SSC04-II-5
University-Class Satellites:
From Marginal Utility
to 'Disruptive' Research
Platforms
Michael Swartwout
Washington University in St. Louis
18th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites
Logan, UT
10 August 2004
University Satellites:
Student Satellites Have Not
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
Changed The World (!)
• Students (by definition) don’t
know how to build satellites
• Professional payloads & launch
providers don’t trust studentbuilt satellites (and shouldn’t)
• Missions constrained by the
academic cycle (and turnover)
• Student-built satellites are
usually low-capability, highmargin spacecraft without
compelling payloads
Swartwout
The Hypothesis
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
Advances in electronics technology could enable
universities to serve (or disrupt) the satellite
community by demonstrating new components
and missions on short-development-cycle, highrisk “university-class” spacecraft.
Universities have not exploited their inherent
strengths: enthusiasm, inexperience and tolerance
for risk (e.g. “freedom to fail”).
Swartwout
The Hypothesis
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
Advances in electronics technology could enable
universities to serve (or disrupt) the satellite
community by demonstrating new components
and missions on short-development-cycle, highrisk “university-class” spacecraft.
Universities have not exploited their inherent
strengths: enthusiasm, inexperience and tolerance
for risk (e.g. “freedom to fail”).
Swartwout
Def. 1: University-Class Satellite
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
• Working definition
– Self-contained device with independent communications,
command & control
– Untrained personnel (i.e. students) have key roles in
design, fabrication, integration and operations
– Training is at least as important as the rest of the mission
• Excluded (by definition)
– Many, many satellites with strong university participation
(especially as science PI)
– Most Amateur satellites
• Exclusion does not imply lack of educational or
disruptive value!
Swartwout
Def 2: Disruptive Technology
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
• Definition (courtesy our conference organizers)
– Fundamentally alters the way in which a task is performed
– Examples: cell phones & electronic mail
– For spacecraft: not only a shift in mission from big to
small, but a shift in how a mission is approached at all
• How do you find disruptive technologies?
– Test bold and risky ideas
– Impose unreasonable constraints
• Why bother to be disruptive?
– Altruistic: Enable new kinds of missions and services
– Self-serving: Move universities from the margins
Swartwout
Def. 3: Freedom to Fail
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
• Experimental failure is a fundamental
(necessary?) element of the university
experience
• Universities have the freedom to try bold or
risky concepts
– Main mission objectives: learning & training
– A failed vehicle is not a failed mission
• Not a freedom to be stupid!
Swartwout
Review of University-Class Missions
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
• 50 university-class spacecraft since 1981
– 30 since 2000
– 12 more by the end of 2004 (mostly CubeSats)
• 28 universities in 15 countries
– Only 9 schools have flown multiple missions
– That number may grow in the next two years
• Most (40) were under 55 kg
• About 1/4 (13) experienced significant failures
• Only half (24) were technology/science missions
– 16 of those built by 10 universities with significant
government sponsorship
Swartwout
University Satellites:
So Why Aren’t University-Class
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
Spacecraft “Disruptive”?
• They can’t afford (or don’t want) to be disruptive
– Education goals can be met without a “real” payload
– Want to fly? Then design & build it the normal way!
• They can’t compete with the big boys
– Traditionally-built student satellites should always
underperform compared to professional spacecraft
– Universities can afford to fail, but mission sponsors cannot
• They burn out
– Most education-only missions are the school’s first (and last)
– Successful programs become professional (e.g. Surrey)
– The rest stick with standard practice to win launches
Swartwout
The Things You Do For Launch:
Two Schools of Thought
• CubeSat approach:
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
Go tiny, use collective bargaining
– Hordes of 1-kg spacecraft in 3-pack launchers
– Launch costs: about $100,000/Cube
– If these next few work, there will be a lot more
CubeSats (there may be a lot more, regardless)
• Everyone else: Government sponsorship
– In the U.S. (civilian): University Nanosat class
(30 kg, AFRL/NASA)
– Outside the U.S.: “Flagship” universities
(Tsinghua, Technical University of Berlin,
University of Rome, KACST, etc.)
