Author Topic: United Launch Alliance Reveals Transformational CubeSat Launch Program  (Read 7915 times)

Online Chris Bergin

I'll write it up, but most of what you need is in the below:

(Article now added: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/free-cubesat-rideshares-offered-ula-atlas-v-launches/ )


United Launch Alliance Reveals Transformational
CubeSat Launch Program
 
America’s Ride to Space Offers University Competition for Free STEM CubeSat Rides on Future Launches

Centennial, Colo., (Nov. 19, 2015) –  As the most experienced launch company in the nation, United Launch Alliance (ULA) announced today it is taking CubeSat rideshares to the next level by launching a new, innovative program offering universities the chance to compete for free CubeSat rides on future launches.

            “ULA will offer universities the chance to compete for at least six CubeSat launch slots on two Atlas V missions, with a goal to eventually add university CubeSat slots to nearly every Atlas and Vulcan launch,” said Tory Bruno, ULA president and CEO. “There is a growing need for universities to have access and availability to launch their CubeSats and this program will transform the way these universities get to space by making space more affordable and accessible.”

"This is exactly the kind of collaborative innovation that we celebrate in Colorado," said Lt. Gov. Joseph Garcia. “Here, we have a Colorado company giving Colorado students at a Colorado university an unbelievable opportunity to send a satellite into space. What a great day for our state."

Rideshare is a flight-proven, innovative approach that provides customers a low-cost way to achieve various mission objectives without the need for a dedicated launch vehicle. CubeSats are miniaturized satellites originally designed for use in conjunction with university educational projects and are typically 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm (4 inches x 4 inches x 4 inches) and approximately 1.3 kg (3 lbs).

“Since its inception, ULA has been committed to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education initiatives and programs such as this help to motivate, educate and develop our next generation of rocket scientists and space entrepreneurs,” said Bruno. “We are making the announcement today with University of Colorado President Bruce Benson and University of Colorado Boulder Chancellor Philip DiStefano, key partners in STEM education, and are pleased to offer the university the first free CubeSat launch slot in 2017.”

"CU-Boulder students have been building and operating small satellites for 20 years, including the Colorado Student Space Weather CubeSat launched on a ULA Atlas rocket in 2012," DiStefano said. "The ability to provide science and engineering students with the opportunity to fly the satellites they build is an invaluable motivational and educational tool. We are thrilled to partner with ULA, a visionary organization that is helping to facilitate a nationwide STEM effort."

Interested universities should email [email protected] by Dec. 18, 2015 to notify ULA they are interested in participating. In early 2016, ULA will release a request for proposal (RFP) for the first competitive CubeSat launch slots. The selected universities will be announced in August 2016.

In addition, ULA is offering the nation’s universities the chance to help name the new CubeSat program. Universities, educators and students can submit names for consideration to [email protected] using a campus-issued email address. Submissions are due by Dec.18, 2015. The winning name will be announced early next year, and the institution will receive a free CubeSat launch slot on a future mission.

As America’s ride to space, ULA has launched 102 missions, including 55 CubeSats, with 100 percent mission success.

           

About United Launch Alliance

With more than a century of combined heritage, United Launch Alliance is the nation’s most experienced and reliable launch service provider. ULA has successfully delivered more than 100 satellites to orbit that provide critical capabilities for troops in the field, aid meteorologists in tracking severe weather, enable personal device-based GPS navigation and unlock the mysteries of our solar system.

For more information on ULA, visit the ULA website at www.ulalaunch.com. Join the conversation at www.facebook.com/ulalaunch, twitter.com/ulalaunch and instagram.com/ulalaunch.

 
« Last Edit: 11/19/2015 09:36 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11169
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8787
  • Likes Given: 7815
United Launch Alliance CubeSat Initiative Announcement, Nov. 19, 2015

Published on Nov 19, 2015
America’s Ride to Space Offers University Competition for Free STEM CubeSat Rides on Future Launches

« Last Edit: 11/19/2015 09:55 pm by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Extra revenue stream, great PR. The more that comes out of ULA the more excited I get. They are finding costs saving. They have a clear idea to bring a new launcher on line reducing costs further. They have plenty of head winds but doesn't everyone. It's just plain exciting!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
One question. How long lived will these orbits be? More than  5 years? More than 25 years?

I assume most of these will be dropped off in GTO after the paying customer is dropped off first. With these new multi-burn mission profiles the perigees have been quite high. Much longer than 25 years. 
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Wish Delta Heavy cube sats had the same perfect record.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
Releasing after GTO insertion is probably the safest option. But usually, GTO insertion happens after some coasting, to bring the orbit in a equatorial plane. Maybe the cubes can be released during that coast phase. Would also increase the performance to GTO as compared to release after insertion.

All in all, I really like that move by ULA. :) That's the right way to increase space enthusiasm!

edit: typos
« Last Edit: 11/20/2015 10:29 am by Semmel »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
I could be wrong, but I thought in a typical two Centaur burn GTO/Super Sync profile the initial parking orbit (coast between the first and second burn) was a very short lived orbit. As in days, and thus not very usable, even for cube sats.

After the second Centaur burn the Centaur and Payload are in the final transfer orbit and the mission is done. That transfer orbit should be a long lived orbit.

On the new three burn profiles they have been using, perigee is raised significantly leading to very long lived orbits.

That is my concern.  Large numbers of cubesats in long lived orbits.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 71
That is my concern.  Large numbers of cubesats in long lived orbits.
Quote
ULA ‏@ulalaunch  21 hours ago
@SteaphanyW @smallsats @SpaceRef #ULACubeSats deployment must comply w/orbital debris mitigation guidelines. ULA will facilitate compliance.

