Microsat Deployer is a reusable system that provides command and control for
satellite deployments into orbit from the Japanese Experimental Module Airlock Slide Table of the
ISS. The Kaber supports satellites with a form factor of up to 24U and mass of 82 kg and uses a
Nanoracks separation system with circular interface similar to the separation systems discussed
above. Satellites are launched to the ISS on a pressurized launch vehicle, mounted to the Kaber
deployer, and deployed outside the ISS (31).
JEM Small Satellite Orbital Deployer (J-SSOD)
The Japanese Experimental Module (JEM) Small Satellite Orbital Deployer (J-SSOD) is a
Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) developed CubeSat deployer used to launch
CubeSats from the ISS. The J-SSOD can launch CubeSats up to the 6U form factor (2x3
configuration). The satellites, with their dispensers, are installed on the Multi-Purpose Experiment
Platform prior to Kibo’s robotic arm Japanese Experiment Module Remote Manipulator System
(JEMRMS) transferring the Multi-Purpose Experiment Platform (MPEP) to the release location.
At that point, the CubeSats are deployed (32).
Bishop Nanoracks Airlock Module
A new airlock module, Bishop, was developed for the ISS by Nanoracks, Thales Alenia Space,
and Boeing, and is the first commercialized, private module for the space station (37). Bishop
provides more than five times the volume of the current Japanese Experimental Module (JEM)
airlock, allowing for larger satellites and payload experiments. Bishop can host satellites and
payloads, as well as deploy them, based on the needs of the mission. It has been attached to the
exterior of the ISS since December 21, 2020 and is expected to be operational in 2021 (40).
10.5.2 Deployment Above ISS
Regular access to the ISS is very attractive for many satellite providers. However, the lower
altitude of the ISS means the in-orbit lifetime for the satellite is generally shorter. This section
discusses the options that have been developed to deploy CubeSats above the ISS using a cargo
resupply module.
Nanoracks External CubeSat Deployer (ENRCSD)
The ENRCSD is a system to deploy CubeSats into orbit above the ISS by using the Northrop
Grumman Cygnus ISS Cargo Resupply vehicle. The first mission to use the ENRCSD was on the
OA-6 mission in March 2016. Up to 36U of CubeSats in the 1U to 6U linear form factor may be
deployed above the ISS with each Cygnus mission. CubeSats are installed in the Nanoracks
deployer and mounted externally to the Cygnus vehicle before launch. They remain external to
the ISS for the duration of time that Cygnus is attached to the station. The deployment altitude is
262
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
dependent upon the propellant margins remaining in the Cygnus but is and guaranteed to be
between 25-500 km above the ISS altitude (33).
SEOPS SlingShot
SEOPS SlingShot is a system to deploy CubeSats into orbit above the ISS using the Northrop
Grumman Cygnus ISS Cargo Resupply vehicle. The first mission to use the SlingShot was in
2019. SlingShot can fly up to 72U of CubeSats per Cygnus mission; the largest CubeSat form
factor it can fly is 12U. This deployment method differs from the ENRCSD in that the satellites
and their dispensers are flown to the ISS as pressurized cargo on a resupply mission. Astronauts
remove the satellites and install the dispensers onto the Cygnus Passive Common Berthing
Mechanism (PCBM) just prior to Cygnus' departure from the station. Once Cygnus departs the
ISS, it raises to an altitude of approximately 500 km and deploys the CubeSats (34). As these
CubeSats are hosted in a different location and manner than the ENRCSD CubeSats, it is possible
for Cygnus to carry CubeSats in both locations on a single mission.
10.6 On the Horizon
10.6.1 Integration
From a launch broker perspective, there are some companies hoping to develop an online
booking system for launches, similar to web-based airline ticket platforms. One of these
companies is Precious Payload (35). The premise is that you click on your preferred destination
and timeline and the website provides you with launch options. As the supply of launches
increases, there may be a larger increase in demand for this type of service.
10.6.2 Launch
As discussed in the launch section above, there are always several new launch vehicles in
development. The number continues to grow every year and how many become realized remains
to be seen.
10.6.3 Deployment
There are several emerging capabilities in the area of SmallSat deployment. They consist of
CubeSat dispensers, SmallSat separation systems, and orbital maneuvering and transfer
vehicles. The technologies listed below are not a comprehensive list, but simply highlight two of
the more unique forthcoming capabilities.
10.7 Summary
A wide variety of integration and deployment systems exist to provide access to space for small
spacecraft. While leveraging excess LV performance will continue to be profitable into the future,
dedicated launch vehicles and new integration systems for small spacecraft are becoming
popular. Dedicated launch vehicles take advantage of rapid integration and mission design
flexibility, enabling small spacecraft to dictate mission parameters. New integration systems will
greatly increase the mission envelope of small spacecraft riding as secondary spacecraft.
Advanced systems may be used to host secondary spacecraft in-orbit, to increase mission
lifetime, expand mission capabilities, and enable orbit maneuvering. In the future, these
technologies may yield exciting advances in space capabilities.
The previous few years have shown an increase in the number of available launch vehicles
dedicated to small spacecraft. Additionally, the CubeSat Design Specification (CDS) has been
revised to include the nanosatellite classification to 12U (38), which has led to the design of
dispensers that can be accommodated on a variety of launch vehicles. Regardless of the
evolution of the CDS, the dispenser and bus market is symbiotic and seems to be expanding.
263
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
264
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(16) Atkinson, Ian.: "Spacex Successfully Launches Sixth Starlink Launch Despite Engine
Issue." NASA Spaceflight. [Online] March 18, 2020.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/03/spacex-sixth-starlink-fifth-booster-reflight/.
(17) Wattles, Jackie: "The race for space-based broadband: OneWeb launches 34 more
internet satellites." CNN Business. [Online] February 6, 2020.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/06/tech/oneweb-satellite-internet-launch-scn/index.html.
(18) Henry, Caleb: "Soyuz Launches 34 Oneweb Satellites." SpaceNews. [Online] March 21,
2020. https://spacenews.com/soyuz-launches-34-oneweb-satellites/.
(19) Holemans, Walter and Hevner, Ryan: "Canisterized Satellite Dispenser." 9,415,883 B2
United States of America, 2016.
(20) RUAG. Payload Adapter Systems for EELV. [Online]
https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/2016-
11/payload_adapter_system_for_EELV.pdf.
(21) RUAG. Separation Nut PSM 3/8B. [Online]
https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/media_document/2019-
03/Separation%20Nut%20PSM%2038B.pdf.
(22) ISIS. M3S Micro Satellite Separation System. [Online] https://www.isispace.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/M3S_Flyer.pdf.
(23) Moog. ESPA Overview. [Online] https://www.csaengineering.com/products-
services/espa.html.
(24) European Space Agency. SSMS modular parts. [Online]
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2019/06/SSMS_modular_parts#.XuOX3YQ
Ce7o.link.
(25) Moog. The Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle. [Online]
https://www.moog.com/markets/space/omv.html.
(26) Messier, Doug. Orbital ATK Awarded USAF Contract for Long-Duration Propulsion ESPA
Spacecraft. Parabolic Arc. [Online] December 12, 2017.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/12/12/orbital-atk-awarded/.
(27) Henry, Caleb: "Spaceflight Planning Three Sherpa Launches in 2021." Spacenews.com.
[Online] Aug. 20, 2020. https://spacenews.com/spaceflight-planning-three-sherpa-
launches-in-2021/.
(28) D-Orbit. D-Orbit About Us. [Online] https://www.dorbit.space/about-us.
(29) Momentus. Vigoride User's Guide V1.0. [Online] February 23, 2020.
https://momentus.space/site/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Momentus-Vigoride-Users-
Guide.pdf.
(30) Nanoracks. ISS CubeSat Deployment. [Online] https://nanoracks.com/products/iss-
cubesat-deployment/.
(31) Nanoracks. Kaber Nanoracks ISS Microsatellite Deployment System. [Online]
https://nanoracks.com/wp-content/uploads/NRMSD-overview.pdf.
(32) JAXA. JEM Small Satellite Orbital Deployer (J-SSOD). [Online]
https://iss.jaxa.jp/en/kiboexp/jssod/.
(33) Nanoracks. External Cygnus Deployment. [Online]
https://nanoracks.com/products/external-cygnus-deployment/.
265
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
266
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Contents
Chapter Glossary ............................................................................................................ ii
11.0 Ground Data Systems & Mission Operations .................................................... 267
11.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 267
11.2 Ground Systems Architecture ........................................................................ 268
11.3 Frequency Considerations ............................................................................. 268
11.3.1 Frequency Licensing ............................................................................... 270
11.4 Cybersecurity ................................................................................................. 270
11.4.1 Cybersecurity Integration ......................................................................... 271
11.5 Ground Stations and Networks ................................................................... 273
11.5.1 Types of Ground Services ....................................................................... 273
11.5.2 Ground Station Hardware, Software and Operation ................................ 274
11.5.3 RF Link Budget ........................................................................................ 276
11.5.4 Ground Networks ..................................................................................... 277
11.5.5 Space Relay Networks ............................................................................ 278
11.5.6 Buying Ground Services vs. Building a Ground System .......................... 279
11.6 Mission and Science Operations Centers ...................................................... 280
11.6.1 Software for Mission Operations .............................................................. 282
11.7 End-to-End Communications and Compatibility Testing ................................ 284
11.8 Spacecraft Commissioning............................................................................. 285
11.9 State-of-the-Art – Ground Data Systems ....................................................... 286
11.9.1 Direct-to-Earth Ground Service Providers ............................................... 286
11.9.2 Space Relay Network Service Providers ................................................. 299
11.9.3 End-to-End Hardware for Ground Systems ............................................. 302
11.9.4 Component Hardware for Ground Systems ............................................. 307
11.9.5 Ground Software ..................................................................................... 312
11.9.6 Mission Operations & Scheduling Software ............................................. 316
11.10 On the Horizon ............................................................................................ 320
11.10.1 Optical Communications ......................................................................... 320
11.10.2 Phased Array Ground Stations ............................................................... 326
11.11 Summary .................................................................................................... 330
References .................................................................................................................. 331
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Glossary
The ground segment design can depend on several factors which may include, but are not limited,
to the following:
• Data volume to satisfy mission requirements
• Location of the ground assets relative to mission orbit parameters
• Budget limitations
267
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
268
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 11.2: Example of a ground system architecture for a small satellite using NASA's Near
Earth Network and Space Network. Credit: NASA.
Typical bands considered for small satellites are Ultra Table 11-1: Frequency Bands
High Frequency (UHF), S, X, and Ka. UHF was the band
Band Frequency
of choice for early small satellites, but in recent years,
there has been more of a shift to S and X. Ka remains HF 3 to 30 MHz
on the horizon as there are current hardware limitations
VHF 30 to 300 MHz
for small spacecraft, however, this is NASA’s desired
band for future small satellite missions. This shift has UHF 300 to 1000 MHz
been driven by higher data demands and frequency
control. The higher frequencies permit more data to be L 1 to 2 GHz
transmitted over a given period, but require the S 2 to 4 GHz
spacecraft and ground antennas to be more focused.
UHF was appealing to early users, particularly C 4 to 8 GHz
universities, due to the lower cost of hardware for both X 8 to 12 GHz
the spacecraft and ground station, good link margins,
and more omni-directional pattern capability with the Ku 12 to 18 GHz
spacecraft, but yields lower data rates and has a higher Ka 27 to 40 GHz
probability for interference as it is commonly used by
local municipalities. V 40 to 75 GHz
W 75 to 110 GHz
mm 110 to 300 GHz
269
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
270
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
satellites. MITRE has published a paper “Cyber Best Practices for Small Satellite” that briefly
addresses cyber threats to space systems and includes a discussion on applying lessons learned
from other industries to space systems.
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS)
CCSDS provides a variety of guidance documents for implementing security measures in various
aspects of the mission. For an introduction to the CCSDS approach and available guidance, see
CCSDS 350.7-G-2 “Security Guide for Mission Planners” that provides a perspective on
approaching security in space systems (58). The CCSDS 350.0-G-3 “The Application of Security
to CCSDS Protocols” informative guidance document provides an introduction and discussion on
various topics, including protecting the command path (59).
11.5 Ground Stations and Networks
11.5.1 Types of Ground Services
Ground services may be either Direct-to-Earth (DTE)
or space relay as illustrated in figure 11.3. DTE
ground stations are located on the Earth’s surface.
They provide direct point-to-point access with
antennas at ground stations which are strategically
located and equipped with telemetry, command, and
tracking services. DTE antennas can range from
simple UHF Yagi antennas to more complex high
gain parabolic dish antennas used to support S, X,
and Ka bands. DTE ground stations could also
incorporate phased array antenna systems or
equipment for optical communications. The DTE
services are especially effective for missions
needing frequent, short-duration contacts with high
data throughput. They are also capable of handling
longer latency durations due to orbital dynamics and
station visibility.
Space relay services involve an intermediate
satellite that communicates with a ground station on
the Earth’s surface. Relay communication satellites Figure 11.3: Illustration of Direct-to-Earth
for low-Earth orbit spacecraft can be in and Relay Concepts. Credit: NASA.
Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit (GEO), about
36,000 km from Earth, or in low-Earth orbit. Relays are essential for providing communication and
tracking when direct-to-ground communications are not feasible due to physical asset visibility
constraints. It is common for a low-Earth orbit spacecraft to only be in a DTE ground station’s line
of sight for a portion of the orbit. The addition of space-based relay assets can provide missions
with full-time coverage and continuous access to communication and tracking services. They are
most useful for missions that need continuous coverage, low latencies, and coverage of launch,
critical events, or emergencies.
Communication with DTE ground stations can achieve much higher data rates than what is
possible for space-based relays. When considering a GEO relay satellite, it can be ten times the
distance from the low-Earth orbit spacecraft than the DTE ground station. With communication
propagation losses being a function of the reciprocal of the distance squared, the same
communications system can achieve orders of magnitude higher data rates with the DTE ground
station. Achieving comparative data rates for a relay system would require a significant increase
273
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
in power. The current low-Earth orbit relays have hardware limitations that permit data rates of
9.6 kbps or less, which is low relative to SmallSats being able to achieve 3 Mbps or more with
DTE ground stations.
11.5.2 Ground Station Hardware, Software and Operation
A DTE ground station is comprised of a system of hardware and software working together to
convert the RF signal from a satellite signal into digital data. The first key element of the system
is the antenna. It is chosen based on the frequency and gain required to talk with a satellite. The
two most common types of directional antenna are the Yagi-Uda (Yagi for short) and the parabolic
reflector antenna. Dish antennas are capable of higher gain than the Yagi antennas and therefore
can have a farther reach in space and achieve higher data rates.
The Yagi antennas consist of a single feed or driven element that is accompanied by parasitic
elements that help reflect or transmit energy in a particular direction. The length of the feed
antenna is sized relative to its resonance in the presence of parasitic elements, which are
approximately a half-wavelength long at the frequency of operation. The Yagi antenna shown in
figure 11.4 (left) consists of multiple parallel metal rod dipoles and is a common solution for
wavelengths less than 1.5 GHz. The typical Yagi gain ranges from 6 – 20 dBi.
Figure 11.4: (left) The California State University Northridge Yagi ground station at 437
MHz and (right) The Aerospace Corporation parabolic dish ground station in Florida at 915
MHz. Credit: California State University of California, Northridge.
The dish antenna uses a parabolic reflector to collect signals from the spacecraft and focus them
onto a feed antenna. The feed antenna is typically a horn antenna with a circular aperture. The
size of a dish is at least several wavelengths in diameter at the frequency of operation and can
be on the order of several 100 wavelengths for higher gains. The distance between the feed
antenna and parabolic reflector can also be several wavelengths. For example, a Ka-band 34 m
274
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
deep space antenna with a feed distance of 15 m would be approximately 3,000 wavelengths for
the dish diameter and 1,500 wavelengths for the feed distance relative to a 1 cm Ka-band
wavelength. The gain of a dish reflector is directly related to the square of its diameter. The 1.8-
meter diameter dish antenna shown in figure 11.4 (right) is used for frequencies above 915 MHz
and has 19 dBi gain. Dish antennas are available in sizes from 1 meter to 70 meters in diameter.
The antenna collects RF waves and the antenna feed converts the electromagnetic waves into
conducted RF electrical signals. The feed consists of a resonant pickup that is tuned to the
transmit or receive frequency, a low gain low-noise amplifier, a sharp filter, and a second low
noise amplifier with more gain than the first amplifier. These elements condition the signal. The
signal then traverses through a coaxial cable to a nearby location where a radio demodulates the
RF signal into digital data. In the uplink direction, the radio modulates the data bits onto an RF
carrier which is amplified to 10 or more watts. The amplified RF resonates in the antenna feed,
and the antenna amplifies the electromagnetic waves and focuses them towards the satellite.
It is desirable to have significant antenna gain, but as the gain increases, the beamwidth of the
antenna decreases. There is a practical compromise where the beamwidth is so small that
tracking is difficult and when the antenna gets so large that it is difficult to procure or manage. A
typical antenna pattern is shown in figure 11.5. There is a center lobe where most of the
transmitted energy is contained. The remaining energy is stored in the sidelobes on either side of
the main lobe. The diminished side lobes are intentional so that ground noise from other emitters
on Earth are not collected when receiving and so that interference to terrestrial systems is not
created when transmitting. The blue arrows in the figure indicate the full-width-half-max gain point
at about ±6°, which should result in an antenna pointing error of less than 6° and the full-width-
half-max gain of 16 dBi to be used in a link budget. If more gain is needed, then the antenna will
increase in size and the beamwidth will correspondingly decrease.
Figure 11.5: Antenna pattern from a 1.8-meter diameter parabolic dish operating at 915
Mhz with a high gain center lobe and diminished side lobes. Credit: NASA.
275
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Directional antennas point towards the satellite as it moves over the ground station. Pointing
adjustments are necessary in both the vertical (elevation) and horizontal (azimuth) directions.
These movements are accomplished using motors and gears. Tracking software is used to predict
the satellite’s future location. The satellite position and time are processed through additional
software that converts this information into commands for the motor controller. Time is an
important factor and Global Positioning System (GPS) time is used by the computer generating
the satellite position estimate. A dedicated GPS receiver is connected to the computer for that
purpose.
The cost of a DTE ground station is directly correlated with the size of the aperture, which drives
the ground station foundation, pedestal, motors, and gears. The Yagi is less expensive. It sustains
low wind loads and therefore can use a smaller foundation for support. In contrast, the dish
antenna reflector sustains comparatively high wind loading and therefore needs a stronger
concrete foundation and larger motors and gear box elements than the Yagi antenna.
11.5.3 RF Link Budget
Calculating the RF link budget is the first step when designing a telecommunications system. It is
a theoretical calculation of the end-to-end performance of the communications link and it will
determine the system margin. Maintaining a 6 dB link margin is desirable, however a 3 dB link
margin is adequate for a satellite in low-Earth orbit at a slant range of 1,500 km. When considering
deep space communication, a 3 dB link margin is desired, but for distant spacecraft, such as New
Horizons at 7 billion kilometers from Earth, 1 dB or less margin may be all that is practically
possible. The budget calculation adds and subtracts all the power gains and losses that a
communication signal will experience within the system. Factors such as uplink amplifier gain and
noise, transmit antenna gain, slant angles and corresponding loss over distance, satellite
transceiver noise levels and power gains, receive antenna and amplifier gains and noise, cable
losses, adjacent satellite interference levels, and climate related attenuation are considered. The
satellite and ground antenna gains and amplifiers are then sized to provide the necessary link
margin at an acceptable data rate.
Figure 11.6: S-band Telemetry Characteristics for the WG1 Antenna at NASA Wallops Flight
Facility. Credit: NASA.
276
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The test plan for the satellite and ground segments will measure the key radio parameters
identified in the link budget. The ground station antenna pattern is often not verified because it is
designed such that its ideal pattern is not modified by its surroundings, i.e. high up on a mast
above a building or in an open field. Established service providers can provide characteristics for
the ground systems and can assist customers with link margin and coverage analysis. Figure 11.6
provides an example of S-band antenna telemetry characteristics for one of NASA’s NEN stations.
