Nanosatellite 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 are stable and are about 80%

• Nanosatellite Industry is complex and incorporates industrial, research and academic institues

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

Myth #1: Nanosatellites Reliability

של נאנולווינים )*( הגרף הבא מציג סטטיסטיקה• CubeSatמבוססי

Are COTS Reliable enough ?

• source: Wikipedia Cubesat page

Myth: Components 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 at 2011 small sat conference showed most failures are related to workmanship

• Components are getting better all the time – This is a competitive market with several leading manufacturers

pushing for constant quality improvement of products

Myth #2: Components Reliability

Most satellites are being built by amateurs

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

• Keeping space industry standards during AIT prevent failures

Subsystems Failure analysis

Source: SPACECIALIST research

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

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

• Manny of current components are RAD tolerant up to 20 Krad

• Computers are Latchup and SEU protected

• The low cost allow redundancy – Several items in a satellite

– Several satellites (mission redundancy)

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

• 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 page

• About 65% of nanosatellites projects are being built by amateurs “responsible” for most of the failures – “Flagships” launching more than one satellites have a success

rate of 52 out of 59

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

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

between solar panels and batteries

• Quality of subsystem is constantly improving – Number of manufacturers is rising, especially in Europe

– Economical constraints derived meticulous QA

– Competitiveness in the market manifests in the form of better quality products

• Size doesn’t matter – Use of proven methodologies especially during AIT is a MUST

Summary

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

11