Nanosatellite industry overview updated 022014

Nanosatellite Industry Overview

February 2014 Update

Pariente - Nanosatellite Industry

Overview

Content of the Presentation

• Introduction

• Trends and Hot Topics

• Myths Vs. Facts


OverviewFeb 20142

Cut to the Chase

• COTS in LEO has proven to be eminently capable … yet end-users exhibit strong reluctance to use it.

• Community has not learned the lesson of PC vs. Mac• Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough … If you aim for

perfect in nanosats, you will miss the cost-effective solution

• Like PCs, CubeSats are disposable (plan to 3-5 years missions)

Andrew E. Kalman, President & CTO, Pumpkin, Inc.Director, SSDL, Stanford University, July 2012


OverviewFeb 20143

Introduction (1)

• Satellites are categorized by their weightaccording to the following key:– Less than 1 kg: Pico satellite

– Less than 10 kg: Nano satellite

– Less than 100 kg: Micro satellite

• Recently NASA AMES changed the scale– Less than 5kg: Pico satellite

– Less than 50kg: Nano satellite

– Less than 200 kg: Micro satellite

Credit: NASAPariente - Nanosatellite Industry

OverviewFeb 20144

Introduction (2)

• Nanosatellite Market growing rapidly – Cubesats: Conception in 2000 – First missions launched in 2003 – 10-20 projects in 2004 – >300 projects ongoing now (estimate)– Since 2013, more than 70 launched per year– Projections indicate substantial growth in

nano/microsatellite launches, with an estimated range more than 400 that will need launches globally in 2020

• Change of users from educational and institutional to application focused


OverviewFeb 20145

Past Launches


OverviewFeb 20146

CubeSatShop – The “AMAZON” of the Industry


OverviewFeb 20147

Or like this


OverviewFeb 20148

A satellite inside a satellite inside a satellite


OverviewFeb 20149

Trends and Hot Topics

•Pariente - Nanosatellite Industry

Overview•Feb 2014•10

CubeSat Generations

• 1st : Modern Sputniks

• 2nd : Utility of the 3U is demonstrated

• 3rd : More power, attitude control & determination, propulsion

• 4th : Constellations are here !

• 5th : AI collaborative entities


OverviewFeb 201411

Trends / Hot Topics

• Earth Imaging/video

• EDAC enabled OBC’s

• >20Krad TID

• ~80W Power systems

• >5Mbps Comms

• AIS/ADS-B

• Propulsion (gas and plasma)

• Constellations !!


OverviewFeb 201412

Images taken by CubeSats


OverviewFeb 201413

Livestream Video from Space

1U satellites, built by EXA (Ecuador Space Agency)

Pegasus Krysaor


OverviewFeb 201414

Enabling Technologies: Communication

• Biggest bottleneck perceived – €/bit is metric to be optimized for effective systems

• Current downlinks fairly slow

• S-Band emerging for payloads – Up to 1-5 being deployed and used

– Up to 22 Mbps offered by L-3

• Move to X-Band and beyond before 2015?

• More powerful platform can support these higher data rate systems

22Mbps S-band transmitter

8 dBi S-band Patch antennaPariente - Nanosatellite Industry

OverviewFeb 201415

Transceivers for CubeSats


OverviewFeb 201416

Using all kinds of Frequencies


OverviewFeb 201417

X-band 50Mbps transmitter


OverviewFeb 201418

Miniature Deployable High Gain Antenna - Boeing


OverviewFeb 201419

Miniature Deployable High Gain Antenna - Boeing


OverviewFeb 201420

Why deploy if you can…. Inflate ?

Credit: MIT Pariente - Nanosatellite Industry

OverviewFeb 201421

Patch Antennas


OverviewFeb 201422

Credit: AntDevCo

SMDC-ONE


OverviewFeb 201423

Ka !! The ISARA Project (NASA)

• 100 Mbps communication in Ka

• 35 db antenna gain

• Unique “PopUp” Feed


OverviewFeb 201424

Optical Communication ?