The antenna pattern on the satellite has less flexibility and is often modified by the nearby
spacecraft structure. It is best to measure the actual satellite antenna pattern in an anechoic
chamber using a satellite model.
11.5.4 Ground Networks
The ground station(s), MOC, SOC, and the supporting infrastructure connecting them together,
make up a ground network. As more ground stations are added, a ground network becomes larger
and additional considerations are required to ensure that the MOC can communicate with each
of the ground stations in the network.
Understanding how many ground stations are required to support the mission is the first step in
designing a ground architecture and determining if a ground network is necessary. The number
of ground stations required for a mission depends upon multiple factors, including the number of
satellites, the orbit regimes and inclinations, and the data latency or data volume requirements.
For example, if a satellite has an orbit that regularly crosses over the same spot on the Earth
(such as the poles in a sun synchronous orbit in low-Earth orbit), that mission could be supported
by a single ground station at that frequently revisited spot. However, if a satellite’s orbit does not
frequently revisit the same spot on the Earth (as is the case with many mid-inclination low-Earth
orbits), then multiple ground stations will be required to support that mission. Similarly, if a mission
requires the satellite to downlink collected data as soon as possible (i.e. low data latency
requirements) or if the mission will generate a large volume of data during each orbit (e.g. many
Figure 11.7: Map of NASA's Near Earth Network Service Providers & Locations. Credit:
NASA.
277
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
remote sensing missions), then more ground stations will be required to support the mission. The
same applies for a mission with multiple satellites as well.
Determining the number of ground stations required for the mission will dictate the size of the
ground network. Missions that require only a single ground station with a co-located MOC have a
very simple ground network. Missions that require multiple, geographically-dispersed ground
stations will have a larger ground network with provisions to ensure that the MOC can
communicate with each of those ground stations. Figure 11.7 shows an example of a large ground
network, NASA’s NEN, which consists of 15 geographically-dispersed ground stations that are
operated by NASA and its commercial partners.
While NASA’s NEN is often reserved for NASA-funded missions, there are other ground network
options that exist for non-government-funded satellite operators. One common option, especially
amongst amateur operators, is to take advantage of the vast amateur network around the world.
This is typically done with UHF and VHF bands at low data rates and must be coordinated with
the amateur user community.
Over the last few years, several options for ground networks have also become prevalent in
commercial industry. Each of these commercial ground service providers offers an array of
services, including various frequency bands, serviceable orbits, and ground station locations.
Scheduling and data retrieval for these networks are often done through web interfaces, and
pricing plans are flexible and scalable depending upon an operator’s needs. Many commercial
satellite operators are choosing to buy time on these networks, rather than build their own.
11.5.5 Space Relay Networks
Unlike a traditional ground network that goes direct from a “client” satellite to a ground station on
the ground, space relay networks consist of communication satellites that relay data from the
“client” satellite down to a ground station. One of the most well-known space relay networks is
NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS), shown in figure 11.8. TDRSS relays
data from the International Space Station (ISS) and the Hubble Space Telescope to NASA ground
stations around the world.
Figure 11.8: NASA's Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System. Credit: NASA.
278
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Space relay networks can be beneficial for small satellites in low-Earth orbit because those
SmallSats are only in view of a ground station for a portion of their orbit. However, depending on
the orbit of the relay satellites, a low-Earth orbit SmallSat could be in view of a relay satellite for
most of its orbit. This makes a relay network beneficial for a SmallSat, especially right after
SmallSat deployment when a ground station is still trying to locate the satellite. The space relay
can transmit satellite telemetry, tracking, and control data to the ground, enabling faster satellite
identification. This proves to be even more valuable when the satellite is deployed with several
others for a given rideshare opportunity. This data can also contain satellite health information to
give mission teams either peace of mind while awaiting acquisition by the ground station, or
information for troubleshooting prior to the commissioning phase. Another benefit is the ability to
obtain real-time event notifications without the need for prior scheduling. Scientists are interested
in using this technology to alert the science community when certain phenomenon are observed.
Space relay networks often require special hardware or software that must be added to a satellite
before launch. In general, a satellite operator will purchase a modem compatible with the relay
network and fly it on their satellite to access the network. It is common for the network providers
to license their proprietary chipset to developers who build the modem hardware and serve as a
service broker. Because of this added hardware component, the decision to leverage a space
relay network must be made before the satellite has been launched.
11.5.6 Buying Ground Services vs. Building a Ground System
As SmallSats have
become more prevalent
and prolific over the last
decade, so too have
ground services
companies, to the point
where the discussion of
buying ground station
services versus building
and owning a ground
station becomes a very
relevant consideration in
the ground architecture
design. Key
considerations would
include scheduling
flexibility, operational
manpower, frequency
licensing processes,
and pricing scalability. A
summary of factors
relative to these
considerations is shown
in figure 11.9.
Ultimately, the decision
of whether to buy Figure 11.9: A summary of considerations when deciding to buy
ground services versus service or own a ground station. Credit: NASA.
build and own a ground
station will vary depending on the mission architecture, the program budget, the potential for
student learning opportunities, and many other factors.
279
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Building and owning a ground station means that the ground station is always available for the
mission when the satellite is in view, allowing for maximum scheduling flexibility (it also means
that there may be significant time periods where the ground station is inactive). On the other hand,
most ground services companies require an operator to reserve their time on a station anywhere
from 48 to 72 hours in advance of the pass, and, in the event of a conflict, mission priority-level is
usually determined by the operator that has paid the highest premium.
Most ground stations require some level of effort to keep them operational, especially for routine
maintenance or when an anomaly arises with the ground station itself. If the ground station is built
and owned by the satellite operator, that labor burden falls to the operator. If the operator is buying
time on a ground station, the ground service provider has the staffing burden.
Frequency licensing is a critical step in the ground architecture process. In addition to the satellite
being licensed to transmit to the ground, any ground station must be licensed to transmit up to a
satellite. When an operator buys their own ground station, they must get it licensed by the FCC
(or another regulatory body/bodies if outside of the United States). If an operator buys time from
a ground service provider, the licensing is performed by the service provider, and the process is
usually much faster since it is an addendum to an existing license, rather than a brand new one
(assuming the operator is using the same bands that the station was previously authorized to
use).
Pricing scalability is also a point to consider, especially when using more than one ground station.
No matter the geographic location, each new ground station must be built, licensed, tested, and
maintained, and the cost for that process usually does not drop as more ground stations are built.
In other words, the cost per ground station for one station or 20 stations is usually the same, and
sometimes even higher due to the complexity of navigating multiple nations’ licensing processes.
On the other hand, ground service providers have multiple pricing scales depending on the
mission need. For missions needing single ground station support, operators can pay on a per-
pass basis. For missions requiring multiple ground stations, operators can pay a regular
subscription fee. This variable pricing offers more flexibility for operators as their mission scales.
11.6 Mission and Science Operations Centers
The MOC is where all satellite commanding is generated, ground station control is managed, and
satellite telemetry is archived. It is typically a physical location where everything required to
operate the satellite is located. It is often in a secure room with controlled access to protect the
satellite operating equipment and prevent unauthorized satellite control. Inside the room are
typically several terminals so that multiple subsystem experts can be reviewing telemetry or
running their analysis programs concurrently. An example of a MOC with multiple terminals is
shown in figure 11.10.
The size of the MOC is determined by the complexity of the mission. There are more experts on
complex missions, and their inputs are often required during critical events or to resolve an
anomaly. For a SmallSat mission, the complexity is usually lower and the MOC is a much smaller
room. In addition to the terminals and telemetry analysis software are other resources for
managing the satellite. These may include physical models of the satellite to study when
contemplating anomalous telemetry. In the case of CubeSats, due to their small size, a functioning
spacecraft engineering model may be useful to test commands and reproduce anomalies.
All tasking requests for future satellite operations are managed by the mission operations team.
They will generate command plans, simulate satellite response to verify those plans, and if
confidence in the simulations is not sufficient, they will run the commands on engineering model
hardware prior to approving them for upload. The MOC team will also manage downloads. They
will decide what data should come down next and what ground resources are available when. If
280
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
the MOC does not own its ground stations, a request for contact will be submitted to the ground
station managing company. If the MOC owns its ground stations, then it will task them directly. In
either case, the MOC submits data necessary for commanding the satellite for upload which
includes commands and parameter settings for the payloads, a schedule of events for the flight
computer, and ephemeris and pointing tables for the attitude control system along with its own
timeline of events. For that same contact, the MOC will also submit commands to download
specific telemetry and science data. When the contact is complete, the data will be sent back to
the MOC by the ground station.
At the time of launch, the MOC will be fully populated, as this is a critical event. The satellite when
it first comes online in space will likely present some anomalous telemetry that will have to be
interpreted and acted upon in short order. Prior to a launch, there will be rehearsals with everyone
at their stations, and simulated telemetry with anomalous readings inserted will be used to test
the team. This ensures that they are ready with the proper analysis software or integration test
data available to quickly diagnose the problem and propose a plan of action.
The SOC is the focal point for all mission science and data resources. The science team will use
it to store and analyze the data. From that analysis, the science team generates satellite tasking
requests that are sent to the mission operations team who evaluate them for feasibility and
generate future satellite task plans. Negotiation is often required between the satellite operators
and the scientists due to the practical limitations of the satellite and the ground segment
infrastructure. External requests for additional data collection come through the science team first
to assess feasibility with the instrumentation before tasking requests are made to the operations
team.
The SOC is typically physically separate from the MOC. The payload for most spacecraft is
produced by another company, different than the satellite bus and different from the company
operating the MOC. The payload developer will have their own operations center located at their
facility with easy access to supporting resources. In the past, before cloud data storage, the SOC
was a physical place was where data servers resided to archive the mission science data. Also,
281
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
before secure network solutions, dedicated computers were located inside the SOC that would
run programs written specifically to analyze the science data. If the mission was secure and the
data classified, then the physical SOC would be protected behind a locked door. Missions that do
not produce classified data can take advantage of the latest technologies for considerable
convenience. The SOC can be virtual instead of a physical location and the science data and
special programs for analyzing data can reside in the cloud. The virtual SOC allows scientists to
log on from anywhere and perform work without the need to come to a physical location and pass
through secure doors. In the future, as cyber security techniques improve, it is likely that more
and more secure missions will be comfortable with the virtual SOC solution and only the highest
classification missions will maintain a secure physical SOC.
11.6.1 Software for Mission Operations
Mission operations rely on software across all
the elements of the ground segment. Figure
11.11 outlines software functions for each of
these elements. Software supporting the
ground segment exists in the satellite, at the
physical ground stations and in the MOC
(server infrastructure and end-user software).
Satellite flight software not only manages
state-of-health telemetry and payload data, but
also software specific to the ground segment.
Figure 11.12 provides an example of a
command and telemetry data flow for a
mission using DTE and relay services.
Transmission can start autonomously by
Figure 11.11: Software functions for elements
programming the satellite to know when it is
within the ground segment. Credit: NASA.
Figure 11.12: Command and telemetry data flow for a SmallSat mission using DTE and
relay services. Credit: NASA.
282
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
over a ground station or within sight of a relay satellite. It can also be triggered by a command
received from the ground station or relay satellite. When a communications link is established,
the radio enters a higher power transmit mode and sends the data. The flight software manages
the flow control of information into and out of the radio, making sure that no buffers are overflowed.
It also formats the housekeeping and science data to be transmitted into a packetized file format
that can be accepted by the ground station. Ground networks have specific data protocol
standards developed from experience. For example, the NASA’s NEN incorporates standards
proposed by the CCSDS. The flight software unpacks received packets, retrieving the uploaded
commands and data.
The ground station uses various software for controlling the antenna, commanding, signal
formatting and encoding, scheduling passes, and interfacing with the MOC. One software
computes the pointing direction by using a Two-Line Element set (TLE) to define the satellite
motion, an accurate model of the pointing system mount, and GPS time. It generates motor
commands as a function of time. The motor controller uses these commands to actively track the
satellite during a pass. During the pass, another software suite is used to monitor the link, process
and encode commands for transmission, handle any signal formatting or encryption, and
demodulate and decode the received transmissions. This software also manages the network
connection with the MOC over which the TLE is passed, as well as data for uploading and
requests for data to be downloaded. When the contact is complete, the data received from the
satellite is transferred back to the MOC. The ground station may also have its own telemetry for
that contact. That data is used to trend its performance. Trending the performance of each contact
provides insight and notice of degradation for both the satellite and the ground station. The ground
station may also use scheduling software when handling multiple missions. This software uses
orbit simulation and current TLE information to determine when the contacts are expected. It will
indicate when there are conflicts between contact opportunities and can assist with schedule
optimization. A schedule is generated for a given period and then programmed into the ground
station control system for execution. This process can be automated, but there is typically an
operator on staff to monitor the system.
For the MOC, mission planning software is necessary for missions that require complex satellite
behavior such as pointing at a target during science data collection. The software will include a
model of the satellite dynamics and the capability of its components. The event is planned by
listing a series of actions that must occur in a certain order and are spaced out by times that are
approximated. The software will simulate the satellite response and then the times and actions
are iteratively adjusted as needed to optimize the plan and not cause a satellite fault condition.
The output of the plan is all the commands and databases that are required by the satellite. This
output is submitted to the ground station ingest software for upload at a time prior to the planned
event.
A more mature MOC will include a “lights out” or fully automated option. This requires software
on the ground station side to run the antenna automatically. Automation software will receive a
list of times that the antenna should track the satellite and it will manage that list. It will send TLEs
and data to the antenna with no one present, receive downlinked telemetry, and archive it. As the
number of satellites that a MOC serves increases, the software managing the antenna becomes
more capable. It can identify when two requests conflict and choose one over the other. With no
one at the ground site, a feedback mechanism is required to alert the team of a satellite fault
condition. For that, software is needed to automatically parse the telemetry, compare key watch
items to defined limits, and alert the team via email or phone text message.
The SOC uses software to handle the receipt, unpacking, reconstruction and post processing of
the mission science data. Using an ISS payload as an example, the science data is downlinked
283
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
via TDRSS to NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) where it is separated into different
science streams and piped to the correct payload SOCs. At the SOC, but outside the company
firewall, a computer is constantly running and ready to receive the data from MSFC. On that
computer, the TReK software provided by NASA is running and it properly handshakes with the
MSFC software assuring the data transfer. The science team periodically retrieves the data and
safely brings it through the corporate firewall into the SOC. The science team writes parsing
software to unpack the data which is stored in CCSDS format. They write another software to
arrange the data back into the original image seen by the payload. Still more custom software will
process the image to produce post-processed data products that are stored in the SOC archive
and distributed to interested customers. The computer languages vary but Interactive Data
Language (IDL) and Python are common choices for this type of software.
11.7 End-to-End Communications and Compatibility Testing
A SmallSat undergoes various tests through its development cycle to verify proper functionality.
For the communication subsystem, end-to-end communication and compatibility testing with the
selected ground network is its most critical test. Compatibility testing verifies that the ground
station can properly communicate with the satellite on the uplink and downlink RF channels.
Ideally, compatibility would be validated by testing the flight spacecraft with the actual ground
station that will be supporting the mission. This may not be practical for larger or high-cost
satellites, due to logistics associated with shipping and risk of damage. Two alternatives to
shipping the satellites are typically used. One includes sending a replicate set of ground station
hardware to the satellite facility for testing. A second option is to test with only the flight or an ETU
radio (also common to include the flight computer) at the ground station or at a test lab configured
with the ground station hardware. Drawbacks to the alternative options would include not testing
the exact command path or determining whether ground sensitivity is sufficient.
For CubeSats, it is commonly feasible to bring the CubeSat to the ground station for testing. If
that is not feasible, then at a minimum, the radio and flight processor (or Engineering Development
Units [EDUs]) should be used. Testing at the ground station allows for the entire equipment chain
to be part of the test, including the low-noise amplifier (LNA) and transmit/receive switch, if used.
It is desirable to first test in a closed-loop configuration, where the satellite is connected to the
ground system at the antenna port via a cable (with appropriate attenuators in line). If the satellite
is fully integrated, disconnecting the flight antenna may not be feasible. In this case, a small
monopole antenna located indoors near the CubeSat can be connected to the ground system.
The monopole antenna connection to the ground system may vary depending on the ground
antenna configuration but should include as much of the ground system electronics as practical.
Some missions elect to include an outdoor open-loop test with the CubeSat and ground antenna.
This method allows for the entire ground system, including the ground antenna, to be included in
the test. However, the ground antenna typically cannot point directly at the CubeSat due to
mechanical limitations or to limit the received signal so the ground system RF components will
not be overdriven. Off-pointing and reflections from the ground and local structures can also make
it difficult to achieve a valid test.
End-to-end network testing primarily validates the ground station to MOC interface. This test
verifies that the MOC can properly receive downlink data from the ground station and verifies that
the ground station can receive and process uplink command data from it. Initial end-to-end testing
will validate network connectivity, showing that network connections can be established and
firewall rules at the ground station and MOC are in place. Once network connectivity is
established, the MOC can transmit commands to the ground station for capture. The ground
station can then transmit simulated or recorded data to the MOC for validation.
284
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
It is preferable to conduct initial end-to-end network testing prior to compatibility testing. In cases
where the satellite can be brought to the ground station, a full end-to-end test can be conducted.
Command transmissions from the MOC, through the network and ground system to the satellite
can be validated. A complete end-to-end telemetry data flow from the satellite to the control center
can also be validated.
11.8 Spacecraft Commissioning
Spacecraft commissioning is a critical mission stage. During this period the MOC is fully staffed
and there is heightened interaction with the ground network. It is not uncommon for spacecraft
anomalies to arise and require troubleshooting. Communication challenges have been prevalent
for SmallSats during the commissioning period. The following discusses the commissioning
process and identifies how these challenges can be addressed.
The spacecraft commissioning phase consists of early operations to establish the proper baseline
functionality and performance of a spacecraft and ground system. In general, this is a 2-step
process: establish a reliable communication link between the ground station and the spacecraft
and establish proper baseline performance of the spacecraft (bus and payloads).
The first step involves trying to point the ground station antenna towards the satellite. This step is
simplified when using low data-rate communication with omnidirectional capability at the ground
and satellite terminals. Challenges associated with initial satellite-to-ground station link closure
are generally related to ground antenna pointing predictions. Typically, TLEs or state vectors are
established and shared by the launch provider after deployment. This information can be used to
create an initial orbit solution for the ground station antenna pointing. Sometimes this method is
not successful because the TLEs are either mislabeled or have become outdated within days of
deployment and the satellite has moved out of the predicted location, usually a few seconds ahead
or behind. Operators can adjust the time offset in their tracking software to search for the satellite.
Missions will then rely on North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) TLE data
(see https://www.space-track.org) for the satellite location. However, it could take up to a week or
more for NORAD to add the new object to their tracking list. This process could be delayed further
if multiple spacecraft are ejected in close proximity, and it is not clear which NORAD element set
corresponds to which spacecraft. It is not uncommon to spend weeks attempting different
NORAD-tracked objects until the correct one is found. The position prediction accuracy based on
the NORAD TLE also diverge over time and a new TLE will be needed to maintain data link. This
is typically not an issue since the TLE is updated regularly, but on-board GPS data (if equipped)
can help determine the orbital parameters for the ground station to define latest orbital
parameters.
Another method to locate the satellite includes using the slant range as they rise from the horizon.
The uncertainty of the satellite position in an orbit is greatest in the in-track position. This is
equivalent to a time error and often satellites being tracked are considered “early” or “late” with
respect to their expected position at a specific time. Ground station operators usually point their
directional antenna to just above the horizon to “hang” in one place for a time that is sufficient to
detect the satellite and synchronize with the radio, provided that the link budget closes at that
range. Some antenna tracking software will allow the operator to begin the track after this initial
acquisition is successful. The pointing is most critical at the shortest range and if a link is lost, one
can gain insight into the magnitude of the time error (number of seconds behind or ahead of the
predicted position). This technique of waiting on the horizon will work regardless of the quality or
proper tagging of the TLE.
