The last ten years have seen a tremendous increase in the number of student-built spacecraft projects; however, the main outcome of these programs has been student training and, on some occasions, extremely low-cost space access for the university science community. Because of constrained resources and an inherently-constrained development team (students), universities have not been in a position to develop 'disruptive' space technologies; in order to secure launches, they are forced to build low-capability, high-margin systems using established design practices. However, universities have one inherent advantage in developing 'disruptive' space systems: the freedom to fail. Experimental failure is a basic element of university life, and from the university's perspective a failed spacecraft is not necessarily a failed mission. Because of this freedom, universities can take risks with spacecraft that no sensible professional program would dare attempt. The tremendous reduction in the size and cost of electronics are making possible 'disposable' spacecraft that function for only weeks, but whose very low cost and short development cycle make their launch and operation affordable. Universities are uniquely poised to take advantage of disposable spacecraft, and such spacecraft could be used to develop 'disruptive' satellite technologies. This paper briefly reviews the history of student-built spacecraft, identifying general trends in spacecraft design and university capabilities. The capabilities and constraints of university programs are matched against these emerging technologies to outline the kinds of unique missions and design methodologies universities can use to contribute to the small satellite industry. Finally, this paper will provide examples of these 'disruptive' technologies.

/pdf/university-class-satellites-from-marginal-utility-to-ibxclomk2n.pdf

University-Class Satellites: From Marginal Utility to 'Disruptive' Research Platforms

The past twenty years have seen the launch of more than 60 “university-class” spacecraft (i.e., spacecraft whose mission in part is to train students in spacecraft engineering), with perhaps 25 more to launch in the second half of this calendar year. And of those 25, twenty are CubeSats, with that trend on the increase. The on-orbit success and on-orbit utility of these missions has varied widely; some never made it off the rocket, some were deployed but never turned on, while others have been functional for decades. This paper will review the past twenty years of student-built small satellites. From that data, we will draw broad conclusions about the typical scope and probability of success of these spacecraft. Also, using this information, and drawing from the author's experience and interviews with small spacecraft builders, we will address three questions for future university-class missions: 1) Are CubeSats the dominant future for ALL university-class missions, or simply a 'phase'? 2) What kinds of missions are well-suited for student-built satellites? Are there enough to go around? 3) Are student-built satellites worth the effort? Are there more cost-effective (and mission-effective) ways to train spacecraft engineers?

/pdf/twenty-plus-years-of-university-class-spacecraft-a-review-of-4wyb3m55n1.pdf

Twenty (plus) Years of University-Class Spacecraft: A Review of What Was, An Understanding of What Is, And a Look at What Should Be Next

In April 2008 the one-hundredth "university-class" spacecraft was launched; 50 were launched in the past four years. A "university-class" spacecraft is defined as one whose mission includes the training of university students in spacecraft engineering. The success of these 100 missions has varied widely; one-fifth were lost to launch failures, one-fifth were deployed but failed almost immediately, while one-quarter of these student-built satellites were operational for at least three years. While none can deny the established fact of student-built spacecraft, there is little discussion in either the education or engineering literature about the merits of this fact. Should universities be in the practice of building and launching their own spacecraft? Given the tremendous costs of building and operating student-built spacecraft as measured in student/faculty hours, dollars, donations, and, especially, the 5-7 year process from concept to launch - are such spacecraft worth the cost? If so, what kinds of missions are best suited for university-class satellites? To answer these questions, this survey draws upon launch records, published reports, and project communications to create a statistical examination of these hundred student-built spacecraft, identifying correlations between reliability, size, and the types of schools building space hardware. In particular, there is a strong distinction between government-sponsored "flagship" universities and "independent" schools lacking strong external support - both in terms of mission relevance and on-orbit performance. Given that distinction, we offer suggestions for independent schools to improve their missions and their orbital success. This information was compiled from online sources, past conference proceedings, and author interviews with students and faculty at many universities, as noted in the references. The opinions expressed herein reflect this author's experience as both student project manager and faculty advisor to university-class projects. This author accepts sole responsibility for any factual (or interpretative) errors found in this paper.

The first one Hundred University-Class spacecraft 1981 -2008

Mission results for Sapphire, a student-built satellite

Sapphire : Case study for student-built spacecraft

In April 1985, the first satellite to be ejected from a Get Away Special (GAS) canister was launched from the shuttle Challenger. This satellite was named NUSAT for Northern Utah SATellite, and due to subsequent projects is now called NUSAT I. The conception, design, construction, and operation of the satellite and ground station was completed with all volunteer labor and very little cost through the unique cooperation of several government agencies, several universities and colleges and many corporations and individuals. A major purpose of NUSAT I was education. The purpose of this paper is to present the educational goals and achievements of this project from the perspective of each of the participants, with the hope it will encourage readers to initiate similar projects. >

C.A. Bonsall

Papers

The NUSAT I project-government, industry and academia learning together (aerospace education)