OverviewFeb 201425

AeroCube-OCSD: 1.5U Optical communication


OverviewFeb 201426

Proximity operations


OverviewFeb 201427

Enabling Technologies: ADCS

• New generation of ADCS products enables

• better performance

• Heritage: – Magnetic determination & control

• Now: – Magnetic, Star tracker determination

– Earth horizon sensors, gyros also available

– Magnetorquer, reaction wheels

– Integrated ADCS packages incl CPU


OverviewFeb 201428

Focus on ADCS

iADCS-100 from BST MAI-400 from MAI

Main sensor: STR

Main actuators: RW

Accuracy: <0.1 deg 3 sigma

Automatic pointing: Yes

Main sensor: ES+SS

Main actuators: RW


Automatic pointing: Yes

XACT from BCT

Main sensor: STR

Main actuators: RW


Automatic pointing: YesPariente - Nanosatellite Industry

OverviewFeb 201429

Focus on Propulsion


OverviewFeb 201430

Water Propulsion


OverviewFeb 201431

Enabling Technologies: PhoneSat


OverviewFeb 201432

New Assembly scheme - Monarch


OverviewFeb 201433

Is this a valid Business ?



2013 – The year it became a business !Summary of 02/2014 SpaceWorks report• Commercial companies will contribute over one

fourth of all nano/microsatellites launched in 2014 – This is a significant increase from 2013, where

the commercial sector contributed only 11% – The continued emergence and growth of

commercial companies (see table) will result in an even greater increase in 2015, with the sector contributing 60% of all nano/microsatellites launched

• Many companies have publicly revealed their near-term intentions regarding future launches of nano/microsatellites and the satellites’ wide spectrum of revenue generating applications

• Other companies have been more reserved, revealing only small details of their plans

Precise quantities aside, strong evidence suggests the commercial sector will

have a meaningful and enduring impact on the nano/microsatellite industry


OverviewFeb 201435

Planet Labs


OverviewFeb 201436

Flock-1 Launch 02/2014

28 satellites launched !!

Credit: NASAPariente - Nanosatellite Industry

OverviewFeb 201437

NanoSatisfi – Satellites on Demand


OverviewFeb 201438

Launch 11/2013

3 ArduSats in space, more will be launched this year

Credit: NASA


OverviewFeb 201439

ADS-B

Yellow indicates

Ground based

ADS-B – No oceanic cover !!Pariente - Nanosatellite Industry

OverviewFeb 201440

Myths Vs. Facts



Myth: Nanosatellites are not reliable, Their success rate is less than 50%

Fact: Success rate of Nanosatellite projects for the last five years is stable >80%

• Nanosatellites Industry is complex, and incorporates industrial, research and academic institutes

• Discussing “Nanosatellites Reliability” without taking into account who manufactured the satellites is like discussing “automobile reliability” while comparing BMW to TATA

Myth #1: Nanosatellites Reliability


OverviewFeb 201442

Are COTS Reliable enough ?

Excluding the three large launch campaigns in 2013-2014 the success rate is 80%Pariente - Nanosatellite Industry

Overview

82%

91%93%

99%

92%

95% 95%

99%

16.00

21.71

27.40

47.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

55.00

60.00

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2003-2014 2007-2014 2009-2014 2013-2014

Overall Succes rate

Success in Space

#/year

Feb 201443

Myth: COTS are not reliable, They are the cause for failuresFact: Components are very reliable, the problem is workmanship• Two thirds of the projects are done by amateurs with no

experience in space standards AIT• Technical analysis presented @2011 small sat conference

showed most failures are related to workmanship• Flagship schools build “real” missions that work (90%

success) -• Components are getting better all the time

– This is a competitive market with several leading manufacturers pushing for constant quality improvement of products

Myth #2: Components Reliability


OverviewFeb 201444

Most satellites are being built by amateurs

Attack of the CubeSats: A Statistical Look: Michael Swartwout – Saint Louis UniversityPariente - Nanosatellite Industry