A half-duplex or full-duplex system could make a difference as well. Program track instead of
auto-track is used for half-duplex. With a full-duplex system, the ground antenna attempts to
285
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
acquire the downlink first. Predicts (NORAD or state vectors) are still used to initially acquire the
spacecraft. If the predicts are off, the antenna can initiate a mechanical scan to increase the
search area. Once the downlink is acquired, the ground antenna can auto-track and automatically
point at the satellite for the duration of the pass.
No responses from a satellite could be due to reasons other than bad antenna pointing, such as
spacecraft anomalies, ground system anomalies, or spacecraft trajectory. Periodic automated
downlink bursts (beacons) or secondary commercial vendor space relay networks could help
understand the health of the satellite in these cases. Reduced GPS data, if equipped, may be
included in addition to basic housekeeping data to help diagnose possible communication issues.
Spacecraft commissioning will commence once a good link has been established. Typically, the
satellite is in a safe mode or sun pointing mode until ground commands a different operating
mode. The first step is to verify the basic health of the satellite such as correct pointing, voltages,
temperatures, power consumption, and proper battery charge. At this time the payloads are likely
off until spacecraft bus checks are performed. A set of housekeeping data is collected over
multiple passes to observe trends in behavior over time. Subsystem leads will perform an
assessment to verify nominal performance. In addition, the trended data is used to establish a
baseline performance for the system. Many assumptions, mostly conservative assumptions, were
used during the development of the mission and now is the time to compare predictions with
reality. Power, thermal, and pointing performance are some examples of technical baselines to
be established. If issues do arise, engineers may desire an increased housekeeping data polling
cadence or a higher level of data within a specific mission mode for troubleshooting. It is important
to consider how housekeeping data will be handled in the development phase to prepare for
commissioning activities. The spacecraft may transition to other operating modes once the safe
or sun pointing mode has been shown to be stable.
Payload commissioning will start once the spacecraft bus is operating nominally or the baseline
performance has been determined. The mission may elect to test the instruments while sun
pointing if power could be a problem. Otherwise, instrument commissioning can commence using
the science pointing mode. The payload will perform a series of tests determined by the science
team. Instrument commissioning will include verifying proper functionality of the software and
hardware. It may also include the validation of science data and calibration activities.
The information described below is not intended to be exhaustive but provides an overview of
current state-of-the-art technologies and their development status for a particular small spacecraft
subsystem. It should be noted that Technology Readiness Level (TRL) designations may vary
with changes specific to payload, mission requirements, reliability considerations, and/or the
environment in which performance was demonstrated. Readers are highly encouraged to reach
out to companies for further information regarding the performance and TRL of described
technology. There is no intention of mentioning certain companies and omitting others based on
their technologies or relationship with NASA.
11.9 State-of-the-Art – Ground Data Systems
Ground data systems are complex systems and how they are used is highly dependent on the
needs of the mission. There are several established service solutions that can meet mission
needs. There is also an array of hardware and software options that can be considered for those
that intend to be a bit more hands-on. This section presents a preview of available services,
hardware, and software solutions.
11.9.1 Direct-to-Earth Ground Service Providers
The following section provides an overview of DTE Ground System Network Service Providers.
These are ground services, meaning that the satellite operator does not own the ground station(s),
286
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
but instead buys time with a ground service provider for their ground architecture needs (see
11.5.6 for a discussion on the considerations of buying ground services versus building and
owning a ground station).
While the specific and unique qualities of each service provider are discussed below, there are
some common features across their services (see table 11-3). In general, they have ground
networks that span the globe and can service multiple frequency bands in almost any orbit in low-
Earth orbit, and some may be able to service medium Earth orbits (MEO) or GEO orbits as well.
Using these services will generally require some degree of pre-coordination (or “onboarding”)
between the operator and provider, which is usually done before launch. This will vary between
providers but may include: contracting mechanisms; frequency licensing and coordination
between the operator and the provider; compatibility testing; and the sharing of mission and
vehicle specific information to ensure the ground stations are properly configured for the operator
to use.
Once the onboarding process is complete, satellite operators can schedule passes between their
satellite(s) and desired ground station(s) in advance (the time window varies for each provider),
usually through a web-based platform of some kind. The schedules for each ground station are
deconflicted based on scheduling priority, and all frequency and modulation adjustments for the
satellite are completed in advance of the pass by the service provider.
Most of the ground service providers in this section are TRL 9, since most of them are either
currently flying or have previously flown multiple missions. Because so many of these networks
are highly advanced, the distinguishing features between them is not their TRL level, but rather
the frequency bands, ground station locations, and other unique services and attributes that they
offer to operators. TRL 7 – 8 indicates that they have capable systems but have served a limited
number of customers.
9 for ground
infrastructure S-band, X-band, UHF (Ka-band in 2017)
ATLAS Global Atlas Space
TRL 8 for
Network Operations Built on AWS cloud infrastructure
software
integration
287
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
7 for ground
infrastructure Built on AWS cloud infrastructure
AWS Ground
Amazon 9 for
Station Using third-party ground stations
software
integration
connectivity for low-Earth orbit, MEO, GEO, and L1 orbits, and ATLAS is actively pursuing
technology development for deep space capabilities. Figure 11.13 shows the ATLAS Space
Operations network map for current and future sites.
Figure 11.13: ATLAS Space Operations ground network map. Credit: ATLAS Space
Operations.
KSATLITE
KSATLITE is a low-cost, high-reliability ground station antenna network designed to support
missions operating in Low-Earth orbit. Kongsberg Satellite Services AS (KSAT) operates 50+
KSATLITE antennas at 12+ ground station sites across the globe (figure 11.14) and is expanding
the network with additional antennas and sites to accommodate the expanding market for
missions to low-Earth orbit. KSATLITE is an extension of the existing KSAT ground station antenna
network with lower costs, increased flexibility, and improved availability and pass selection. The
KSAT network has uniquely located polar stations in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, providing
100% availability on passes for spacecraft in polar orbit. The network also includes mid-latitude
ground stations, providing access for diverse orbits and mission profiles. The baseline KSATLITE
3.7-meter antennas provide X-band and S-band for downlink and S-band for uplink. In addition,
KSATLITE offers Ka-band downlink and VHF and UHF capacities to support a variety of system
configurations (Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, 2020). Together with the ESA- European Space
Operations Centre, KSATLITE is integrating a network of optical ground stations, and the first
station of the Optical Nuclear Network was installed in Greece in January 2021 (60). These
stations will support both SmallSats and larger missions that demand a higher throughput or more
secure downlink solutions.
289
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
constellations of small satellites in low-Earth orbits. The global network provides TT&C and data
download and delivery services to SmallSat operators, and customer interfaces consist of web-
based portals for pass scheduling on 5-meter and smaller antennas. SSC Infinity also uses
standard configurations and standardized ground system hardware, limiting the number of
mission configurations to help keep costs lower for satellite operators.
RBC Signals
RBC Signals is a global space communications provider serving government and commercial
satellite operators in GEO, low-Earth orbit, & MEO with an improved model for the delivery and
processing of data from satellites in orbit. The company’s worldwide network includes both
company-owned and partner-owned antennas, capitalizing on the sharing economy model, for
best-in-class services offering affordability, flexibility, and low latency. Their team has deep
relationships across the entire space value chain and decades of experience building, operating,
and maintaining ground stations for the direct reception and processing of Earth observation
satellite data.
For customers needing turnkey access to existing antennas, RBC Signals offers ground station
antenna-as-a-service, with the flexibility to secure unlimited satellite passes or ‘pay-by-the-
pass/minute/GB’. This is made possible through a combination of their own network of highly
capable systems and the unique ‘sharing economy’ model, wherein they leverage the unused
excess capacity of dozens of partner-owned antennas worldwide. This amounts to a growing
network of over 70 antennas in nearly 50 locations worldwide offering unmatched capabilities. A
map of these locations is shown in figure 11.15.
RBC Signals also offers turnkey bring-your-own-antenna hosting solutions that pair customer-
owned equipment with reliable, high-end ground infrastructure almost anywhere in the world.
Figure 11.15: RBC Signals ground network map. Credit: RBC Signals.
291
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
They also use a distributed compute architecture where most processing will occur at a data
center/cloud, with some processing on the satellite or at the terrestrial edge at the ground station.
RBC Signals can host AWS and Microsoft on premise cloud infrastructure, as well as virtual
servers at the ground station.
AWS Ground Station
AWS Ground Station enables operators to control and ingest data from orbiting satellites without
having to buy or build satellite ground station infrastructure. AWS Ground Station does this by
integrating the ground station equipment like antennas, digitizers, and modems into AWS Regions
around the world. Operators onboard their satellites and schedule time to communicate with them.
There is the option of conducting all satellite operations on the AWS Cloud, including the storing
and processing of satellite data with results delivered using AWS services, or the AWS Ground
Station can downlink the satellite data and transport it to the user’s processing center.
AWS Ground Station antennas are located within fully managed AWS ground station locations,
and are interconnected via Amazon’s low-latency, highly reliable, scalable, and secure global
network backbone. Operators can connect with any satellite in low-Earth orbit and MEO operating
in X-band and S-band frequencies, including: S-band uplink and downlink, X-band narrowband
and wideband downlink. Data downlinked and stored in one AWS Region can be sent to other
AWS Regions over the global network for further processing.
AWS Ground Station provides an easy-to-use graphical console that allows operators to reserve
contacts and antenna time for their satellite communications. They can review, cancel, and
reschedule contact reservations up to 15 minutes prior to scheduled antenna times. Access can
be scheduled to AWS Ground Station antennas on a per-minute basis, so operators only pay for
the scheduled time. They can access any antenna in the ground station network, and there are
no long-term commitments.
AWS Ground Station provides satellite antennas direct access to AWS services for faster, simpler,
and more cost-effective storage and processing of downloaded data. This allows operators to
reduce data processing and analysis times for use cases like
weather prediction or natural disaster imagery from hours to
minutes or seconds. This also enables operators to quickly
create business rules and workflows to organize, structure, and
route the satellite data before it can be analyzed and
incorporated into key applications such as imaging analysis and
weather forecasting. Key AWS services include Amazon EC2,
Amazon S3, Amazon VPC, Amazon Rekognition, Amazon
SageMaker, and Amazon Kinesis Data Streams (1).
NASA UHF Ground Station
The Atmospheric Sciences Research Facility (ASRF) SmallSat
Ground Station (ASGS) supports a range of small satellite
operators with a UHF ground station operating 24/7 at NASA
Wallops Flight Facility (WFF). ASGS uses the 18 m UHF
antenna shown in figure 11.16 that was originally brought online
in 1959 and used as a radar. With this large high-gain antenna
(36 dbi gain, 2.9° beamwidth at 450 MHz) operating in the 380
to 480 MHz UHF band, the ground station provides a 3.0 Mbps Figure 11.16: 18-meter UHF
high data rate capability for CubeSats, which is 300 times the ground station antenna at
typical 9.6 Kbps. The ground system uses a software defined NASA Wallops Flight Facility.
radio and front-end processing software. Service includes Credit: NASA.
292
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
support for downlinking telemetry and/or uplink commanding, monitor & control capability,
scheduling, and data storage. The scheduling process provides operators with a deconflicted
schedule based on user requirements. This is being accomplished with minimal documentation,
pre-mission testing and cost-per-pass. As of March 2020, the station supports eleven NASA
funded CubeSats. An affiliation with NASA is required to use the system. This would include being
a NASA sponsored mission through means such as a grant or having either an interagency or
reimbursable agreement with WFF.
NASA Near Earth Network
The NASA NEN provides direct-to-earth telemetry, commanding, ground-based tracking, and
data and communications services to a wide range of customers. The NASA NEN Project consists
of NASA, commercial, and partner S-band, X-band, and Ka-band ground stations supporting
spacecraft in low-Earth orbit, GEO, Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO), Lunar orbit, and Lagrange point
L1/L2 orbit up to one million miles from Earth. The NEN supports multiple robotic and launch
vehicle missions with NASA-owned stations and through cooperative agreements with
interagency, international, and commercial services. The NEN is adding additional Ka-band
capability, and recently added two 6.1-meter S-band ground stations in Florida. The Ka-band and
Florida ground stations augment NEN small satellite orbital tracking and communications
capacity. Table 11-4 shows the radio frequencies that the NEN supports via the NTIA.
7,190 – 7,235
X Uplink Earth to Space
(Two NEN sites to 7,200)
five in-house 6U CubeSat missions at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) planning to
use the NEN for S-band uplink and downlink.
The NEN is exploring how to provide higher data rates for CubeSat missions with techniques such
as Digital Video Broadcast Satellite Second Generation (DVB-S2). Higher data rates either
increase science return or reduce the number of minutes per day of required ground station
contacts. Reducing the number of minutes per day increases the number of small satellite
spacecraft that the NEN may accommodate with its existing ground stations. Higher data rates
also enable mother-daughter small satellite constellations, where the mother spacecraft handles
the communication with Earth for multiple daughter spacecraft. The NEN is also exploring the
addition of Multiple Spacecraft per Aperture (MSPA) for constellations of CubeSats and arraying
of antennas for higher performance. Future larger satellite missions are planned to be supported
by the NEN at 4 Gbps via Ka-band.
The NEN facilitates Commercial Services (CS) and negotiated a bulk-buy discount for all NASA
missions. This allows for contacts on the NEN Contractor/University Operated and CS apertures
to be at no-cost for NASA missions. The NEN does schedule CS in accordance with NASA
mission-defined priority. The Networks Integration Management Office (NIMO) at NASA GSFC is
the liaison for customers that wish to use NEN services. NIMO has a variety of services and
capabilities available and can coordinate support from providers throughout NASA, other US
agencies, US commercial entities, and foreign governments. Some of the services that NIMO can
provide include:
• Requirements Development
• Communications Design Support & Guidance
• Optical Communications Analysis
• Network Feasibility Analysis
• Spectrum Management
• RF Compatibility Testing
• Launch Support
Network Feasibility Analysis includes determining NEN station loading as a function of the
mission’s priority and determining the availability of planned stations for the contacts requested.
Prior to the mission deployment, the NEN commits to providing the requested stations and contact
time as outlined in the network feasibility analysis.
If interested in more information on using the NEN, please contact NIMO’s Jerry Mason.
Jerry Mason, Chief
Networks Integration Management Office, Code 450.1
Exploration and Space Communications Projects Division
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771
Phone: (301) 286-9515
Email: [email protected]
294
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
planet in the Solar System (including dwarf planet Pluto). Two missions (Voyager I and Voyager
II) have reached interstellar space and still communicate with the DSN.
The DSN offers services to a wide variety of mission customers, as shown in table 11-5.
Mission Phases
Customers
• Launch and Early Orbit Phase (LEOP)
• NASA
• Cruise
• Other Government Agencies
• Orbital
• International Partners
• In-Situ
Custom and tailored DSN services can also be arranged for missions and customers. DSN-
provided data services are accessed via well-defined, standard data and control interfaces:
• The CCSDS
• The Space Frequency Coordination Group (SFCG)
• The ITU
• The International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
• De facto standards widely applied within industry
• Common interfaces specified by the DSN
The use of data service interface standards enable interoperability with similar services from other
providers.
295
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 11.18 shows the DSN antennas and their locations. Each DSN ground station in California
(United States), Madrid (Spain), and Canberra (Australia) currently (June 2021) is operating four
34 m Beam Wave Guide antennas and one 70 m antenna. By the late 2020s, this is planned to
increase to include one 70 m plus four 34 m antennas at each DSN site.
The DSN can track multiple spacecraft per antenna (MSPA) (up to four) if they are all within the
scheduled antenna’s beam. The 34 m antennas at each complex can be combined into an array,
with or without the co-located 70 m antenna. The combined G/T depends on several factors but
is approximately increased by the sum of the antenna areas from the arrayed apertures minus
approximately 0.3 dB combining loss. For instance, arraying four 34-meter antennas results in an
increase of 5.72 dB.
The DSN supports RF testing using the following facilities:
• Development and Test Facility (DTF-21), located near NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL)
• Compatibility Test Trailer (CTT-22), able to come to the spacecraft site
296
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• DSN test facility (MIL-71), located at NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida
Morehead State University CubeSat Ground Station
Morehead State University, as an early CubeSat
technology adopter, has developed ground station
technologies to support low-Earth orbit and
interplanetary CubeSat missions. The Morehead
State University Space Science Center team
developed a 21-meter antenna system that has
provided telemetry, tracking, ranging and
commanding services for low-Earth orbit, MEO
and “near-Earth” deep space CubeSat missions
since it came on-line in 2006. The 21-meter
antenna, shown in figure 11.19, is a unique
educational tool that provides an active laboratory
for students to have hands-on learning
experiences with the intricacies of satellite
telecommunications and radio astronomy.
From its inception, it was anticipated that the 21
meters would provide TT&C services for small,
low power satellites performing research in the
lunar vicinity, at Earth-Sun Lagrange points, at Figure 11.19: The Morehead State
near-Earth Asteroids, and potentially out to Mars University 21-meter Ground Station has
at low data rates. It was not envisioned that these been upgraded with support from NASA’s
small satellites would be CubeSats since the Advanced Exploration Systems, to become
form factor was evolving simultaneously with the the first non-NASA affiliated node on the
planning and design of the 21-meter dish. The DSN. Referred to as DSS-17, the station will
proliferation of CubeSats and other SmallSats support NASA Interplanetary CubeSat
investigating interplanetary destinations, missions. Credit: Morehead State University.
however, has begun to provide unique
opportunities for the students and staff at Morehead State University to gain valuable experience
in space operations and to vet performance of the 21-m antenna as an operational deep space
station.
An upgrade supported by NASA’s Advanced Exploration Systems in 2016 turned the 21-meter
antenna into Deep Space Station 17 (DSS-17), an affiliated node on NASA’s DSN. The upgrade,
that was undertaken in partnership with JPL, improved the performance of the station to meet
DSN standards for operations. Performance metrics of DSS-17 are listed in table 11-6. This
arrangement has provided another level of real-world experience to students in the space science
programs at MSU who primarily operate the station. The operating philosophy is that DSS-17
serves as a Class D Station for NASA Interplanetary Class D CubeSat missions.
Students and staff at the Space Science Center at Morehead State University are developing a
full motion 12-meter class antenna system that will serve as an Earth Station for low-Earth orbit
satellite mission support as well as a training facility for university students to gain experience in
space mission operations. The instrument was needed to fill the role previously held by the 21-
meter station that is now devoted to interplanetary SmallSats. The 12-meter ground station will
be staffed by university students. It will be available for a wide variety of TT&C services at S-band
297
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 11.20: Artist’s Concept of the 21-meter Ground Station (DSS-17 back) and
the 12-meter low-Earth orbit Ground Station (front) under development at Morehead
State University. Credit: Morehead State University.
and X-band when it becomes operational in 2022. Figure 11.20 illustrates both 21- and 12-meter
ground stations at Morehead State University.
298
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
299
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Satellites (TDRS) located in GEO. Three TDRS are available for operational support at any given
time. The operational spacecraft are located at 41°, 174° and 275° west longitude. The other
TDRS in the constellation provide ready backup in the event of an operational spacecraft failure
and, in some specialized cases, resources for target of opportunity activities. The system can
transmit to, and receiving data from, spacecraft over at least 85% of the spacecraft's orbit. The
TDRSS ground segment is located near Las Cruces, New Mexico, known as the White Sands
Complex. Forward data is uplinked from the ground segment to the TDRS and from the TDRS to
the spacecraft. Return data is downlinked from the spacecraft via the TDRS to the ground
segment and then on to the designated data collection location.
TDRSS provides S-band and Ku-band services through the single access (SA) antennas and S-
band services through the S-band multiple access (SMA) phased array. TDRSS can support
coherent range and two-way Doppler tracking as well as noncoherent one-way return-link and
one-way forward-link Doppler tracking of user spacecraft. Accurate one-way return-link tracking,
which can use SMA, the most available TDRSS resource, requires a stable oscillator onboard the
user spacecraft as the source of frequency. Two-way and one-way return-link tracking
measurements are used for ground orbit determination for navigation and precise positioning;
one-way forward-link tracking is used for autonomous onboard navigation with achievable
accuracies better than those of the GPS Precise Positioning System (PPS).