Swartwout
Recipe for a Disruptive
University-Class Spacecraft
Good
Good
Mission
Mission
=
Credible
Credible
Spacecraft
Spacecraft
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
+
Disruptive
Disruptive
Idea
Idea
Ingredients
Very
Common
Short
Large
Comm.
Common
Very Small Launch Protocols / Duration Operational
Mission
Margins
Spacecraft Interface Stations
Objectives
Fast & Easy to Build
Easy to Launch
Easy to Operate
Compelling,
Risky/Novel Mission
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Swartwout
Disruptive: OPAL (Stanford)
•
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
Orbiting Picosat Automated Launcher
– Started 1995, Launched January 2000
– 23 kg “mothership” for 6 picosats
– Operational until June 2002
•
Disruptive Act #1: Proof-of-concept for
DARPA/Aerospace picosats
– Led to PICOSAT flights on MightySat 2.1
– Led to DARPA MEPSI
•
Stanford SSDL
Cal Poly
Disruptive Act #2: CubeSat Program
– 10 cm3, 1 kg spacecraft
– Cal Poly P-POD (3-CubeSat launcher)
– Explosion of school spacecraft building
• 25 schools launched university-class spacecraft
(1981-2003)
• 15 schools will launch CubeSats by the end of
2004; 14 first-timers
• About 50 university CubeSat programs
internationally
Swartwout
Not Disruptive: Sapphire (Stanford)
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
• Sapphire
– Started 1994, Finished 1998
– Launched September 2001
(USNA/STP)
– 20 kg
– Still operational
Stanford SSDL
• Traditional University-Class Mission
– Student selected payloads: THD
detectors, digital camera, voice
synthesizer
– After-the-fact payloads: autonomous
operations, amateur radio digipeating,
student training
Swartwout
Might Be Disruptive: Bandit
WUSTL
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
• Inspector spacecraft
– Experiment on Akoya (University
Nanosat 3 - AFRL/NASA)
– 1 kg “flying camera”
– Repeatable docking
– Autonomous operations
– Image-based navigation
• Possible disruption
– Autonomous operations
– Useful missions on extremely small
platforms
– Useful space engineering research
on university-class spacecraft
WUSTL
Swartwout
Conclusions
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
• University-class spacecraft
– Excellent teaching tools, occasional research tools
– Short-cycle, “disposable” spacecraft are an opportunity for
universities to exercise their freedom to fail
– Suggestion: choose and choose wisely!
• Manage flight-safety risk, tolerate mission risk
• Predicting the future…
– Most likely disruption: the small satellite industry itself
– Keep an eye on CubeSats
• This was an engineering discussion; what about
universities on the science side?
Swartwout
Acknowledgments
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
• Christopher Kitts, Freddy Pranajaya, James
Cutler, Brian Engberg, Jonathan Chow
• The design teams for all 50 university-class
spacecraft (and counting!)
