Nanosat Industry Overview Update Feb 2014

Nanosatellite Industry Overview
February 2014 Update
Pariente - Nanosatellite Industry
Overview

Content of the Presentation
• Introduction
• Trends and Hot Topics
• Myths Vs. Facts
Overview
Feb 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
Overview
Feb 20143

Introduction (1)
• Satellites are categorized by their weight
according to the following key:
– Less than 1 kg: Pico satellite
– Less than 10 kg: Nano satellite
– Less than 100 kg: Micro satellite
• Recently NASA AMES changed the scale
– Less than 5kg: Pico satellite
– Less than 50kg: Nano satellite
– Less than 200 kg: Micro satellite
Credit: NASA
Overview
Feb 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
Overview
Feb 20145

Past Launches
Overview
Feb 20146

CubeSatShop – The “AMAZON” of the Industry
Overview
Feb 20147

Or like this
Overview
Feb 20148

A satellite inside a satellite inside a satellite
Overview
Feb 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
Overview
Feb 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 !!
Overview
Feb 201412

Images taken by CubeSats
Overview
Feb 201413

Livestream Video from Space
1U satellites, built by EXA (Ecuador Space Agency)
Pegasus Krysaor
Overview
Feb 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
Overview
Feb 201415

Transceivers for CubeSats
Overview
Feb 201416

Using all kinds of Frequencies
Overview
Feb 201417

X-band 50Mbps transmitter
Overview
Feb 201418

Miniature Deployable High Gain
Antenna - Boeing
Overview
Feb 201419

Miniature Deployable High Gain
Antenna - Boeing
Overview
Feb 201420

Why deploy if you can…. Inflate ?
Credit: MIT Pariente - Nanosatellite Industry
Overview
Feb 201421

Patch Antennas
Overview
Feb 201422
Credit: AntDevCo

SMDC-ONE
Overview
Feb 201423

Ka !! The ISARA Project (NASA)
• 100 Mbps communication in Ka
• 35 db antenna gain
• Unique “PopUp” Feed
Overview
Feb 201424

Optical Communication ?
Overview
Feb 201425

AeroCube-OCSD:
1.5U Optical communication
Overview
Feb 201426

Proximity operations
Overview
Feb 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
Overview
Feb 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
XACT from BCT
Main sensor: STR
Main actuators: RW
Overview
Feb 201429

Focus on Propulsion
Overview
Feb 201430

Water Propulsion
Overview
Feb 201431

Enabling Technologies:
PhoneSat
Overview
Feb 201432

New Assembly scheme - Monarch
Overview
Feb 201433

Is this a valid Business ?
Overview
•Feb 2014•34

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
Overview
Feb 201435

Planet Labs
Overview
Feb 201436

Flock-1 Launch 02/2014
28 satellites launched !!
Credit: NASA
Overview
Feb 201437

NanoSatisfi – Satellites on Demand
Overview
Feb 201438

Launch 11/2013
3 ArduSats in space, more will be launched this year
Credit: NASA
Overview
Feb 201439

ADS-B
Yellow indicates
Ground based
ADS-B – No oceanic cover !!
Overview
Feb 201440

Myths Vs. Facts
Overview
•Feb 2014•41

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
Overview
Feb 201442

Are COTS Reliable enough ?
Excluding the three large launch campaigns in 2013-2014 the success rate is 80%
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 failures
Fact: Components are very reliable, the problem is
workmanship
• Two thirds of the projects are done by amateurs with no
experience in space standards AIT
• Technical analysis presented @2011 small sat conference
showed most failures are related to workmanship
• 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
Overview
Feb 201444

Most satellites are being built by amateurs
Attack of the CubeSats: A Statistical Look: Michael Swartwout – Saint Louis University
Overview
Feb 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
Overview
Feb 201446

• Satellites active since 2003
– Cute-1
– CubeSat XI-IV
– RS-22
– Cubesat XI-V
– GeneSat-1
– Cute-1.7 + APD II
– Delfi-C3
– SEEDS II
– 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
Overview
Feb 201447

Future Trends
Overview
•Feb 2014•48

Nano/Micro satellite Future programs
Credit: SpaceWorks Nano/Microsatellite Market AssessmentPariente - Nanosatellite Industry
Overview
Feb 201449

Analysis per sector
Overview
Feb 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
Overview
Feb 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
Overview
Feb 201452

What about EDU Projects ?
They just became smaller
Femto-sats
PocketQubes
WREN
By STADOKO UG
Overview
Feb 201453

Thank you
Overview
•Feb 2014•54

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
Overview
Feb 201455

Nanosat Industry Overview Update Feb 2014

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Nanosat Industry Overview Update Feb 2014

Semelhante a Nanosat Industry Overview Update Feb 2014 (20)

Último

Último (20)

Nanosat Industry Overview Update Feb 2014