The NASA GSFC BurstCube 6U CubeSat mission is applying modifications to a Vulcan S-band
radio to communicate with TDRSS. The mission is using TDRSS to obtain real-time alerts of
science events captured by the spacecraft (3) (4).
Fast Pixel Data Transport Network
Analytical Space’s Fast Pixel Data Transport Network will consist of a constellation of relay
satellites in low-Earth orbit to provide high-speed data connections for client satellites. Client
satellites will transmit the data to the relay satellite via RF, and the relay satellite will downlink that
data through a combination of optical and RF communications. The network will be backward
compatible with a variety of radio frequencies, meaning no additional hardware will be required
onboard a client satellite. The network will also use a combination of optical and RF
communications for the relay downlink, allowing for higher throughput through the system than a
traditional RF system. This network is not yet fully operational; a technology demonstration was
launched in 2018, putting this system at a TRL level of 6 – 7 (5).
Iridium Global Network
The Iridium Global Network is a constellation of low-Earth orbit satellites that provide global
communications to both users on the ground and other satellites in space. The 66 cross-linked
satellites are spaced evenly on 6 orbital planes that are near polar at an 84.6 inclination and have
an altitude of approximately 780 km. The service provides global coverage, including the polar
regions. Due to its proximity to other low-Earth orbit “client” satellites, satellite operators can relay
data through the Iridium network faster than a GEO relay network. The Iridium network uses a
combination of Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) and Time-Division Multiple Access
(TDMA) for its communication waveforms. L-band (1616 – 1626.5 Mhz) is used for uplink and
downlink between the user spacecraft and the Iridium spacecraft. Inter-satellite communication
links between Iridium satellites is accomplished through Ka-band (23.18 – 23.28 GHz). Operators
install an Iridium transceiver (9600 series) onboard their spacecraft to communicate with the
Iridium network. Messages are relayed through Iridium’s Short Burst Data Service, which is
hosted on Iridium’s cloud platform for easy user operation. For each transceiver unit, a data plan
must be chosen and purchased, much like cellular phone data plans, and the plan details are
linked to the unit’s ID, which is referred to as International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI). The
special feature of this system is that it has as an option for “IMEI-to-IMEI” transmission. When an
300
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Iridium IMEI is activated, five output destinations may be specified. Most vendors allow for a
combination of emails addresses, fixed IP address, or another device with an IMEI ID. Other
vendor service options would include the real-time satellite tracking tool called GSatTrack by
Global Satellite Engineering (GSE). This tool allows users to know when an Iridium satellite is
approaching overhead and its coverage area. An example screenshot is shown in figure 11.21.
As an application example, testing was completed at NASA WFF to evaluate the usefulness of
short burst messages for tracking GPS location over the Iridium Network. Two transceivers were
setup with one set to command and the other set in “tracking mode.” The command unit sent
messages containing GPS data (attitude, longitude, elevation, and velocity) and the messages
were received by the tracking unit within 2 – 10 minutes of transmission. This served as a
successful demonstration of being able to receive short burst, low latency messages between two
units without the need for scheduling. Such an application can be valuable for missions of
opportunity such as SmallSat constellations.
In January 2019, Iridium deployed the last of its 75 NEXT satellites in conjunction with Thales
Alenia Space and SpaceX. As a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), the NEXT satellites also carry
hosted payloads limited to 50 kg and ~50 W of power. The satellites are replacements for the first
generation and maintain interconnection with a crosslink architecture. Also in 2019, Iridium
unveiled the Certus 9770 transceiver (which technology partners are beta testing and further
developing), designed for speeds from 22 Kbps to 88 Kbps. It is capable of transferring IP data
more than 35 times faster than previous devices (6) (7).
301
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Complete
Small satellite provider offering a complete
Ground GAUSS 9
ground solution. UHV, VHF, and S-band
Solution
Complete
Small satellite provider offering a complete
Ground ISISpace 9
ground solution. UHV, VHF, and S-band
Solution
Complete
Small satellite provider offering a complete
Ground GomSpace 9
ground solution. UHV, VHF, and S-band
Solution
Surrey Major contractor who will install ground stations
Surrey Satellite
Ground 9 capable of S-band for U/L and D/L and X-band
Technology Ltd.
Segment for D/L.
• High gain Yagi-Uda VHF and UHF antennas (>16 dBi for UHF)
• Low-noise amplifiers and band-pass filters for VHF and UHF bands
• Low-loss RF coaxial cables
• 1.5-meter parabolic dish for higher frequencies downlink (up to 6 GHz, default feed is for
S-band)
• VHF: uplink and downlink up to 100 W using radio and Terminal Node Controller (TNC),
software defined radio (SDR) optional
302
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• UHF: uplink and downlink up to 70 W, using radio and TNC, SDR optional
• TX using ICOM-9100 hardware, RX recording and decoding via SDR
Figure 11.22: (left) GAUSS ground station hardware, transceiver and (right) tracking
antenna. Credit: GAUSS Srl.
• Integrated satellite payload data handling and decoding (e.g. for image file processing)
• TCP/IP connections for remote ground station & TNC operations
Figure 11.23: (left) ISISPACE ground station hardware, transceiver rack and
tracking antenna (right). Credit: ISISPACE.
In addition, Surrey can work with customers to integrate their ground segment solutions with
existing ground infrastructure or with 3rd-party ground station networks (11).
Kratos Ground Station Solutions
The Kratos unique ground solution begins with their SpectraNet modem Digital IF product that
converts analog signals at RF frequencies up to S-band into digital IF packets. It is the start of the
Kratos digital processing product line chain. Kratos Quantum software operates on a fully digitized
RF waveform. For example, a ground station service company would maintain the antennas and
modems and use a very good internet connection to ship huge amount of data either into the
cloud for storage and processing with the Kratos Quantum software, or to the customer MOC.
Kratos provides quantum as an integrated virtualized system supporting a satellite ground
infrastructure architecture that is cloud and platform agnostic. Figure 11.25 provides a
visualization for the system concept. All components are available separately to support an
existing C2 solution or third-party ground network with existing signal processing and antenna
resources. The quantum system includes:
(1) quantumCMD for small spacecraft C2;
305
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
306
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
307
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
See End-to-End
Tracking Antennas for small satellites in UHF, VHF,
Hardware 9
Antenna and S-band frequencies
Section 11.9.3
See End-to-End
RF pickup, mechanical filters, low noise
Antenna Feed Hardware 9
amplifier
Section 11.9.3
Infinite
Radome 9 Antenna radomes
Technologies
Integrated
Testing Systems Celestia Satellite Hardware and software elements all operating
(EGSE) & Test & 9 within a single reference platform and
Ground Station Simulation environment
TT&C Modems
LabVIEW to GNU Radio, with many existing IP modules for modulation and demodulation. The
USRP X310 is intended for lab environments, however, it can be built in rugged weatherproof
configurations. Many small satellite researchers are using the USRP as their ground station
equipment for its adaptability with open-source software and its embedded FPGA pre-processing
capability. With a vibrant and active community around software tool chains such as GNU Radio,
USRPs are being used by home hobbyists and many of the largest space vehicle developers
today.
Kratos SpectraNet
SpectraNet is the only commercially available product of its kind that eliminates the distance
constraints of RF transport by digitizing RF signals for transport over IP networks in a way that
preserves both frequency and timing characteristics, and then uniquely restores the RF signals
at their destination. By eliminating the distance constraints between antennas and signal
processing equipment, this technology enables operators to deploy new ground architectures with
numerous advantages, such as the ability to mitigate the effects of rain fade for Ku/Ka satellites,
reduce costs by centralizing operations, simplify disaster recovery and system maintenance,
optimize antenna placement, and develop a migration path toward virtual ground systems.
SpectralNet does all of this while protecting the operator's current investment in existing
equipment. Figure 11.27 illustrates the advantage of the SpectraNet over the conventional
approach.
Figure 11.27: Kratos SpectraNet keeps most of the RF ground equipment remote from the
ground station. Credit: Kratos.
309
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
310
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Efforts are on-going to improve product capability with a focus on modular, flexible, scalable
multichannel systems that take advantage of the latest technologies. In June 2021, an agreement
between the Netherlands Organization (TNO), Celestia, and the Netherlands Organization for
Applied Scientific Research to commercialize optical modems (61).
11.9.5 Ground Software
Software dominates the ground segment, replacing hardware solutions wherever possible.
Advancements have been enabled by the speed of personal computers, the bandwidth of the
internet, and the security and availability of cloud storage and cloud computing. The remaining
essential hardware for ground stations are the tracking antennas, feeds, modem, and data
storage drives. Everything else in between can be software. For example, computers are
sufficiently capable that the front-end processors (FEP) can be software, as can the radio.
Software outside the RF chain perform significant supporting tasks. They include visualizing and
calculating the satellite location in orbit and controlling the tracking antenna. Command and
control software manages command scripts to be sent to the satellite and can display and analyze
telemetry. Many software options are open source and free. Other software are purchased from
companies with a long history in ground segment solutions who had previously provided hardware
products to do these tasks (table 11-10).
312
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
AMERGINT softFEP
AMERGINT softFEP applications are deployed virtually on cloud architectures or hosted on
dedicated servers. The applications perform control center data formatting and interface
conversion for commands and telemetry, with full support for NSA Type 1 and AES
encryption/decryption devices. SoftFEP applications are built on a proven library of more than
1,000 software devices. This allows each softFEP application to be tailored to the requirements
specific to the ground system. Processing chains configured via Python scripts move satellite
downlink data from Earth receipt for processing and uplink data to the radiating site. Deploying
softFEP on multiple virtual machines (VMs) or within the cloud is inherent in the product
architecture. Virtualized softFEP deployments support a wide range of ground system
architectures while taking advantage of cloud-computing benefits. When applications are
deployed in VMs, they can be hosted locally or run remotely in a cloud and interoperate across
network connections. Customers have deployed their softFEP applications as independent
network gateways, black front-end processors, red front-end processors, and data recorders,
flowing data between the VMs as a satellite contact is processed (14).
Kratos quantumFEP
The quantum FEP satellite front-end software provides the digital processing and network
connectivity needed between the Command & Control (C2) system and the RF signal processing
equipment. All the digital processing functions in a typical small satellite ground system are
included: command and telemetry processing, recording, AES COMSEC security, CSSDS
processing, packet level FEC, and network gateway interface support. Monitoring and control can
be done using the HTML5 user interface or using REST or application programming interface
GEMS APIs. Figure 11.30 provides an illustration for quantuFEP system architecture (15).
Key features of quantumFEP are:
• Can be used on bare metal machines, a private cloud, or with cloud provider
• Suitable for all types of SmallSat programs – SmallSats, CubeSats, NanoSats, and
MicroSats
• Compatibility tested with widely used ground modems
• Built-in test functions reduce Integration and Test (I&T) effort – ultimately reducing cost
• Configurable as mission requirements change or as new missions come online
• Commercial AES Encryption/Decryption standard feature with built in AES Key Manager
• Standard TCP/IP, GEMS, REST and VITA-49 interfaces make integration a snap
• Pure Software Implementation for signal processing functions
• Access and control from anywhere through the web with no client software to install or
maintain
313
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Gpredict
Gpredict is a real-time satellite tracking and orbit prediction application. It can track a large number
of satellites and display their position and other data in lists, tables, maps, and polar plots (radar
view) as shown in figure 11.31. It can also predict the time of future passes for a satellite and
provide detailed information about each pass. Gpredict is different from other satellite tracking
programs in that it allows the satellites to be grouped into visualization modules. Each of these
modules can be configured independently from others, allowing unlimited flexibility in the look and
feel of the modules. It will also allow satellite tracking relative to different observer locations at the
same time (16).
Figure 11.31: Gpredict graphical display with multiple satellites. Credit: Gpredict.
314
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 11.32: GNU Radio block diagram example for a 2-meter NBFM receiver. Credit: GNU
Radio.
315
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
hardware. GNU Radio has filters, channel codes, synchronization elements, equalizers,
demodulators, vocoders, decoders, and many other elements (referred to as blocks) typically
found in radio systems. More importantly, it includes a method of connecting these blocks and
then manages how data is passed from one block to another. Extending GNU Radio is also quite
easy; if a specific block is found to be missing, it can be quickly created and added.
Since GNU Radio is software, it can only handle digital data. Usually, complex baseband samples
are the input data type for receivers and the output data type for transmitters. Analog hardware is
then used to shift the signal to the desired center frequency. That requirement aside, any data
type can be passed from one block to another–be it bits, bytes, vectors, bursts, or more complex
data types. Figure 11.32 shows an example GNU Radio block diagram (17).
HWCNTRL
HWCNTRL is a satellite ground station control program that is installed in more than 30 sites
throughout the world. This automation software package can support multiple antennas and
instruments simultaneously. Satellite passes are generated by user request based on the
ephemeris set, and users can select specific passes to be added to the schedule. Scheduled
events can be single-use or reoccurring on a daily or weekly basis. A control/status screen is
accessible for each instrument in the system, and the user can view and change the settings of
any instrument through these screens (18).
11.9.6 Mission Operations & Scheduling Software
The following section provides an overview of mission operations and scheduling software
products that can be integrated into a MOC (see table 11-11). While the specific aspects of each
of these products is discussed below, they all have some common features. In general, these
software applications cover functions related to mission scheduling and tasking, commanding and
telemetry, and monitoring and control. Many of them also have automation features that enable
“lights-out” operations or reduced manpower requirements.
All these products are highly customizable. They can not only adapt to multiple missions,
satellites, and ground stations, but these products also allow for customized visualizations,
analyses, and user interface views. Additionally, many of these products are cloud-based or have
a web interface to enable easier access for an operator from almost anywhere.
316
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
COSMOS
COSMOS is a free, open-source command and control system providing commanding, scripting,
and data visualization capabilities for embedded systems and systems of systems. COSMOS is
intended for use during all phases of testing (board, box, and integrated system) and during
operations. COSMOS is made up of 15 applications that can be grouped into four categories:
real-time commanding and scripting; real-time telemetry visualization; offline analysis; and
utilities. Figure 11.33 shows how all of the applications relate to one another and to the targets
that are being controlled. Any embedded system that provides a communication interface can be
connected to COSMOS. All real-time communications flow through the command and telemetry
Figure 11.33: COSMOS architecture and context diagram. Credit: Ball Aerospace.
https://cosmosc2.com/
317
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
server, ensuring all commands and telemetry are logged. Additionally, program specific tools can
be written using the COSMOS libraries, and these tools can interact with the command and
telemetry server as well (19).
Galaxy
Galaxy is a command and telemetry system that is derived directly from the Integrated Test and
Operations System (ITOS) telemetry and command system developed by the Hammers Company
with NASA GSFC. It has been available commercially since 2000. Galaxy can accept telemetry
from, and send commands to, multiple spacecraft and ground stations simultaneously. Users can
customize Galaxy for a particular mission via a database in which they provide telemetry and
command specifications. Users can design telemetry displays, plots, sequential prints,
configuration monitors, and spacecraft commands and table loads in simple text files stored on
the computer’s file system. Most displays can be viewed remotely over the web or by using remote
Galaxy instances. Additionally, Galaxy is CCSDS compliant, and it can communicate over a wide
variety of transports and protocols including TCP/IP networking, synchronous and asynchronous
serial ports, SpaceWire, military standard (MIL-STD-1553), and the GMSEC message bus (20).
Major Tom
Major Tom is a commanding and telemetry system that allows operators to use the same tool,
workflow, and processes during development, testing, and operations. Key features include
simplified dashboards for commanding and telemetry data; an API that allows an operator to build
custom automation; and the ability to support multi-satellite operations. Major Tom leverages a
cloud-based deployment for simplicity and can be integrated with some COTS ground stations
and flight software, including Kubos’ own KubOS open-source flight software. Figure 11.34
provides a screenshot of the user interface (21).
318
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 11.35: Orbit Logic CPAW couples spacecraft model and scheduling features to
optimize data collection plans. Credit: Orbit Logic.
319
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 11.36: Bright Ascension Mission Control Software interface screenshot. Credit: Bright
Ascension.
320
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The term “optical communication” refers to the use of light as a medium for data transmission.
For space applications, lasers are being used as the light source. Laser systems with dynamic
systems such as fast-steering mirrors are used to accurately point the laser on the spacecraft to
the ground terminal. Other methods using laser arrays for beam pointing are also being developed
to reduce the need for complex dynamic systems. Data is transmitted in the form of hundreds of
millions of short pulses of laser light every second. The light is made of photons and the optical
ground terminals are setup to collect the light at the photon level. In fact, the ground terminals are
designed for an environment where relatively few photons may be received from the transmitter
spacecraft, especially from deep space. Direct photon detection with Pulse Position Modulation
(PPM) is used instead of the common RF technique of direct carrier coherent modulation to
convey information. PPM modulation uses a time interval that is divided into a number of possible
pulse locations, but only a single pulse is placed in one of the possible positions, determined by
the information being transmitted. To detect extremely faint optical signals with relatively few
photons through the atmosphere, optical ground stations can use a
superconducting nanowire single photon detector (SNSPD), which, to increase the sensitivity of
the nanowires, uses a 1-Kelvin cryocooler. A real-time signal processing receiver uses time-
stamped photon arrivals to synchronize, demodulate, decode, and de-interleave signals to extract
information code-words. Hence, while the specific technologies employed differ in some respects
from those used in radio frequency ground terminals, the higher-level functions performed by the
optical communication ground terminal are similar.
Optical communication is attractive for mission designers using small, resource-constrained
spacecraft, because it offers a path to relatively high data rates with relatively small, low-power
spacecraft equipment. The same volume and power savings can be experienced on the ground
terminal side as well. This is driven by the size of the wavelengths. Because RF wavelengths are
longer, the size of their transmission beam covers a wider area, therefore, the capture antennas
for RF data transmissions must be very large. Laser wavelengths are 10,000 times shorter,
allowing data to be transmitted across narrower, tighter beams. This results in the ability to deliver
the same amount of signal power to much smaller collecting areas. The reduction in antenna size
applies for ground and space receivers, which allows for size and mass reductions on the
spacecraft side.
In 2013, NASA made great strides with its optical communication demonstration on the Lunar
Atmosphere and Dust Experiment Explorer (LADEE) mission. The pivotal NASA Lunar Laser
Communications Demonstration (LLCD) was able to achieve 622 Mbps from a lunar distance.
This success created a need for low size, weight, and power (SWaP) optical flight terminals for
SmallSats and a ground infrastructure of Optical Ground Stations (OGS).
Optical Ground Stations and Future Demonstrations
OGS contain notably different equipment than RF stations, including an optics assembly, photon
counter assembly (usually involving a photon counting nanowire detector and cryostat), and signal
processing assembly with a time-to-digital converter. Since optical communications use a
frequency higher than RF, (e.g. 1,550 nm downlink and 1,065 nm uplink wavelengths), the optical
dishes can be smaller than RF antennas. To receive optical signals from a low-Earth orbit, 40 –
60 cm telescopes are sufficient. For successful deep space optical communications, calculations
show that 3 m, 4 m, or even 8 m diameter ground apertures are required, depending on the
distance from Earth. For these size apertures, when a dedicated 3 – 8 m OGS is not available,
partnerships can be formed with large astronomy telescopes. For example, the Deep Space
Optical Communications (DSOC) demonstration launches in 2022, and JPL-designed OGS
equipment is being housed at the Palomar Observatory (Hale 5-m telescope). It is also important
321
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 11.38: (left) ESA-OGS at the Teide Observatory and (right) its 1-meter telescope on an
English equatorial mount. Credit: (left) European Space Agency/D. Lopez and (right) European
Space Agency.