Not surprisingly, ULA will require that cubesats comply with the orbital debris guidelines.  For satellites in LEO, that generally means decay within 25 years.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Isn't free cubesat rides a blow to the likes of Firefly, RocketLab, and the like?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Isn't free cubesat rides a blow to the likes of Firefly, RocketLab, and the like?

 - Ed Kyle

If they were all free, seems like it would be -- but 'low cost' and 'affordable' are used in the presser, so the six per A-V likely won't be free.  Not sure ULA needs to spend effort under-cutting the list you've presented... the more likely scenario is a P.R. opportunity that may be cost neutral.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9683
That is my concern.  Large numbers of cubesats in long lived orbits.
Quote
ULA ‏@ulalaunch  21 hours ago
@SteaphanyW @smallsats @SpaceRef #ULACubeSats deployment must comply w/orbital debris mitigation guidelines. ULA will facilitate compliance.

Not surprisingly, ULA will require that cubesats comply with the orbital debris guidelines.  For satellites in LEO, that generally means decay within 25 years.

I get, and accept, that all cubesat releases will comply with the existing legacy "rules of the game":  no longer than 25 years to expected orbital decay.

Just wondering when those rules may begin to change, and whether the increased number of sats (albeit very small sats) in those longer-lived orbits might help drive/incent the change of the rules.

It seems to me that in the case of most negative externalities, what is accepted by human societies as not too important when there are only small amounts or a small number of producers of the negative externality (think typical industrial air or water pollution in New England in 1820, or in Detroit in 1947), eventually becomes a more widely perceived problem when the amount or number of producers grows (think air and water pollution producers in Detroit in 1972). 

Thus, when the perception of orbital debris is increased, say by much larger numbers of sats from many more producers (e.g., from many more student and industry cube sats, or perhaps the SpaceX CommX constellation, in long-lived orbits), it seems the rules of the game may begin to face pressure for change. 

I see the increase in launches of cube sats from many sources, especially long-lived higher orbits like folks are projecting above from ULA's cubesat deployment pods, as being one small step towards driving some sort of change to the rules.
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline c3infinity

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 0
Isn't free cubesat rides a blow to the likes of Firefly, RocketLab, and the like?

 - Ed Kyle

If they were all free, seems like it would be -- but 'low cost' and 'affordable' are used in the presser, so the six per A-V likely won't be free.  Not sure ULA needs to spend effort under-cutting the list you've presented... the more likely scenario is a P.R. opportunity that may be cost neutral.

The other thing to consider is that with ULA, the primary payload will still determine the orbit and launch schedule. The small firefly and rocketlab launchers should be able to give a more bespoke service to cubesats and their brethren.

Offline obsever

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 17
I assume most of these will be dropped off in GTO after the paying customer is dropped off first. With these new multi-burn mission profiles the perigees have been quite high. Much longer than 25 years. 

How useful are GTO orbits for cubesats? I'd think that most cubesat operators would prefer LEO. In GTO you'd need a more powerful transmitter due to the much further average distance (or accept to drastically limit your communication windows to only the perigee part of the orbit), the frequent passage of radiation belts would fry the cheap electronics of typical cubesats, and GTO is useless for things like remote sensing. Perhaps this rideshare will be mostly used on sun-synchronous flights.

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9683

How useful are GTO orbits for cubesats? I'd think that most cubesat operators would prefer LEO. In GTO you'd need a more powerful transmitter due to the much further average distance (or accept to drastically limit your communication windows to only the perigee part of the orbit), the frequent passage of radiation belts would fry the cheap electronics of typical cubesats, and GTO is useless for things like remote sensing. Perhaps this rideshare will be mostly used on sun-synchronous flights.

Well, that depends entirely on one's objectives.  If one of your development objectives is to improve low-cost fast-turnaround-design smallsat technologies to survive in higher-Earth orbits, then the opportunity to have your cubesats carried up into that environment for component-level, subsystem-level and system-level testing at low cost might be extremely useful.

The smallsat/cubesats of the future need not be constrained by the design decisions of the early generations of cubesats.
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline obsever

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 17

How useful are GTO orbits for cubesats? I'd think that most cubesat operators would prefer LEO. In GTO you'd need a more powerful transmitter due to the much further average distance (or accept to drastically limit your communication windows to only the perigee part of the orbit), the frequent passage of radiation belts would fry the cheap electronics of typical cubesats, and GTO is useless for things like remote sensing. Perhaps this rideshare will be mostly used on sun-synchronous flights.

Well, that depends entirely on one's objectives.  If one of your development objectives is to improve low-cost fast-turnaround-design smallsat technologies to survive in higher-Earth orbits, then the opportunity to have your cubesats carried up into that environment for component-level, subsystem-level and system-level testing at low cost might be extremely useful.

The smallsat/cubesats of the future need not be constrained by the design decisions of the early generations of cubesats.

Right, that could be one example of an objective that could use such orbit.

But I still think that from the vast spectrum of objectives that can be performed by cubesat missions, those that could use GTO orbits would be relatively rare.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
GTO and HEO have some advantages.

Very long tracking passes. In LEO, you get 5, 10 minutes a pass. If you have the proper(more expensive) tracking gear, you can do multi hour passes.

Another advantage is GTO passes through the Van Allen Belts. That is interesting for those who have an interest in studying it or it's effect on spacecraft components.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2015 01:05 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1