• Launch providers (e.g. Space Test Program)
•
Any errors in university-class satellite
descriptions or classification are mine
Swartwout
SSC04-II-5
University-Class Satellites:
From Marginal Utility
to 'Disruptive' Research
Platforms
Michael Swartwout
Washington University in St. Louis
18th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites
Logan, UT
10 August 2004
University-Class Missions, 1981-2000
Launch
1981
1984
1985
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1994
1996
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Spacecraft
UoSAT-1 (UO-9)
UoSAT-2 (UO-11)
NUSAT
WeberSAT (WO-18)
TUBSAT-A
KITSAT-1 (KO-23)
KITSAT-2 (KO-25)
TUBSAT-B
BremSat
UNAMSAT-B (MO-30)
Falcon Gold
RS-17
TUBSAT-N
TUBSAT-N1
Techsat 1-B (GO-32)
PO-34 PANSAT
SO-33 SEDSAT
Sunsat (SO-35)
DLR-TUBSAT
KITSAT-3
ASUsat 1
Falconsat 1
JAWSAT (WO-39)
Opal (OO-38)
JAK
Louise
Thelma
Still operational
Primary School(s)
University of Surrey (UK)
University of Surrey (UK)
Weber State, Utah State University (USA)
Weber State (USA)
Technical University of Berlin (Germany)
Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Technical University of Berlin (Germany)
University of Bremen (Germany)
National University of Mexico
US Air Force Academy
Russian high school students
Technical University of Berlin (Germany)
Technical University of Berlin (Germany)
Technion Institute of Technology (Israel)
Naval Postgraduate School (USA)
University of Alabama, Huntsville (USA)
University of Stellenbosch (South Africa)
Technical University of Berlin (Germany)
Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Arizona State University (USA)
US Air Force Academy
Weber State, USAFA
Stanford University (USA)
Santa Clara University (USA)
Santa Clara University (USA)
Santa Clara University (USA)
Semioperational
Nonoperational
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
Mission Primary
Mass Duration Mission
(kg) (months) Type
52
98 Science
60
249 Comm
52
20 Tech
16
97 Comm
35
159 Comm
49
78 Tech
48
98 Comm
40
1 Tech?
63
12 Science
10
0.03 Comm
18
1 Tech
3
2 Edu
9
46 Tech
3
20 Tech
70
52 Science
70
68? Comm
41
12? Tech
64
23 Comm
45
63 Science
110
63 Tech
6
0.03 Edu
52
1 Edu
191
1? Tech
23
29 Tech
0.2
0 Edu
0.5
0 Science
0.5
0 Science
Premature loss of operations (or
severely degraded operations)
Swartwout
University-Class Missions, 2000-2004
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2001
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
Tsinghua-1
SO-41 Saudisat 1A
SO-42 Saudisat 1B
UNISAT 1
TiungSAT-1 (MO-46)
Munin
PCSat 1 (NO-44)
Sapphire (NO-45)
Maroc-TUBSAT
Kolibri-2000
SO-50 Saudisat 1C
UNISAT 2
AAU Cubesat
CanX-1
CUTE-1
DTUsat
XI-IV
MOST
QuakeSat
STSAT-1
Naxing-1 (NS-1)
UNISAT 3
SaudiSat 2
Still operational
Tsinghua University (China)
King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology (Saudia Arabia)
King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology (Saudia Arabia)
University of Rome "La Sapienza" (Italy)
ATSB
Umeå University / Luleå University of Technology (Sweden)
US Naval Academy
Stanford, USNA, Washington University (USA)
Technical University of Berlin (Germany)
Space Research Institute (Russia)
King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology (Saudia Arabia)
University of Rome "La Sapienza" (Italy)
University of Aalborg (Denmark)
University of Toronto (Canada)
Tokyo Institute of Technology (Japan)
Technical University of Denmark
University of Tokyo (Japan)
University of Toronto (Canada)
Stanford University (USA)
Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Tsinghua University (China)
University of Rome "La Sapienza" (Italy)
KACST (Saudia Arabia)
Semioperational
Nonoperational
50
10
10
12
50
6
12
20
47
21
10
17
1
1
1
1
1
60
3
100
25
12
15?
University Satellites:
Marginal Utility
or Disruptive?
48?
40?
40?
??
40
3
35
35
34
2
17?
18?
2
0
13
0
13
13
13
9?
4
1
1
Edu
Comm
Comm
Edu
Edu/Science
Science
Comm
Edu
Science
Edu
Comm
Edu
Edu
Edu
Edu
Edu
Edu
Science
Science
Tech
Tech
Tech
Comm?
Premature loss of operations (or
severely degraded operations)
Swartwout