The National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT) operates several
OGS that collectively form the IN-orbit and Networked Optical Ground Stations Experimental
Verification Advanced Testbed (INNOVA). The INNOVA testbed includes a 1.5 m telescope and
three 1-m telescopes. The 1.5 m was first constructed in 1988 in Koganei, Tokyo, Japan, and has
a focal ratio of f/1.5 and a 1.5 arcminute detector field of view. The 1 m telescopes have a focal
ratio of f/12, multiple focus options, and have demonstrated closed-loop tracking for low-Earth
orbit satellites to within 10 arcseconds. The three stations are in Koganei, Kasima, and Okinawa.
Figure 11.39 shows an image of the 1 m OGS in Koganei, Japan.
322
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 11.40: (left) OGS-OP and (right) TOGS. Credit: German Aerospace Center.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/de/legalcode.
Figure 11.41: (left) The Aerospace Corporation manned OGS and (right) 40 cm telescope
located in El Segundo, CA. Credit: The Aerospace Corporation.
323
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
station is fully operational and validated, as a CubeSat optical link from low-Earth orbit to Earth of
200 Mbps was demonstrated in 2017 by the NASA sponsored OCSD mission. The 1.5U, 2.5 kg
satellite used a 2 W, 1,064 nm laser transmitter 8 x 8 x 2 cm in size with a 0.06° FWHM beamwidth.
While many optical communications demonstrations use a ground laser beacon to meet stringent
pointing requirements, Aerospace demonstrated beaconless optical communications by body-
steering the satellite open-loop at the optical ground station. Designing the laser transmitter with
twice the divergence of the OCSD pointing capability eliminated the cost and complexity of a
ground reference beacon. The optical communication typically lasted 2 – 3 minutes and
engagements were optimized by limiting to 30° – 70° elevation. The best engagement on this
mission demonstrated 200 Mbps and an average range of 725 km, lasted 115 seconds, and had
a BER of ≤ 1E-6 for 92% of the time. This same CubeSat optical transmitter on the AeroCube-11
mission in 2019 demonstrated a 1 GB data transfer in a single optical pass. As of 2020, the El
Segundo station must be manned during operation, which is inconvenient. For that reason and
for geographic diversity, an unmanned station is being developed and is planned for deployment
in Hawaii and New Mexico in 2021. The unmanned optical ground station has an automated dome
that protects the telescope.
NASA has several exciting optical communications demonstrations in the pipeline, including O2O
and the Laser Communications Relay Demonstration (LCRD). LCRD is supported by OGS1 at
OCTL, and OGS2 in Hawaii. Currently, the Science Enabling Technology for Heliophysics (SETH)
deep space demonstration mission is being proposed. The mission plans to transmit optically
from an ESPA class SmallSat and yield data rates greater than 10 Mbps from 15 million km. The
OGS in this case will be the 4.3-m Lowell Discovery Telescope (LDT), housing the transportable
optical ground receiver elements designed for DSOC.
Optical Ground Stations in Development
Internationally, optical ground station nodes in Australia and New Zealand are being funded as of
2020. The plan is to tie these stations together to produce a communication network that can
support optical, RF, and future quantum communications. Kongsberg Satellite Services AS
(KSAT) announced in April 2020 plans for a commercially available optical ground station with a
50 cm telescope, selecting Nemea, Greece as the site due to its moderate weather in the summer
with 95% availability. In spring 2021, Thales Australia signed a research extension with SmartSat
Cooperative Centre (CRC) for the development of advanced optical communications technologies
building upon the initial feasibility work performed since early 2020 (62).
324
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
system on the R&D antenna is very limited in capability. The DSS-23 optical receiver is the same
design that JPL is delivering to the Palomar Observatory for use with the DSOC optical
communications technology demonstration on the NASA Psyche mission. This receiver is also
being installed in ground terminals at White Sands and other locations for other near- and deep-
space missions, as well as Artemis. One exciting implication of this 8 m equivalent optical aperture
is that it meets the 230 Mbps downlink data rate requirement for human exploration of Mars.
11.10.2 Phased Array Ground Stations
Phased array ground stations use phased array antennas consisting of multiple smaller antenna
elements that are electronically connected at a site. These antenna elements each have
computer-controlled phase delays that can be manipulated to increase the overall antenna gain
in one or more specified directions. A phased array can be “electronically steered,” as opposed
to mechanically pointed. In addition to optimizing antenna gain (for transmit or receive, or both) in
specified directions, phased arrays can communicate with multiple spacecraft at once, and at
multiple frequencies. Phased arrays have a long tradition of use for military applications, where
the ability to rapidly point, steer, or scan can be essential. Past and current generations of GPS
have transmit phased arrays of a dozen or more elements to optimally control their Earth-directed
beams. Phased arrays on the ground can be optimized to increase gain in the direction of one or
more SmallSats, which may be very resource constrained and hence can benefit from the
increase in sensitivity of relatively small ground antenna system elements.
The number of NASA sponsored SmallSat missions is expected to continue to grow rapidly in the
next decade and beyond. In response to this trend, the NASA NEN is working to better understand
the characteristics and requirements of these missions and how it can evolve its service offerings
to provide effective and efficient support with reduced network loading and lower cost to
customers. The NEN and collaborating universities are investigating whether new service
offerings such as multiple spacecraft per aperture (MSPA), ground-based phased array antennas,
ground-based antenna arraying, and other emerging capabilities are cost effective and could be
technically supported to benefit these SmallSat missions.
According to the NEN’s investigation, some mission planners are moving towards formation flying
SmallSats for multiple reasons, including lower cost per launch, the inherent redundancy multiple
spacecraft provide, and for specific scientific objectives. The use of MSPA and/or ground-based
phased array antennas could instead be used to support multiple SmallSats simultaneously from
a single asset. Additional ground-based antenna arrays could increase the achievable data rate
by two times or more for longer distances from Earth.
The NEN is currently considering partnerships with industry and universities to conduct future
demonstrations of Ground Based Phase Array (GBPA) technology. Similar to MSPA technology,
GBPA could afford the NEN the ability to support multiple spacecraft simultaneously from a single
system. The goal of a future demonstration would be to develop a GBPA that is equivalent to at
least a 6-m antenna and capable of supporting five to six satellites simultaneously. Future
demonstrations can begin to investigate a comparison between a GBPA and the traditional
multiple aperture approach in the areas of performance, capability, cost, and operations.
326
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
As shown in figure 11.45, each antenna unit consists of log-periodic antennas, software defined
radios, and a down converter for processing of higher frequency signals. A four-antenna unit along
with a CPU/GPU box with
power and USB cables
makes up one element.
Mechanically, the
arrangement is compact,
enabling whole sky
coverage from a human-
portable unit. The design
follows the computing-at-
the-edge paradigm by
combining the signals from
all four antennas into a
single output stream that is
then fed as digital data to
the next 4-antenna
element. Each element
holds its own schedule and
can record satellite passes
even if the network is
down.
A two-radio system was Figure 11.45: ATLAS LINKS single element system components
tested at the NASA diagram. Credit: ATLAS Space Operations.
Goddard Compatibility Test
327
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Lab in early 2018. Signal strength and noise levels were varied to emulate a wide range of
satellite/ground ranges and geometries. A PRN BERT signal was generated and split using two
channel simulators that provide delay and attenuation to match the properties of a satellite signal
traveling to two ground antennas. The two outputs of the channel simulators, collectively termed
“reference” signals, were independently measured for BER and Eb/N0. The one output of the
LINKS array was also assessed, with comparison results shown in figure 11.46.
Figure 11.46: BER vs Eb/NO chart of ATLAS LINKS for S-band coded downlink. Credit:
ATLAS Space Operations.
Each of the two reference signals are plotted with X’s. Their shape adheres well to the theoretical
BPSK BER curve (not shown). The LINKS results, displayed as diamonds, shows a different curve
as opposed to the observed reference. The LINKS system combines power, as does a phased
array, and reshapes the noise distribution. The spatial filter process inherent to LINKS
redistributes the random noise power giving it an asymmetrical, non-Gaussian distribution.
Further, the LINKS time alignment algorithm works holistically to both align signals and cancel
noise. Redistribution removes energy between the I/Q constellation points, reducing false positive
bit assignments, improving BER. Evidence of the reshaping is seen where LINKS achieved a
perfect BER with 4 dB lower Eb/No (a nominal value of 1 x 10-8 is chosen for plotting purposes)
than any reference signal. LINKS is a GBESA, being unlike a phased array in that it brings not
only phase but also gain information to the combining process resulting in an improved BER vs
Eb/No curve.
ATLAS performed a demonstration at NASA WFF in April 2018 with a four-element (16 radio)
array, as shown in figure 11.47, where it successfully downlinked satellite passes from four
328
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 11.47: (left) ATLAS LINKS Demonstration at NASA Wallops Flight Facility and
(right) ATLAS T2 Array. Credit: ATLAS Space Operations.
representative satellites. ATLAS is currently working with the Department of Defense’s Defense
Innovation Unit (DIU) to further test and develop LINKS. The competitively awarded rapid
prototyping program occurred in the summer of 2020.
In addition to ATLAS, there are a number of other companies working to lead the way in phased
array technology development. ALCAN Systems is developing a fully electronically steerable flat
panel antenna. The main advantage of the technology is the use of liquid crystal within the
antenna. This enables the product to be lower cost and perform at lower power. The current focus
is to accommodate Ka-band for supporting satellite constellations in low-Earth orbit and MEO, but
other bands are possible. The antenna is a modular design such that it can be combined and
achieve higher gain/throughput based on customer needs. The single antenna can achieve
throughputs in excess of 400 Mbps. It has a size of 55 x 99 x 9 cm, weighs less than 20 kg,
consumes less than 100 W, and can operate across a wide scan angle of +/- 55°. ALCAN is
working with its partners to build a mass-production supply chain and assembly capability for the
antenna, targeting first customer deliveries by Q4 2021.
C-COM Satellite Systems is also developing a Ka-band flat panel antenna that is fully
electronically steered. Their solution uses 4 x 4 groups of modular antennas, which can be scaled
up to 16 x 16 or larger arrays of antennas. Their objective is to be able to replace a mechanically
steered parabolic antenna of 70 – 75 cm in diameter. This would require a flat panel to be
constructed of 4,000 elements for Tx and Rx. The
advantage of their technology is that it is modular and
can be scaled to any size depending on application
requirements. It is also conformal and can follow the
shape of the surface from which it’s intended to
operate. The antennas are also smaller, lighter, and
can easliy be used on the move. 4 x 4 sub arrays, as
shown in figure 11.48, have been tested successfully
and C-COM has recently received a patent for their
unique method of calibrating the arrays. Sucessful tests Figure 11.48: C-COM 4x4 Rx module
were performed over Telesat Anik F3 satellite in spring with 16 elements. Credit: C-COM.
2021 (63).
329
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Phasor, who was recently acquired by Hanwha Systems, is working towards the commerical
introduction of its “Release One” technology-based products that showcase flat panel electrically
steered arrays. Their systems are designed for the enterprise-grade SATCOM mobility markets
in the commerical Ku-band. Their electrically steered arrays will work with satellites in any network
configuration and support tradiational GEO and nontraditional low-Earth orbit and MEO satellite
constellations. Their technology is solid-state with no moving parts. The arrays use a unique and
patented ASIC-based beam-forming technology and software defined systems approach that
allows for very high performance, a very low profile, and a scalable, modular aperture to
accommodate aperture sizes of various dimensions. The design can match the performance of a
2.4-m dish or greater and deliver gain-to-noise-temperatures greater than 20 dB/K and effective
isotropic radiated power (EIRP) greater than 70 dBW.
ThinKom Solutions Inc has a patented phased
array technology called Variable Inclination
Continuous Transverse Stub (VICTS). VICTS
delivers all the benefits of conventional
mechanical and electrically steered phased
array antennas but without their well-known Figure 11.49: ThinKom Ku-band ThinAir
drawbacks and limitations. This technology Ku3030. Credit: ThinKom.
provides gap-free pole-to-pole coverage, high
beam agility for network flexibility, a low profile antenna radome, low prime power consumption,
and a high spectral efficiency. The VICTS antennas are fully proven with over 5,000 daily
commerical flights on 1,300+ commerical aircraft. They are also interoperable with low-Earth orbit,
MEO, and GEO satellite constellations. In the first quarter of 2020, ThinKom completed a series
of interoperability tests that demonstated compatibility of its VICTS technology on their Ku-band
Ku3030 system, shown in figure 11.49, with a low-Earth orbit satellite network. The switch time
between individual satellite beams was less than 100 milliseconds and handoffs between
satellites were completed in less than one second. Switches between low-Earth orbit and GEO
satellites were also achieved with similar results. The measured terminal performance showed
throughput rates in excess of 350 Mbps downlink and 125 MBps uplink at latencies of less than
50 ms. Tests have also been successfully conducted over the past 12 months with their Ku- and
Ka-band COTS phased array aero antennas across commerical and military bands and a wide
range of GEO and non-geostationary satellites. In all cases, the antennas have consistently
demonstrated high throughput operation and rapid reliable handoffs, including both intra- and
inter-satellite switching.
11.11 Summary
The ground segment serves as the gateway to getting valuable data collected by the satellite into
the hands of the user. It is a critical component of the satellite system that requires attention at
the earliest stages of mission planning. Understanding what ground solution best meets the needs
of the mission has a direct impact on the spacecraft design, concept of operations, launch
schedule, mission operations cost, and expected data volume for processing. Much effort also
goes into preparing for the interaction between the satellite and ground network. Developing
software and simulations, drafting operations manuals, conducting operations rehearsals, and
performing compatibility tests are all par for the course. Post launch, the ground station also plays
a key role in locating and commissioning the spacecraft.
330
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The primary ground system options to consider are either operating your own ground station and
managing its legal, maintenance, and labor factors, or purchasing time on an established turnkey
network that shares resources amongst users. The former may best serve a professional
institution that has a consistent influx of satellite missions to manage, or the university
environment because it is an excellent learning platform for students, while the latter may best
serve a customer solely interested in obtaining data. The two options can also be combined to
meet broader mission needs. With the sharp increase in small satellites and the possibility of
thousands more, the market for turnkey solutions is plentiful and competitive with companies like
Amazon getting into the mix. This environment is favorable to the community as it drives down
cost, provides an array of service options, and spurs innovation.
In looking forward to the future of ground systems, the clear objective is how to bring the data
down more efficiently. Great strides are being made with optical communications where it is
possible to have increases in data per pass that are orders of magnitude above what can be
achieved with RF communications. Optical communication technology is now being infused into
ground system architectures, and flight hardware is becoming miniaturized enough to fit within
small satellites. Phased array antenna technologies continue to advance with the goal of
becoming more affordable. The ability of these systems to quickly change beam directions and
acquire multiple targets will be critical for communicating with constellations of small satellites.
Even with the implementation of these advanced technologies, RF systems are expected to
continue being part of the architecture. Optical communications have precise pointing
requirements, sensitivity to weather, and other operational considerations that present risk to a
mission. RF systems are a suitable mitigation to support emergency situations and safe modes.
They can provide a path to transmitting critical commands even if the spacecraft is not capable of
orienting itself, as long as there is a low gain antenna-radio system onboard and a large ground
antenna with a high-power transmitter available.
While the tried and true RF ground system solution remains the workhorse for small satellites, the
innovative nature of the small satellite platform will soon challenge the community to adapt to
systems capable of handling hundreds of satellites and high data volumes. Efforts are ongoing to
keep pace, but only time will tell whether ground systems will advance or impede the small satellite
revolution.
For feedback solicitation, please e-mail: [email protected]. Please include a business
e-mail so someone may contact you further.
References
(1) Amazon. AWS Ground Station Features. AWS. [Online] 2020.
https://aws.amazon.com/ground-station/features/.
(2) Globalstar. GLOBALSTAR SATELLITE IoT. Globalstar. [Online] 2020.
https://www.globalstar.com/en-us/.
(3) Teles, J., Samii, M. V. and Doll, C. E.: "Overview of TDRSS." Advanced Space Res.
Vol. 16. pp. 1267-1276, s.l. 1995.
(4) NASA. Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS). Tracking and Data Reply. [Online]
09 17, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/services/networks/tdrs_main.
(5) Analytical Space. UNLOCK THE POWER OF DATA FROM SPACE. Analytical Space.
[Online] 2020. https://www.analyticalspace.com/.
331
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
332
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(26) Near Earth Network (NEN) CubeSat Communications. NASA Technical Reports
Server. [Online] January 1, 2017, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170000974.
(27) Shannon Terry, A.I. Solutions, Inc. What are Space Ground Systems. [Online]
https://ai-solutions.com/about-us/news-multimedia/what-are-space-ground-systems/.
(28) Streamlining Ground Station Network Compatibility Test for Small Satellites.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20180003437.pdf
(29) Important Questions and Answers: Satellite Access. Satellite Communication, Chapter:
Satellite Communication - Satellite Access. [Online]
http://www.brainkart.com/article/Important-Questions-and-Answers--Satellite-Access_11944/
[Accessed: 2020]
(30) “Real-time Earth: A Hybrid Ground & Space Communications Network for SmallSats”.
Viasat. [Online] 2018.
https://www.viasat.com/sites/default/files/media/documents/viasat_real-
time_earth_brochure.pdf [Accessed: 2020]
(31) antenna-theory.com. Yagi-Uda Antenna. [Online] 2018. http://www.antenna-
theory.com/antennas/travelling/yagi.php [Accessed: 2020]
(32) “The Parabolic Reflector Antenna (Satellite Dish)” (2011).
http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/reflectors/dish.php [Accessed: 2020]
(33) Bill Sepmeier. “Understanding and Performing Satellite Link Budgets”. NSN Network
Services.
http://tiij.org/issues/issues/spring97/communications/nsn/linkbudget.html
(34) Bernardo Schneiderman. Industry Trends - News Analysis - Market Intelligence and
Opportunities Executive Roundtable: Flat Panel Antennas. September 3, 2019.
http://satellitemarkets.com/people/executive-roundtable-flat-panel-antennas [Accessed 2020]
(35) 15 June 2020 by Alcan Systems. ALCAN announces electronic beam steering ground
antenna for LEO and MEO satellite service use at a low price of EUR 1,500.
Spacewatch.global: Space: Entrepreneurship.
https://spacewatch.global/2020/06/alcan-announces-electronic-beam-steering-ground-antenna-
for-leo-and-meo-satellite-service-use-at-a-low-price-of-eur-1500/ [Accessed: 2020]
(36) ThinKom PR, April 30, 2020 In Press Releases, ThinAir ThinKom Completes
Successful Antenna Interoperability Demonstrations on Ku-Band LEO Satellite
Constellation
https://www.thinkom.com/ku-band-leo-interoperability/ [Accessed: 2020]
(37) Craig Bamford January 8, 2020. C-COM Finding its Place in Phased Array Satellite
Communications Market.
333
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
https://spaceq.ca/c-com-finding-its-place-in-phased-array-satellite-communications-market/
[Accessed: 2020]
(38) Florian Moll, Amita Shrestha, Christian Fuchs. Ground stations for aeronautical and
space laser communications at German Aerospace Center. Publisher: Proc. SPIE
9647, Advanced Free-Space Optical Communication Techniques and Applications.
https://core.ac.uk/reader/31021696
(39) ESA Optical Ground Station. Lasted updated: 13 November 2019. Accessed: 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESA_Optical_Ground_Station
(40) NASA. Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration: NASA’s First Space Laser
Communication System Demonstration Fact Sheet
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/llcdfactsheet.final_.web_.pdf
(41) Space Optical Communications Using Laser Beams. NASA Fact Sheet.
https://technology.nasa.gov/patent/TOP2-248
(42) NASA. July 15, 2018. “LLCD: 2013-2014”. [Accessed: 2020]
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/opticalcommunications/llcd/
(43) Fuchs, Christian & Giggenbach, Dirk: "Optical Free-Space Communication on Earth
and in Space Regarding Quantum Cryptography Aspects." 10.1007/978-3-642-11731-
2_11. 2009.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225003843_Optical_Free-
Space_Communication_on_Earth_and_in_Space_Regarding_Quantum_Cryptography
_Aspects?enrichId=rgreq-4e72ce313bd72420b09642379fcbc0f9-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNTAwMzg0MztBUzoxMDQ4MTA5OTcwOTI
zNTNAMTQwMjAwMDI5NzQ1OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
(44) Kathleen Michelle Riesing, Portable Optical Ground Stations for Satellite
Communication. Doctor of Philosophy in Aeronautics and Astronautics,
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. June 2018.