OverviewFeb 201445

Myth: Nanosatellites that reach space last for several months and than die

Fact: There are nanosatellites that launched more than a decade ago and are still operational

• COTS are now RAD tolerant up to 20 Krad

• Computers are Latchup and SEU protected

• Low cost allow redundancy

– Several items in a satellite

– Several satellites (mission redundancy)

Myth #3: Nanosatellites don’t last long in space


OverviewFeb 201446

• Satellites active since 2003– Cute-1– CubeSat XI-IV– RS-22

• Satellites active since 2005– Cubesat XI-V

• Satellites active since 2006– GeneSat-1

• Satellites active since 2008– Cute-1.7 + APD II– Delfi-C3– SEEDS II

• Satellites active since 2009– PRISM– SwissCube– BEESAT– ITUpSAT1

Average mission lifetime > 40 months

Mission Lifetime for Nanosatellites

*source of data: Cubesat page at the AMSAT web pagePariente - Nanosatellite Industry

OverviewFeb 201447

Future Trends



Nano/Micro satellite Future programs

Credit: SpaceWorks Nano/Microsatellite Market AssessmentPariente - Nanosatellite Industry

OverviewFeb 201449

Analysis per sector


OverviewFeb 201450

2014 Market assessment conclusions

• The civil sector remains strong, but the eruption of commercial companies and start-up activities will continue to influence the nano/microsatellite market; future launches suggest this trend will continue

• Projections based on both announced and anticipated plans of developers indicate 2,000 – 2,750 nano/microsatellites will require a launch from 2014 through 2020


OverviewFeb 201451

• 4rd Generation is here !– Since 2012 success rate is more than 90%

• Commercial companies will dominate the CubeSat market– EDU project will decrease to 25% of the market

• Workmanship is the main cause for failures– Communication system failures are often due to bad wiring and

not transmitter or receiver failures– Power system failures mostly occur due to connection loss

between solar panels and batteries

• Quality of subsystem is constantly improving– Number of manufacturers is rising, especially in Europe– Economical constraints derived meticulous QA– Competitiveness in the market manifests in the form of better

quality products

• High-End customers require High-End products– Space QA is now part of the production line

Summary


OverviewFeb 201452

What about EDU Projects ? They just became smaller

Femto-sats

PocketQubes

WREN

By STADOKO UG


OverviewFeb 201453

Thank you



Sources of Information• 25 Years of Small Satellites

– Siegfried Janson – The Aerospace Corporation

• Attack of the CubeSats: A Statistical Look– Michael Swartwout – Saint Louis University

• Recent CubeSat Launch Experiences on U.S. Launch Vehicles– Jordi Puig-Suari, Roland Coelho – California Polytechnic State University; Scott Williams, Victor Aguero, Kyle

Leveque, Bryan Klofas – SRI International

• Distant Horizons: Smallsat Evolution in the Mid-to-Far Term– Matt Bille, Paul Kolodziejski, Tom Hunsaker – Booz Allen Hamilton

• Nine Years and Counting – A Nanosatellite Designer's Perspective– Andrew E. Kalman , President & CTO, Pumpkin, Inc. Director, SSDL, Stanford University

• Propulsion Solutions for CubeSats– W. Dan Williams, Busek Co. Inc

• Beyond CubeSats: Operational, Responsive, Nanosatellite Missions– Jeroen Rotteveel, ISIS- Innovative Solutions in Space

• Reliability of University-Class Spacecraft: A Statistical Look– Prof Michael Swartwout – Saint Louis University, March 2012

• The Future of CubeSat Data Communications, 26 October 2012– Bryan Klofas KF6ZEO, SRI International

• Nano/Microsatellite Market Assessment, January 2014– Mr. Dominic DePasquale , Director of Washington D.C. Operations, Dr. John Bradford, President, SpaceWorks

Engineering


OverviewFeb 201455

Education

Nanosatellite industry overview updated 022014