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/119269/1061557727-
MIT.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(45) Scott Schaire, Serhat Altunc, Yen Wong, Obadiah Kegege, Marta Shelton, George
Bussey, Marcus Murbach, Howard Garon, Yudhajeet Dasgupta, Steve Gaines,
Edward McCarty, Sean McDaniel, Wesley Faler, Peter Celeste. Trish Perrotto, Booz
Allen Hamilton, Matt Batchelor: "Investigation into New Ground Based
Communications Service Offerings in Response to SmallSat Trends." 32nd Annual
AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites. 2018.
(46) Khan, Khudeja: "Data Communication With A Nano-satellite Using Satellite Personal
Communication Networks (s-pcns)." Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019.
3588. 2008.
334
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(47) Samuel Sanders Visner: "Cyber Best Practices for Small Satellites." International
Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington D.C., United States, 21-25 October 2019.
(48) Kul Bhasin, Pete Vrotsos, Eli Naffah: "Commercial Communication Services for Nasa
Space Missions: Capability Assessment, Opportunities and Challenges."
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ka-Band-Conference_-Commercial-
Communication-Services-for-NASA-Space-Missions.pdf
(49) GAUSS Srl. “Ground Station & Software.” https://www.gaussteam.com/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2018/01/Flyer_GroundStation_Software_1.pdf
(50) INCOSE - International Council on Systems Engineering: “Systems Security
Engineering: Mission and Objectives.” [Online] [Cited July 12, 2021].
https://www.incose.org/incose-member-resources/working-groups/analytic/systems-
security-engineering
(51) National Security and Defense: “Memorandum on Space Policy Directive-5—
Cybersecurity Principles for Space Systems” [Online] September 4, 2020. [Cited July 12,
2021]. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-space-
policy-directive-5-cybersecurity-principles-space-systems/
(52) NASA: “SPACE SYSTEM PROTECTION STANDARD” NASA-STD-1006 w/Change 1.
[Online] October 29, 2019. [Cited July 12, 2021].
https://standards.nasa.gov/standard/nasa/nasa-std-1006-wchange-1
(53) R. Ross (NIST), V. Pillitteri (NIST), R. Graubart (MITRE), D. Bodeau (MITRE), R.
McQuaid (MITRE): “Developing Cyber Resilient Systems: A Systems Security
Engineering Approach.” SP 800-160 Vol. 2. November 2019.
(54) Ron Ross (NIST), Michael McEvilley (MITRE), Janet Oren (Legg Mason): “Systems
Security Engineering: Considerations for a Multidisciplinary Approach in the Engineering
of Trustworthy Secure Systems. “ NIST SP 800-160 Vol. 1, November 2016 (Updated
March 21, 2018). [Cited July 12, 2021]. https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-
160/vol-1/final
(55) National Institute of Standards and Technology : “Cybersecurity Framework” [Online]
Cited July 12, 2021]. https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework
(56) The Aerospace Corporation: “Defending Spacecraft in the Cyber Domain.” [Online]
[Cited July 30, 2021]. https://aerospace.org/paper/defending-spacecraft-cyber-domain
(57) S. Visner and S. C. Kordella, The MITRE Corporation: “Cyber Best Practices for Small
Satellites.” (November 2020). https://www.mitre.org/publications/technical-papers/cyber-
best-practices-for-small-satellites
(58) Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems: “Report Concerning Space Data
System Standards.” CCSDS 350.7-G-2, Green Book, Issue 2. April 2019.
(59) Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems: “Report on the Application of Security
to CCSDS Protocols.” CCSDS 350.0-G-3, Green Book, Issue 3. March 2019.
335
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
336
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Contents
Glossary .......................................................................................................................... ii
12.0 Identification and Tracking Systems .................................................................. 337
12.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 337
12.2 Identification and Tracking Ground Systems .................................................. 337
12.3 Tracking Aids ................................................................................................. 339
12.4 Devices that Communicate Position and ID via Radio ................................... 340
12.5 Devices that use Coded Light Signals ............................................................ 341
12.5.1 Van Atta Arrays and RF Interrogation Receivers ..................................... 342
12.5.2 Laser-Interrogated Corner Cube Reflectors............................................. 343
12.5.3 Passive Increase in Albedo ..................................................................... 344
12.6 Future Efforts ................................................................................................. 344
12.7 Summary ........................................................................................................ 344
References .................................................................................................................. 344
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Glossary
ii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
337
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Defense as well as for other agencies and space entities. Since July 2016, that
role is provided by the 18th Space Control Squadron (18 SPCS) which assumed all functions
including detection, tracking and identification (D/T/I) of artificial objects in Earth orbit and
maintaining a space catalog which is publicly available on space-track.org. 18 SPCS is co-located
with the Combined Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern
California. As part of their activities, they provide launch support and conjunction assessment
(which identifies close approaches between launch and other catalogued in-orbit objects),
collision avoidance and reentry assessment. This is achieved via the US Space Surveillance
Network (SSN) that is formed by several sensors around the world (29). 18 SPCS is capable of
tracking more than 23,000 objects in orbit and of providing data and analytics of pieces as little
as 10 cm. They issue TLEs that are updated on a regular basis and can be used to compute
predicted orbit ephemeris and conjunction analyses.
The US Air Force next generation SSA system, known as the Space Fence, provides higher
resolution for tracked objects. It was declared operational in March 2020 and can track objects
below the previous 10 cm limit. It is located in Kwajalein Island, in the Republic of the Marshall
Islands and consists of a S-band radar system to track objects primarily in low-Earth orbit,
although it can track objects in medium Earth orbit (MEO) and geostationary equatorial orbit
(GEO) as well. Data obtained with the Space Fence will feed the US SSN. The 20th Space Control
Squadron based in Huntsville (Alabama) manages the Space Fence and provides data to the 18
SPCS to complete the space catalogue (30). Another major antenna in the SSN is the Haystack
Ultrawideband Satellite Imaging Radar (HUSIR), which is the highest-resolution, long-range
sensor in the world. HUSIR simultaneously generates X- and W-band images that can provide
valuable information about the size, shape an orientation of Earth orbiting objects (31).
The NASA Goddard Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) team acts as an important
intermediary between CSpOC and the satellite missions. CARA usually gathers daily orbit
ephemeris and covariance files from the teams and provides the data to CSpOC for screening
and close approach assessment. CARA provides capabilities to NASA missions beyond the
CSpOC level of support, including operations concept development, probability of collision
computation, high interest event notification, or conjunction geometry analysis among other
functions. Since 2012, the French Space Agency (CNES) use the equivalent CAESAR team for
their missions (32) (33).
Besides government assets, several commercial entities are providing tracking information to
stakeholders. Those include Analytical Graphics, Inc. (AGI) which provides data from a network
of commercial sensors through its Commercial Space Operations Center. ExoAnalytic has a
global telescope network (EGTN) consisting of over 25 observatories and 275 telescopes tracking
orbiting objects in GEO, highly elliptical orbit (HEO), and MEO. The EGTN can collect angles and
brightness measurements. They also maintain a proprietary catalog of satellites and space debris
that are regularly tracked and cataloged. This includes a historical archive of over 100 million
object measurements (26).
LeoLabs is another important commercial entity providing detailed information for spacecraft
tracking. They use a group of distributed Earth-based, phased-array radars to make a
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) satellite tracking service targeted to the specific requirements of
low-Earth orbit SmallSat operators. They currently have two radar stations in the United States
and radar sites in New Zealand, Costa Rica, and the Azores. The planned capability for 2020 –
2021 includes six radars strategically located around the world, which would have the capability
to robustly track objects down to 2 cm in size. The predicted performance also includes a revisit
time of over 10 observations per day for specific objects, and a low-Earth orbit catalog of over
250,000 pieces. Through their LeoTrack platform, they can use their radar data to perform
precision tracking and curate orbit information products for satellites as small as 1U. Their system
338
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
includes an open-source graphical user interface (GUI) capable of displaying all the catalog in
real time, as well as fundamental orbit information about each individual object. They recently
announced a commercial Launch and Early Orbit service, with SpaceX as their initial customer
(37).
12.3 Tracking Aids
Tracking aids come in several categories, each with benefits and drawbacks (11). Table 12-1
discusses the broad categories available, with representative examples discussed below. Size,
weight, and cost vary for each of the examples, but all can be considered compatible with a
CubeSat mission; see the references for detailed information on size, weight, and power (SWaP)
and cost.
339
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 12.1: (left) Thin Patch or Stamp Black Box for side mounting. (Middle) PC104 Black Box
for internal stack mounting. (Right) Standard Black Box for larger satellites. TRL 9: flown on
spaceflight launch. Solar array and antennas not shown. Credit: NearSpace Launch, Inc.
several form factors for mounting internally or externally to a small satellite or CubeSat. The patch
antenna shown in the first image is approximately 10 cm by 8 cm and can weigh as little as 22
grams; larger systems such as the one shown in the third image of figure 12.1 have flown and are
considered TRL 9. These systems combine a low-power Global Positioning System (GPS)
receiver with a low-power radio capable of communicating with a low-Earth orbit communication
provider (in the case of Black Box, the Global Star network) and operate independently from the
spacecraft’s regular command and telemetry links. Externally mounted versions often include
solar cells for independent power generation. A Black Box system is currently flying on Spaceflight
Sherpa-FX orbital transfer vehicle, launched on January 24, 2021, and is returning GPS fixes to
the developer. The GPS fixes are being analyzed and a report is expected to be given at the
October 2021 International Astronautical Congress.
A similar concept under development is The Aerospace Corporation’s ‘Blinker’ (13), in which a
GPS receiver and low-power radio are externally mounted to a CubeSat. GPS positions (“tags”)
are recorded, stored, and then radioed when the satellite is over an Aerospace Corporation
ground station (which is separate and independent from the CubeSat’s mission ground station).
Research and development are being conducted to automatically convert the GPS tags into
ephemeris information that can be directly ingested by space situational awareness centers (in
this case the 18th Space Control Squadron via Space-Track.org).
The advantages to such a system are that it provides the most complete data on a satellite’s
position and requires no specialized ground equipment (other than the equipment used by the
communications provider). Some such systems are independently powered and can provide data
even if the host satellite never powers up, though others are dependent on spacecraft power to
function. These systems are the most complex of the tracking aids described, however, and
despite their relatively small size, are still the most SWaP-intensive of the options examined.
Systems that rely on power from the host vehicle are also useless if the host vehicle suffers a
power anomaly. Having an additional onboard radio that communicates with other space assets
necessitates additional Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (or National
340
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 12.2: (left) ELROI PC104 beacon unit that was installed on NMTSat.d (right) Two
ELROI beacon units delivered for a launch in 2021. Credit: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
CubeSats, and ELROI was able to be activated). The next ELROI test flight is co-manifested with
the September 2021 LandSat launch, with a follow-on test flight for early-mid 2022.
The emitters on such devices can be regular
light emitting diodes (LEDs) or diffused diode
lasers, but require specialized ground
equipment – either a large-aperture telescope or
a photon-counting camera – and the ability to
track the object as it passes overhead. Figure
12.3 shows how the system works for ELROI. A
photon-counting camera attached to a telescope
tracks the signal from a diode laser and decodes
the ID of the host satellite from the on/off pattern
of the flashes. Figure 12.3: ELROI Optical Detection System.
Another similar system (34), proposes to use Credit: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
red, blue, and green LED lights on specific faces of the satellite, which blink in a unique pattern,
and standard astronomical optical telescopes to track and identify the LED flash pattern (14).
LEDSAT, a CubeSat to test this concept on-orbit, launched in August 2021 (35). A test of an
exterior-mounted blue LED on a CubeSat was attempted in March 2021 though was
indeterminate due to a lengthy period of bad weather at the single designated telescope site.
341
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
LED-based identification systems have the advantage of being relatively simple and capable of
identifying satellites uniquely. However, all systems flown to date have required power from the
host satellite, leading to issues with detection (19) if the host satellite does not power up. Current
implementations are also relatively large, though future systems are expected to be much smaller
and may include independent power. LED-based systems require relatively clear night-time skies
for identification, and dedicated ground equipment (telescope and sensor). The light sources are
too faint to allow blind searching of the sky for the satellite; orbital information from a SSA provider
is also required to find and track the CubeSat, although the process of tracking the satellite via an
optical telescope allows the orbital ephemeris to be updated. Issues with attitude control on the
host satellite can also complicate the identification process. In addition, using LEDs or other light
sources on a satellite while in Earth shadow should be done carefully to minimize interference
with astronomical observations. The SatCon1 report (36) on page 6 lists several
recommendations to be followed: 1) assure the light source is fainter than apparent magnitude of
V ~7 (and the fainter the better), and 2) advance notice of any illumination times, including
accurate orbital elements.
12.5.1 Van Atta Arrays and RF Interrogation Receivers
Another method for increasing the ability to track and
possible identification of small satellites involves devices that
respond when interrogated by a radio frequency (RF) signal
of appropriate wavelength. One such system, the CubeSat
Identification Tag (CUBIT) shown in figure 12.4, is similar to
the RFID devices used in proximity badges (16). Built by SRI
International and partnered with NASA Ames, CUBIT
responds with a short burst of information when interrogated
by a radio signal of the correct frequency. CUBIT is relatively
small and designed to be independent of host vehicle power.
The implementations that have flown contain a small battery
suitable for 30 days of in-orbit life, which covers the most
critical early orbit identification period. The device is
separated into an internally mounted electronics unit
attached to an exterior antenna to minimize the exterior
footprint of the unit. Two units have flown and been
successfully demonstrated in space on board TechEdSat-6
in 2017 and TechEdSat-7 in 2020. A relatively large ground
architecture (in CUBIT’s case, a 30 m antenna and an array Figure 12.4: CUBIT. Credit: SRI
of antennas) are required to interrogate the system and International.
successfully acquire the low-power response. CUBIT is patent-pending, and SRI has reached
commercialization agreements with potential vendors. Future research will continue with a
recently awarded AFWERX Phase 1 study.
Another example of an RF-interrogated device is a Van Atta array, a passive device which re-
radiates RF energy back toward the source of that energy (20). One such device, the Nanosatellite
Tracking Experiment (NTE) consists of a 64-element Van Atta array of tiny, paired antennas tuned
to a Ku-band RF frequency, as shown in figure 12.5 (21). When interrogated at the proper
frequency range, the incident RF field received by each antenna is fed to a corresponding antenna
via a passive transmission line, where it is re-radiated. This significantly increases the radar cross-
342
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
343
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
References
(1) Spaceflight (2021). [Online] [Accessed March 3, 2020]. https://spaceflight.com
(2) Nanoracks (2019). “Nanoracks Books CubeSat Rideshare and Habitat Building
Demonstration in Single SpaceX Falcon 9 Launch”. [Online] [Accessed March 3,
2020https://nanoracks.com/rideshare-habitat-building-demonstration/
(3) Kirtland Airforce Base (2007). “Space Test Program”. [Online] [Accessed April 8,
2020].https://www.kirtland.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/826059/space-
test-program/,
(4) Skinner, M.A.: "CubeSat Confusion: how to avoid ‘dead on arrival’." IAC-20-A6.7.9,
International Astronomical Congress 71st meeting, 12-14 October 2020, The CyberSpace
edition.
344
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(5) Klotz, Irene: "SpaceX Rideshare Mission Spawns 12 Orphan CubeSats." Aerospace Daily
and Defense Report, 8/12/2019.
(6) Grush, Loren: "Why the Air Force Still Cannot Identify more than a Dozen Satellites from
One December Launch: The case of the unknown satellites." The Verge,
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/2/18277344/space-situational-awareness-air-force-
tracking-sso-a-spaceflight-CubeSats
(7) Bloch, J. et al.: "The ALEXIS Mission Recovery." 17th annual American Astronomical
Society (AAS) guidance and control conference, Keystone, CO (United States),
<https://www.osti.gov/biblio/142518>, 1994.
(8) Braun, B. & S. Herrin: "The More, the Messier: ORS-3 lessons for multi-payload mission
deployments." 1-10. 10.1109/AERO.2016.7500582. 2016.
(9) Venturini, C.C.: "Improving Mission Success of CubeSats." Aerospace Report number
TOR-2017-01689, June 12, 2017,
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/improving_mission_success_of_Cub
eSats_-_tor-2017-01689.pdf, accessed May 15, 2019.
(10) Voss, H.D., et al.: "Globalstar Communica0on Link for CubeSats: TSAT, GEARRS1, and
GEARRS2." 29th AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan UT, August 9, 2015.
(11) Skinner, M.A.: "Making Small Satellites Visible: Nanosat tracking and identification
techniques and technologies." IAC-19-A6.7.5, International Astronomical Congress 70th
meeting, October 21-25, 2019, Washington DC, United States.
(12) Voss, H.D., Dailey, J.F., Orvis, M.B.: “'Black Box' Beacon for Mission Success, Insurance,
and Debris Mitigation." SSC18-PII-11, 32nd Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small
Satellites, Logan UT. 2018.
(13) Abraham, A.J.: “GPS Transponders for Space Traffic Management.” Center for Space
Policy & Strategy, Aerospace Corporation, April 2018.
(14) Cutler, J., Seitzer, P., Lee, C.H., et al.: "Improved Orbit Determination of LEO CubeSats:
Project LEDsat." AMOS Technologies Conference, 19 – 22 September 2017, Maui,
Hawai`i.
(15) Palmer, D.M., Holmes, R.M.: "ELROI: A License Plate for Your Satellite." Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 55, No. 4. pp. 1014-1023. 2018.
(16) Phan, Samson: “'Spaceflight Industries’ SSO-A Flight Launches with SRI International’s
CUBIT Technology Onboard, Developed to Track and Identify Low Earth Orbit Satellites.”
https://www.sri.com/blog/spaceflight-industries-sso-flight-launches-sri-internationals-
cubit-technology-onboard, retrieved 10/30/2019.
(17) Kirchner, G., Grunwaldt, L., Neubert, R., Koidl, F., Barschke, M., Yoon, Z., Fiedler, H.,
Hollenstein, C.: "Laser Ranging to Nano- Satellites in LEO Orbits: Plans, Issues,
Simulations." 18th International Workshop on Laser Ranging, Fujiyoshida, Japan. 2013.
(18) Voss, H.D. et. al.: “'Black Box' RF Sat-Link for Space Debris, Mission Success and Risk
Mitigation." First International Orbital Debris Conference, Sugar Land, TX. 2019.
(19) Palmer, D.M., et. al.: “Progress Towards the ELROITM Satellite License Plate.” SSC20-VI-
05, 34th Annual Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, UT. 2020.
(20) Bird, Dudley: “Design and Manufacture of a Low-Profile Radar Retro-Reflector.” Paper
presented at the RTO SCI Symposium on “Sensors and Sensor Denial by Camouflage,
Concealment and Deception”, held in Brussels, Belgium, April 19-20, 2004, and published
in RTO-MP-SCI-145.
(21) Lane, D. et. al.: “Nanosatellite Tracking using Passive Retro-Reflectors.” SSC20-WKIV-
04, 34th Annual Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, UT. 2020.
(22) Lane, ibid.
(23) ILRS, https://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/technology/laserRanging/index.html, accessed April 14,
2020.
345
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(24) Hall, D.: "Optical CubeSat Discrimination." AMOS Technical Conference, September
2008.
(25) Chong, Chee-Yee, and Shozo Mori: "Metrics for feature-aided track association." 2006 9th
International Conference on Information Fusion. IEEE. 2006.
(26) ExoAnalytics Solutions. Space Domain Awareness (SDA). ExoAnalytic. [Online] 2020.
[Cited: 03 18, 2020.] https://exoanalytic.com/space-domain-awareness
(27) US Federal Communications Commission, "Orbital Debris in the New Space Age, Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." FCC-20-54, paragraph 62, April
24, 2020.
(28) Sorensen, J.: "SpaceFlight Inc. Unveils Next-gen Orbital Transfer Vehicle to Fly Aboard
Next SpaceX Rideshare Mission." July 15, 2020. https://spaceflight.com/spaceflight-inc-
unveils-next-gen-orbital-transfer-vehicle-to-fly-aboard-next-spacex-rideshare-mission/
(29) Launch Conjunction Assessment Handbook. LAUNCHCONJUNCTION ASSESSMENT
HANDBOOKVERSION 1.0, DECEMBER 2018. 18 SPCS Process for Launch Conjunction
Assessment, JFSCC, 18th Space Control Squadron Combined Space Operations Center
(CSpOC)Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, www.s p a c e-track.org
(30) Erwin, S. (2020). “Space Fence surveillance radar site declared operational”. [Online]
[Accessed September 29, 2020] https://spacenews.com/space-fence-surveillance-radar-
site-declared-operational/
(31) https://www.ll.mit.edu/r-d/projects/haystack-ultrawideband-satellite-imaging-radar
[Accessed]
(32) David Murakami, Sreeja Nag, Miles Lifson, Parimal Kopardekar: ‘Space Traffic
Management with a NASA UAS Traffic Management (UTM) Inspired Architecture.” AAIAA
SciTech Forum, 7-11 January 2019, San Diego, California.
(33) https://satellitesafety.gsfc.nasa.gov/CARA.html [Accessed 29th September]
(34) Paolo Marzioli , Andrea Gianfermo , Lorenzo Frezza , Diego Amadio , Niccolo` Picci ,
Federico Curiano` a, Maria Giulia Pancalli a, Eleonora Vestito a, Justin Schachter b,
Matt Szczerba b, Daniel Gu b, Anny Lin b, James Cutler b, Simone Pirrotta c, Fabio Santoni
d, Patrick Seitzer e, Fabrizio Piergentili: “Usage of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) for
346
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Contents
Glossary .......................................................................................................................... ii
13.0 Deorbit Systems ................................................................................................ 347
13.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 347
13.2 State-of-the-Art – Passive Systems ............................................................... 349
13.2.1 Main High TRL Drag Devices .................................................................. 349
13.2.2 Deployable Booms .................................................................................. 353
13.2.3 Electromagnetic Tethers .......................................................................... 354
13.3 State-of-the-Art – Active Systems .................................................................. 355
13.3.1 TechEdSat Series Exo-Brake .................................................................. 355
13.3.2 RemoveDebris Consortium Partners ....................................................... 356
13.3.3 Astroscale ................................................................................................ 356
13.3.4 ClearSpace .............................................................................................. 357
13.3.5 Momentus ................................................................................................ 357
13.3.6 D-orbit ...................................................................................................... 357
13.3.7 Altius Space Machines ............................................................................ 358
13.5 Summary ........................................................................................................ 358
References .................................................................................................................. 359
i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chapter Glossary
ii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
347
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
700
6U CubeSat - 0.06 m2
70 kg Smallsat - 0.5 m2
650
600
550
Initial circular altitude (km)
500
450
400
350
300
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (EpYear)
Figure 13.2: Initial orbit altitudes yield different lifetimes depending on the
ballistic coefficient of the spacecraft. Three representative area-to-mass
ratios are shown. Note that the propagation stops at 25 years, but the initial
altitudes yield even longer times. Credit: NASA.
the 25-year requirement. Several missions have demonstrated the capability of some of these
devices, and an increasing number of small spacecraft have been carrying them.
Traditionally passive systems were the main option for deorbiting due to their increased simplicity.
However, recently active methods are gaining traction. On one hand, active deorbiting requires
attitude control and, in some case, also surplus propellant post-mission, such as a steered drag
sail that relies on a functioning attitude control system, or on actuators for pointing the sail. On
the other hand, some of the new active deorbiting solutions include a separate spacecraft that
can attach to the defunct satellite to bring it down to lower orbits where the satellites can complete
the deorbit using their own drag decay. Some recent small spacecraft like the European
RemoveDebris mission have even implemented a variety of active and passive deorbit systems
within the same mission. This technology demonstration mission included both active and passive
systems such as a net experiment, a harpoon, and a more traditional drag sail. The mission tested
these systems to prove feasibility of such technologies in space by deploying two separate 2U
CubeSats from the main spacecraft to simulate space debris. After the mission was completed,
the passive system was deployed and is currently deorbiting the main satellite to burn in the
atmosphere.
Propulsive devices have also been used for deorbiting techniques, however this approach is still
considered risky due to potential failure or malfunction of either the spacecraft (up until its final
stage of decommission) or the propulsive capability itself. Even if the spacecraft carries enough
348
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
excess propellant for its own active decay approach, it also needs adequate attitude control
capability after the mission. This method requires continuous operation until the reentry takes
place, making it inconvenient and costly for a small spacecraft mission (4). Overall, active
deorbiting methods are still challenging for small spacecraft, as this demand increases design
complexity and uses valuable mass and volume. This report studies the state-of-the-art for both
systems, excluding spacecraft that carry their own propulsive means. For those systems, please
refer to the Propulsion chapter of this report.
The information described below is not intended to be exhaustive but provides an overview of
current state-of-the-art technologies and their development status for a particular small spacecraft
subsystem. It should be noted that TRL designations may vary with changes specific to payload,
mission requirements, reliability considerations, and/or the environment in which performance
was demonstrated. Readers are highly encouraged to reach out to companies for further
information regarding the performance and TRL of described technology. There is no intention of
mentioning certain companies and omitting others based on their technologies or relationship with
NASA.
13.2 State-of-the-Art – Passive Systems
Passive deorbit methods require no further active control after deployment. Recent developments
have increased the number of available options with flight heritage. This chapter will emphasize
recent developments rather than past missions. In addition, the chapter aims to discuss devices
used exclusively for deorbit purposes, excluding technologies such as solar sails that are used
for other propulsive applications.
13.2.1 Main High TRL Drag Devices
Drag devices represent the most common deorbit device for satellites orbiting in low-Earth orbit.
They present an advantage due to simplicity and by not occupying large volumes while stowed.
For certain area-to-mass ratios in altitudes equal or lower than 800 km, drag devices can be
deployed to increase the drag area for faster deorbiting in compliance with the 25-year
requirement. Recently, this technology has been implemented in several small spacecraft
missions, and several companies and institutions are developing prototypes that are increasingly
more mature, providing solutions to the space debris problem for missions that do not have
resources for an active system. Table 13-1 displays current state-of-the-art technology for passive
deorbit systems. These are the most developed technologies for deorbiting systems as of 2021.
349
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
350
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Several small spacecraft missions have built and launched passive deorbit technologies in the
past using a drag sail or boom. The NanoSail-D2 mission, which was deployed in 2011 from the
minisatellite FASTSat-HSV into a 650 km altitude and 72° inclined orbit, demonstrated the deorbit
capability of a low mass, high surface area sail. The 3U spacecraft, developed at NASA Marshall
Space Flight Center (MSFC), reentered Earth’s atmosphere in September 2011.
CanX-7, still in orbit at an initial 800 km Sun-
synchronous orbit (SSO), deployed a drag sail
in May 2017. The sail was developed and
tested at University of Toronto Institute for
Aerospace Studies Space Flight Laboratory
(UTIAS-SFL) figure 14.3).
The CanX-7 deorbit technology consists of a
thin film sail that is divided in four individual
modules that each provide 1 m2 of drag area.
These sail sections are deployed mechanically
with spring booms, which help to preserve the
geometry. Each module also has electronics
for individual telemetry and command. This Figure 13.3: CanX-7 deployed drag sail during
feature allows different sections to be testing. Credit: Cotten et al. (2017).
controlled separately to mitigate risk of a single
failure, and to allow custom adaptability to various spacecraft geometries and ballistic coefficient
requirements for other missions. For the 2017 deployment, all four segments functioned
successfully. The deorbit performance was measured after a month. The deorbit profile showed
that the effects of the sail segments accounted for an altitude decay rate at the time of
measurement of 20 km s-1 per year, which results in a significant increase from the previous 0.5
km s-1 per year. These rates are expected to increase as the atmospheric density increases
exponentially with lower altitudes (11).
The Technology Educational Satellite, TechEdSat-n, program at NASA Ames Research Center
(ARC) has contributed significantly to the development of drag devices. It consists of a series of
nanosatellite technology demonstrations in collaboration with several universities including San
Jose State University and the University of Idaho. One of the main goals of the program is to test
and improve deorbiting techniques, and develop a unique targeting capability with their own drag
device design known as the Exo-Brake. The Exo-Brake deorbit system is an atmospheric braking
system that distinguishes itself from other drag devices since it is more akin to a parachute instead
of a solar sail due to its primary tension-based elements. This becomes fundamental for accurate
deorbit targeting since the device must retain its shape without collapsing during those critical
reentry moments occurring at the atmosphere interface altitude of 100 km, known as the Von
Karman line (12).
The Exo-Brake was first implemented as a passive deorbit device on the TechEdSat missions
TES 3, TES 4, and TES 5. Recent CubeSats have also used it for controlled mission deorbiting.
The exo-brake development is funded by the Entry Systems Modeling project within the NASA
Space Technology Mission Directorate’s (STMD) Game Changing Development (GCD) program.
Two of the four TechEdSat spacecraft using a passive Exo-Brake are TechEdSat-5 and
TechEdSat-7, with TechEdSat-12 and TechEdSat-13 also planned to use variations of the
TechEdSat-7 design. TechEdSat-5 was deployed from the ISS in 2017 and demonstrated this
deorbiting capability after 144 days in orbit with the Exo-Brake deploying at 400 km. TechEdSat-
351
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
7 is a 2U CubeSat that launched on January 17, 2021, onboard Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne rocket
and placed into orbit at 500 km (13).
The Surrey Space Centre based in the United
Kingdom has developed the DragSail technology,
which was implemented in a family of missions. The
Inflatesail 3U CubeSat first demonstrated this
technology. The European Commission QB50
program and the DEPLOYTECH partnership that
included DLR and NASA Marshall Space Flight
Center, among others, funded it. This mission was
launched in 2017 and included a mast/drag-sail
technology that successfully deorbited the satellite in
just 72 days. This achievement was the first time a Figure 13.4: TechEdSat-10 deployment
spacecraft has deorbited using European inflatable from the ISS in July 2020. Credit: NASA.
and drag-sail methods (8).
The RemoveDebris mission was developed under the European Commission FP7 program by a
consortium of several institutions such as Airbus and the Surrey Space Centre. The mission
consisted of a small spacecraft of 100 kg that was deployed from the ISS in 2018. One of the
experiments it carried was a passive drag augmentation device consisting of a sail. The sail was
deployed in March 2019, however, trajectory data showed it only partially deployed since no
significant altitude change was measured. The lessons learned from this incident were
implemented in another version for the Space Flight Industries’ SSO-A mission that incorporated
two of these sails. In that case, the assembly did not include an inflatable boom (10).
As part of the ESA CleanSat program, Cranfield
Aerospace Solutions in the United Kingdom has also
developed a variety of drag augmentation systems.
The first demonstrated technology was the Icarus-1,
which flew in the TechDemoSat-1 mission from SSTL,
launched in 2014 (see figure 13.5). Another version
also flew in the Carbonite-1 spacecraft, launched in
2015. The concept is similar to other drag devices in Figure 13.5: Icarus-3 drag sail
which the drag increases by deploying a membrane implemented in the Carbonite-1 mission.
sustained by rigid booms. The Icarus technology Credit: Cranfield Aerospace Solutions.
consists of a thin aluminum structure located around
the satellite side panel that contains four stowed
Kapton trapezoidal sails and booms. The mass of the
system is 3.5 kg for about 5 m2 of sail area for the
Icarus-1, and 2.3 kg for 2 m2 for the Icarus-3. Both sails
deployed successfully and are expected to deorbit both
spacecraft in less than 10 years. The second
technology developed by Cranfield Aerospace
Solutions is a De-orbit mechanism (DOM) device which
consists of a version of the drag sail presented in a
smaller cuboid outline. The mechanical system varies
from Icarus since the sails are triangular and the booms
work as tape springs themselves. This system flew in
the European Student Earth Orbiter on a 45 kg satellite Figure 13.6: DragNet module. Credit:
that carried several student payloads. Among them, the MMA Design LLC.
352
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Cranfield University DOM module will deorbit the spacecraft after decommissioning. The sail has
an area of 0.5 m2 with a mass of 0.5 kg (6).
MMA Design LLC, a company from Colorado, has patented the dragnet deorbit system. The 2.8
kg module (figure 13.6) deorbited the ORS-3 Minotaur Upper Stage in 2.1 years after launch in
November 2013. DragNet features four stowed thin membranes that deploy through a single
heater-powered actuator. The sail has an area of 14 m2 that can effectively deorbit a 180 kg
spacecraft at an altitude of 850 km in less than 10 years (5).
Redwire Space holds an exclusive license for the Flexible Unfurlable and Refurlable Lightweight
(FURL) solar sail developed and tested by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). FURL
extends and retracts with four booms stored around a common hub. Small satellites can employ
solar sails to control attitude, change planes or remain in their proper orbits and then retract the
sail once it reached its deep space destination.
13.2.2 Deployable Booms
Deployable booms, while not strictly a deorbit device themselves, compose a vital part of most
deorbit systems. They are structural components that can stowed during launch, then deployed
once in space to provide the support structure required for various drag sail designs. More specific
information regarding deployable booms can be found in the Chapter 6: Structures, Materials,
and Mechanisms.
In 2019, the first ROC-FALL drag-based deorbit device was launched on the General Atomics
OTB-1 spacecraft (38). Built by Redwire Space, the ROC-FALL device consists of a rectangular
sail supported by a High Strain Composite (HSC) boom that is co-wrapped on a spool and
restrained with a strap for stowage. The ROC-FALL system is scalable both in width and length
to accommodate a variety of spacecraft sizes, and the heritage system sail measures 3.8 x 0.45
m in deployed area and rolls to a 0.04 x 0.45 m tube + supporting mechanism. The ROC-FALL is
tip-rolled and passively deployed from the spacecraft. Redwire Space offers a variety of
deployable boom technologies with a wide range of applications on small spacecrafts including
open lattice mast, rollable tubes, and telescopic booms that can be applied on small spacecraft.
Composite Technology Development, Inc. has developed the Roll-Out DeOrbiting device
(RODEO) that consists of a lightweight film attached to a simple, ultra-lightweight, roll-out
composite boom structure (figure 13.7). This is a self-deploying system where the stored strain
energy of the packaged boom provides the necessary deployment force. It was successfully
deployed on suborbital RocketSat-8 (138 kg) on August 13, 2013 (14).
353
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure 13.9: D3 CAD design (left), boom inside thermal vacuum chamber (center), and prototype
design (right). Credit: Omar et al., 2019, and Martin et al., 2019.
On the horizon, two universities are developing innovative new drag devices for upcoming
missions. The University of Florida is developing the Drag Deorbit Device (D3) 2U CubeSat which
provides attitude stabilization and modulation of the satellite drag area at the same time, making
the overall solution an alternative to regular ADCS units. Four 3.7 m long tape spring booms form
the D3, which can deorbit a 15 kg satellite from an altitude of 700 km. A final design has already
been tested and simulated, including thermal vacuum and fatigue testing (18) (19). Figure 13.9
shows two images of the final design. The mission has been selected by NASA through the
CubeSat Launch Initiative, which includes eligibility for placement on a launch manifest (20). As
of June 2021 it is going through final assembly and testing, and is expected to launch to the ISS
in early December.
Purdue University has developed a drag device with a pyramid geometry that can deorbit a
satellite placed in a geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO). The Aerodynamic Deorbit Experiment
will be the technology demonstration of this concept, and it will consist of a 1U CubeSat. It will be
deployed from a Centaur upper stage in a future Atlas V rocket from United Launch Alliance. Once
354
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
deployed, the device will occupy an area of about one m2 to decrease the ballistic coefficient of
the spacecraft and reduce the perigee altitude during each pass. Consequently, the expected
lifetime of the ADE mission will be 50 – 250 days instead of the estimated seven years (21). The
technology has been licensed to Vestigo Aerospace which is commercializing the drag device
with their Spinnaker series of drag sails and has been awarded funding from NASAs Phase II
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program (37).
13.3 State-of-the-Art – Active Systems
Several companies have been increasingly offering active spacecraft-based deorbit systems.
Space startups such as AstroScale, ClearSpace, and D-orbit have long-term plans and have
already started initial technology demonstrator missions. These systems consist of separate,
dedicated spacecraft that attach to decommissioned satellites to place them into decaying or
graveyard orbits. In December 2019, Iridium stated that they would like to pay for an active deorbit
system to remove 30 of their defunct satellites (22). In addition, NASA STD-8719.14A stipulates
that all spacecraft using controlled reentry processes must be within 370 km of the target when
landing (10). Therefore, future concepts such as sample return missions are going to need active
reentry devices to satisfy these requirements.
This section covers some of the main stakeholders in the industry that are working towards the
implementation of active space debris removal, as well as some other promising technologies
that can potentially be used for actively deorbiting spacecraft in the future.
Figure 13.10: Targeting of the TES 10 Exo-brake is achieved by modifying the drag area of the
modulating Exo-brake. (Left) the plot includes actual GPS readings and the approximate ballistic
coefficient achieved at different parts of the mission. Credit: Jose Alvarellos et a 2021. (Right)
the simulated reentry location of TES 10. Credit: Sanny Omar. The spacecraft overshot but still
demonstrated the capability to target a particular location by modifying its ballistic coefficient.
Credit: NASA.
13.3.1 TechEdSat Series Exo-Brake
The Exo-Brake introduced earlier in the passive systems also has active control capability. The
TechEdSat-6 mission was the first one implementing this technology, on a 3.5U CubeSat with a
mass of 3.51 kg that deployed its Exo-Brake from the rear of the satellite. It targeted a reentry
over Wallops Flight Facility by modulating the drag device to adjust the ballistic coefficient as
orbital determination about the satellite state became available over time. The Iridium gateway
enabled the command of the brake, which proved to significantly affect the reentry time and
consequently, the location of the Wallops target area. The spacecraft overshot the intended target
range slightly as shown in the second image, since it could not achieve a lower 4 – 5 kg m-2
355
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ballistic coefficient configuration, which would have yielded suitable results if placed at 300 km.
However, the mission successfully demonstrated the reentry experiment and the
command/control capability by overflying Wallops right before reentering. This technology was
going to be demonstrated again in the TechEdSat-8 mission, and although a power system failure
occurred before the targeting process. It should be noted that the Exo-Brake was successfully
deployed on TES 8, and was an improved version of the previous TES 5 and TES 6 devices. The
ballistic coefficient range was larger (6 – 18 kg m-2) which allows better control authority for
targeting. TES 10 and upcoming TES 11 are also incorporating this design (12). TES 10 marked
the second targeted deorbit flight test and successfully overflew NASA Wallops Flight Facility
much like TES (33). There was insufficient control over the ballistic coefficient and the re-entry
occurred an orbit later than expected. TES 11 will be using the modulated drag device to perform
a GTO aero-pass maneuver and perigee tailoring.
13.3.2 RemoveDebris Consortium Partners
The RemoveDebris mission carried two 2U CubeSats that were ejected from the mothership to
simulate space debris and demonstrate active deorbit capabilities. The first CubeSat, known as
DebrisSat-1, deployed at a very low velocity from the main spacecraft and subsequently inflated
a balloon that provided a larger target area. A 5 m diameter net was ejected from the main
spacecraft just 144 seconds after deployment, capturing the CubeSat at a distance of ~11 m from
the mothercraft. The object, once enveloped in the net, re-entered the atmosphere in March 2019
(10). The RemoveDebris mission also carried another active debris technology consisting of a
harpoon. In this scenario, a target platform attached to a boom was deployed from the main
spacecraft. The mothership then released the harpoon at 19 m/s to hit the platform in the center.
Once that occurred, the 1.5 m boom that connected the two objects snapped on one end.
However, a tether secured the target in place, avoiding the creation of new debris. This resulted
in the first demonstration of a harpoon technology in space. The harpoon target assembly had a
dry mass of 4.3 kg (10).
13.3.3 Astroscale
Astroscale is a company founded in Japan with offices in the UK, the US, and Singapore. Their
two main objectives are to provide services to address the end-of-life (EOL) scenario of newly
launched satellites, and to proactively remove existing space debris. They collaborate with a
variety of governmental and international organizations around the world (such as the US
government, ESA, the European Union, or the United Nations) in order to position themselves as
leaders of a more sustainable low-Earth orbit environment.
As part of the EOL campaign, the ELSA-d mission, which launched on March 23, 2021, consists
of two spacecraft, with one acting as a ‘servicer’ and the other as a ‘client’ (29). They have launch
masses of ~175 kg and ~17 kg respectively. The concept of operations is to perform rendezvous
maneuvers by releasing the client from the servicer repeatedly to demonstrate the capability of
finding and docking existing debris. The technology demonstrations will include search and
inspection of the targets, as well as rendezvous of both tumbling and non-tumbling cases (30).
Regarding their active debris removal campaign, Astroscale is also working with national space
agencies to incorporate solutions to remove critical debris such as rocket upper stages or defunct
satellites. This campaign started with a partnership with the Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) in
February 2020. This collaboration will result in the implementation of the Commercial Removal of
Debris Demonstration project (CRD2) which consists of the removal of a large space debris object
performed in two mission phases. Astroscale will be involved in the first part, with a satellite that
identifies and acquires data from an upper stage rocket object from Japan. The company is
responsible for manufacturing and operating the satellite to complete these tasks, with a planned
demonstration in 2022 (23) (24).
356
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Astroscale announced in May a $3.5 million funding award from OneWeb, the global
communications network, to further develop their technology with the goal of commercial services
starting in 2024. The next iteration consists of the ELSA-M satellite which will be capable of
deorbiting multiple satellites per mission. One Web has also committed to including a docking
plate on their satellites that would facilitate future deorbit missions (31).
13.3.4 ClearSpace
ClearSpace is a Swiss company founded as a spin-off from the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de
Lausanne research institute. Their plans also include service contracts for active debris removal.
One of their proposed missions, ClearSpace One, which has been backed by ESA, will find,
target, and capture a non-cooperative, tumbling 100 kg Vega Secondary Payload Adapter
(VESPA) upper stage. The chaser spacecraft will be launched into a 500 km orbit for
commissioning and initial testing before raising its altitude to 660 km where the VESPA is located,
where it will attempt rendezvous and capture. ClearSpace One will use a group of robotic arms
to grab the upper stage and then both spacecraft together will be deorbited to a lower orbit for a
final disintegration in the atmosphere. The mission is planned to launch in 2025 to help establish
a market for in-orbit servicing and debris removal (25).
13.3.5 Momentus
Momentus is a company founded in 2017 and based in California that operates space
transportation systems that can propel or deorbit other spacecraft. Their Vigoride platform can
carry satellites with masses up to 250 kg. With a wet mass of 215 kg, it can provide up to 1.6 km
s-1 for 50 kg payload, through a water plasma propulsion system (26). Although the main objective
of this system is to provide enhanced propulsive capability to their customers, the platform is
suitable for active deorbiting. Momentus has booked several Vigoride missions on Falcon 9
launches through 2021 and 2022 with the first operational mission delayed until later in 2021 (32).
13.3.6 D-orbit
D-orbit is a space transportation company founded in 2011 in Italy, with
subsidiaries in Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It
provides transportation services onboard their ION CubeSat carrier
platform that can provide precision deployment and is able to host
satellites from 1 to 12U. The first mission Origin released 12 SuperDove
satellites from the Earth-observation company Planet, deploying the first
in September 2020 with the last SuperDove deployed about a month
later (34). The most recent Pulse mission finished deploying 20 satellites
May 11, 2021 (35). Future versions of this technology will consider other
applications such as retrieving orbiting spacecraft to deorbit them. In
addition, D-orbit provides an external solid motor booster specifically for
deorbiting purposes. This independent module, known as D-Orbit Figure 13.11: D-
Decommissioning Device (D3) shown in figure 13.11, is a proprietary Orbit D3 module.
solution that is optimized for end-of-life maneuvers (27). Credit: D-orbit.
357
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
harpooning captures. Figure 13.12 includes an image of the prototype and a table with DogTag
main features.
13.5 Summary
The new space paradigm and the increasing population of spacecraft in low-Earth orbit requires
deorbiting systems that can satisfy space debris requirements. Small spacecraft deorbit systems
have matured significantly over the past few years. Several passive systems have flown on
various missions and increased to TRL 9 after successful technology demonstrations. Drag sails
are the main technology, and several companies have already commercialized and sold these
products. Other systems such as electromagnetic tethers, deployable booms, or the NASA Exo-
brake have also already been prototyped and demonstrated in space. In addition, active systems
that include commanded and modulated systems, as well as independent servicing spacecraft,
are also maturing and will play a fundamental role in the upcoming years. A version of the Exo-
Brake with pointing capabilities has been demonstrated in the TechEdSat-10 mission, while the
RemoveDebris mission has successfully tested two different active methods, a net and a harpoon,
for future implementation in active debris removal operations. Companies such as Astroscale,
Momentus, D-Orbit, or ClearSpace are already developing and planning to launch servicing
spacecraft that can attach to decommissioned satellites to bring them down to a graveyard orbit
or disintegrate in the atmosphere. In conclusion, this technology has increased significantly in
maturity since the last iteration of this report and is expected to grow as the demand for deorbiting
services increases with additional launches.
For feedback solicitation, please email: [email protected]. Please include a business
email so someone may contact you further.
358
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
References
(1) NASA. Process for Limiting Orbital Debris. standards.nasa.gov. [Online] 2012.
(2) ESA. Space Debris by the Numbers. [Online] April 15, 2021. [Cited: May 26, 2021.]
https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris/Space_debris_by_the_numbers.
(3) NASA. Process for Limiting Orbital Debris. s.l.: NASA-STD-8719.14B, 2019.
(4) Bonin, G., et al.: “The CanX-7 Drag Sail Demonstration Mission: Enabling Environmental
Stewarship for Nano- and Microsatellites.” 2013, 27th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on
Small Satellites.
(5) MMA Design. dragNET™ De-Orbit System. MMA Design: Products. [Online] 2020.
https://mmadesignllc.com/product/dragnet-de-orbit-system/.
(6) Palla, Chiara, Kingston, Jenny and Hobbs, Stephan. Damstadt: "Development of
Commercial Drag-Augmentation for Small Satellites." ESA Space debris Office, Ed. T.
Flohrer & F. Schimtz, 2017.
(7) 7. The Terminator Tape: A Cost-Effective De-Orbit Module for End-of-Life Disposal of LEO
Satellites. R. P. Hoyt, I. M. Barnes, N. R. Voronka, and J. T. Slostadin. 2009. AIAA Space
2009 Conference.
(8) 8. InflateSail de-orbit flight demonstration results and follow-on drag-sail applications.
Underwood, Craig, et al. s.l.: Acta Astronautica, 2019, Vols. 162, pages 344-358. ISSN:
0094-5765.
(9) 9. TechedSat 5/PhoneSat 5 (T5/P5). Murbach, M. , et al. Logan: Conference on Small
Satellites, 2016.
(10) 10. The active space debris removal mission RemoveDebris. Part 2: in orbit operations.
Aglietti, Guglielmo, et al. s.l.: Acta Astronautica, Elsevier, 2020, Vols. 168, pp. 310-322.
(11) 11. On-Orbit Results from the CanX-7 Drag Sail Deorbit Mission. Cotten, Brad, Bennett,
Ian and Zee, Robert E. s.l.: 131stAnnual AIAA/USUConference on Small SatellitesSSC17-
X-06 , 2006.
(12) 12. The Exo-Brake as an Inexpensive Means of Achieving Sample Return from Low Earth
Orbit – Recent Flight Tests. Murbach, M., et al. Washington, D.C.: 70th International
Astronautical Congress (IAC), 2019.
(13) 13. Figliozzi, Gianine. TechEDSat-7's Flight Mission Begins. NASA. [Online] January 27,
2021. [Cited: May 26, 2021.] https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/ames/techedsat-7-s-
flight-mission-begins.
(14) 14. “Flight Testing of a Low Cost De-Orbiting Device for Small Satellites.” Turse, D., et al.
2013. Proceedings of the 42nd Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium.
(15) 15. P. Harkness, M. McRobb, P. Lutzkendorf, R. Milligan, A. Feeney, and C. Clark.
Development status of AEOLDOS: A deorbit module for small satellites. 2014.
(16) 16. Hoyt, Robert, et al. The Terminator Tape: A Cost-Effective De-Orbit Module for End-
of-Life Disposal of LEO Satellites. 2020.
(17) 17. Caleb Henry. Tethers Unlimited says early results of deorbit hardware test promising.
Space News. [Online] 01 23, 2020. https://spacenews.com/tethers-unlimited-says-early-
results-of-deorbit-hardware-test-promising/.
359
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(18) 18. CubeSat Mission to Demonstrate Aerodynamically Controlled Re-Entry using the Drag
De-Orbit Device (D3). Omar, Sanny, et al. Logan: 32nd Annual AIAA/USUConference on
Small Satellites, 2018.
(19) 19. Controlled Spacecraft Re-Entry of a Drag De-Orbit Device (D3). Martin, Tanya, Omar,
Sanny and Bevilacqua, Riccardo. 1, s.l.: University of Florida, Journal of Undergraduate
Research, 2019, Vol. 21.
(20) 20. NASA. NASA Announces Tenth Round of Candidates for CubeSat Space Missions.
[Online] 03 14, 2019. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-announces-tenth-round-of-
candidates-for-cubesat-space-missions.
(21) 21. Purdue University: Missions: "ADE (Aerodynamic Deorbit Experiment)." [Online] 2017.
[Cited July 1, 2021]. https://engineering.purdue.edu/CubeSat/missions/ade
(22) 22. Caleb Henry. Iridium would pay to deorbit its 30 defunct satellites — for the right price.
Spacenews. [Online] 12 30, 2019. https://spacenews.com/iridium-would-pay-to-deorbit-
its-30-defunct-satellites-for-the-right-price/.
(23) 23. The ELSA-d End-of-life Debris Removal Mission: Preparing for Launch. Blackerby,
Chris, et al. Washington D. C. : 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), 2019.
(24) 24. Astroscale. End of Life (EOL). Astroscale. [Online] 10 2019.
(25) 25. ClearSpace One. Find: How do we locate satellites or debris? ClearSpace Today.
[Online] 2020. [Cited: 03 28, 2020.] https://clearspace.today/546-2/.
(26) 26. Momentus. Vigoride User Guide. 2020.
(27) 27. Controlled Spacecraft Re-Entry of a Drag De-Orbit Device (D3). Martin, Tanya, Omar,
Sanny and Bevilacqua, Riccardo. 1, University of Florida : Journal of Undergraduate
Research, 2019, Vol. 21.
(28) 28. The development of commercially viable ADR services: Introduction of a small-satellite
grappling interface. Maclay, Timothy, et al. s.l. : First International Orbital Debris
Confeference, 2019.
(29) 29. Astroscale Press Release. Astroscale Celebrates Successful Launch of ELSA-d.
Spacenews. [Online] 03 23, 2021. [Cited: June 1, 2021.]
https://astroscale.com/astroscale-celebrates-successful-launch-of-elsa-d/
(30) 30. Astroscale ELSA-d Launch Press Kit. 2021.
(31) 31. Astroscale Press Release. "Astroscale UK Signs £2.5 Million Agreement to
Develop Space Debris Removal Technology Innovations with OneWeb." [Online] May 24,
2021. https://astroscale.com/astroscale-uk-signs-2-5-million-agreement-to-develop-
space-debris-removal-technology-innovations-with-oneweb/
(32) 32. J. Foust: "Momentus delays first Vigoride launch." [Online] January 7, 2021.
https://spacenews.com/momentus-delays-first-vigoride-launch/
(33) 33. Tavares, Frank. TechEDsat-10 Deploys from the Space Station. NASA. [Online]
August 5, 2020. [Cited: May 26, 2021.] https://www.nasa.gov/image-
feature/ames/techedsat-10-deploys.
(34) 34. D-Orbit Press Release. "D-Orbit announces successful ORIGIN mission." [Online]
October 20, 2020. [Cited July 1, 2021]. D-Orbit announces successful ORIGIN mission
(spaceref.com)
(35) 35. D-Orbit Press Release. "D-Orbit Successfully Completes Deployment Phase of
Ongoing PULSE Mission,
360
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(36) Deploys 20 Satellites In-Orbit, and Executes Orbital Maneuvers." [Online] May 18, 2021.
[Cited July 1, 2021].
(37) 36. Altius Space Machines: "Voyager Subsidiary, Altius Space Machines, Inc. Announces
Successful First Orbital Launch of DogTags Aboard OneWeb’s Satellites." [Online]
January 14, 2021. [Cited June 28, 2021]. https://www.altius-space.com/blog/voyager-
subsidiary-altius-space-machines-inc-announces-successful-first-orbital-launch-of-
dogtags-aboard-onewebs-satellites/
(38) 37. Vestigo Aerospace: "Vestigo Aerospace Awarded NASA Phase II SBIR." [Online]
2021. [Cited July 3, 2021]. https://www.altius-space.com/blog/voyager-subsidiary-altius-
space-machines-inc-announces-successful-first-orbital-launch-of-dogtags-aboard-
onewebs-satellites/
(39) (38) Davis., B., Tomchek, A., Turse, D., VanHalle, R., Medina, K., Francis, W., Person,
C., “Planning for End-of-Life Satellite Disposal; The Story of a High Strain Composite Tip-
Rolled De-Orbit Sail”, 22nd Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, [SSC18-
XII-6, pp. 1-7], Logan, Utah, 2018
361
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Summary
This report provides an overview and assessment of the state of the art (SoA) for small spacecraft
technology publicly known or available as of June 2021. However, the reader should be aware
that the pace of technology advancement for SmallSats in general is rapidly accelerating and
varies per subsystem. As CubeSats become larger and SmallSats decrease in their form factors,
both technology maturation and miniaturization will continue to expand their capabilities. While
still fairly dominated by the CubeSat platform, the SoA report is starting to reflect increased
interest in larger SmallSat systems. This is due in part to an increase in the number of launch
opportunities and increased launch vehicle capabilities, as rideshares and small dedicated
launchers further reduce the cost of access to space.
Small spacecraft that are larger and more capable than traditional CubeSats that can use
rideshares and small dedicated launchers are receiving more attention from space scientists and
mission designers. Several SmallSat missions are actively working on rideshares (or dedicated
rides) through ESPA-class platforms to their destinations in 2022 – 2024. Rideshares will greatly
enhance the deep space presence and science data collection of SmallSats. Commercial
companies are beginning to use SmallSats for planet monitoring to observe areas of geographic
interest, discover patterns, track infrastructure, and identify changes as they happen. From space,
planet monitoring is helping to equip NASA, as well as state and local governments with the
ground-truth data needed to make timely, informed decisions.
The launch of Artemis I will not only expand our knowledge of the lunar surface and provide a
foundation for deep space human exploration, it will also contribute to bridging major SmallSat
technology gaps, such as in-space propulsion, long distance communications, optical
communications, and controlled landing on the lunar surface. In additional to performing
technology demonstrations, most of the Artemis I six-unit (6U) payloads also have a science
objective that will study the Moon or perform deep space biological or space weather experiments.
The continued presence of SmallSats into deep space will foster the continuation of SmallSat
technology growth and available launch opportunities.
NASA is working with several American companies to deliver science and technology to the lunar
surface through the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative. Under the Artemis
program, these commercial deliveries present SmallSat designers with opportunities to perform
science experiments, test technologies and demonstrate capabilities to help NASA explore the
Moon and prepare for human missions. NASA has initially selected 14 companies to deliver
payloads for NASA, including payload integration and operations and launch services to the
surface of the Moon. The NASA CLPS program will begin delivering science payloads to the Moon
in 2022. CLPS contracts are indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts with a cumulative
maximum contract value of $2.6 billion through 2028. Companies of varying sizes can work with
selected vendors and are encouraged to fly commercial payloads in addition to the NASA
payloads. For more information about NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services initiative, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov/clps.
This report will be updated regularly as emerging technologies mature and become state of the
art. Any current technologies that were inadvertently missed may be included in subsequent
versions. This report is also available online at: https://www.nasa.gov/smallsat-institute/sst-soa-
2021. Technology inputs, updates, or corrections can be made by reaching out to the editor of
this report at [email protected].
362
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
363
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
365
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
366
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
367
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
369
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
370
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
371
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
372
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
373
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
374
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
375
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
376
Appendix E. Technology Readiness Levels
T
Hardware Software
R Definition Success criteria
Description Description
L
Basic principles Scientific knowledge Scientific Peer reviewed
observed and generated knowledge documentation of
reported. underpinning generated research
hardware technology underpinning basic underlying the
concepts/applications properties of proposed
. software concept/applicati
architecture and on.
1
mathematical
formulation.
Examples:
a. Initial Paper published providing representative examples of phenomenon as
well as supporting equations for a concept.
b. Conference presentations on concepts and basic observations presented
within the scientific community.
Technology Invention begins, Practical Documented
concept and/or practical application application is description of the
application is identified but is identified but is application/conc
formulated. speculative, no speculative; no ept that
experimental proof or experimental proof addresses
detailed analysis is or detailed analysis feasibility and
available to support is available to benefit.
the conjecture. support the
conjecture. Basic
properties of
algorithms,
2 representations,
and concepts
defined. Basic
principles coded.
Experiments
performed with
synthetic data.
Examples:
a. Carbon nanotube composites were created for lightweight, high-strength
structural materials for space structures.
b. Mini-CO2 Scrubber: Applies advanced processes to remove carbon dioxide
and potentially other undesirable gases from spacecraft cabin air.
Analytical and Research and Development of Documented
experimental development are limited functionality analytical/experi
proof-of-concept initiated, including to validate critical mental results
of critical analytical and properties and validating
function and/or laboratory studies to predictions using predictions of
characteristics. validate predictions non-integrated key parameters.
regarding the software
technology. components.
Examples:
a. High efficiency Gallium Arsenide solar panels for space application is
conceived for use over a wide temperature range. The concept critically relies
3
on improved welding technology for the cell assembly. Samples of solar cell
assemblies are manufactured and submitted to a preliminary thermal
environment test at ambient pressure for demonstrating the concept viability.
b. A fiber optic laser gyroscope is envisioned using optical fibers for the light
propagation and Sagnac Effect. The overall concept is modeled including the
laser source, the optical fiber loop, and the phase shift measurement. The
laser injection in the optical fiber and the detection principles are supported by
dedicated experiments.
c. In Situ Resource Utilization: Demonstrated the application of a cryofreezer for
CO2 acquisition and microwave processor for water extraction from soils.
Examples:
a. The level is reached when the final product is qualified for the operational
environment through test and analysis. Examples are when Cassini and
Galileo were qualified, but not yet flown.
b. Interim Cryo Propulsion Stage (ICPS): A Delta Cryogenic Second Stage
modified to meet Space Launch System requirements for Exploration
Mission-1 (EM-1). Qualified and accepted by NASA for flight on EM-1.
Actual system The final product is All software has Documented
flight proven successfully operated been thoroughly mission
through in an actual mission. debugged and fully operational
successful integrated with all results.
mission operational
operations. hardware and
software systems.
All documentation
has been
completed.
Sustaining software
9 support is in place.
System has been
successfully
operated in the
operational
environment.
Examples:
a. Flown spacecraft (e.g., Cassini, Hubble Space telescope).
b. Technologies flown in an operational environment.
c. Nanoracks CubeSat Deployer: Commercially developed and operated small
satellite deployer on-board the ISS.
Note: In cases of conflict between NASA directives concerning TRL definitions, NPR
7123.1 will take precedence.