Author Topic: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology  (Read 108711 times)

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 357
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #180 on: 05/07/2016 11:34 pm »
Here is a list:


CanX-2 2008, CanX-4/5 2014, Canada University of Toronto. Cold-gas
Almasat-1 2012, University of Bologna, Italy. Cold-gas.
STRaND-1 2013 , Surrey Space, UK. Water-alcohol resistojet and pulsed plasma thrusters
CUSat 1/2 2013, Cornell University, US. Pulsed plasma thrusters
DELFI-N3XT 2013, Delft University, Netherlands. Cold-gas
Wren 2013, StaDoKo, Germany. pulsed plasma thrusters, failed
ALICE  2013, Air Force Institute, US. CNT arrays, appears classified now
POPSAT-HIP1, 2014. Microspace, Singapore. Cold-gas
BRICSat-P 2015, United States Naval Academy/ GWU, US. micro-arc thruster, µCAT

Almasat, CUSat, Wren are not CubeSats and the CNTs on ALICE have no propulsive function.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 988
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #181 on: 05/08/2016 12:09 am »
Here is a list:


CanX-2 2008, CanX-4/5 2014, Canada University of Toronto. Cold-gas
Almasat-1 2012, University of Bologna, Italy. Cold-gas.
STRaND-1 2013 , Surrey Space, UK. Water-alcohol resistojet and pulsed plasma thrusters
CUSat 1/2 2013, Cornell University, US. Pulsed plasma thrusters
DELFI-N3XT 2013, Delft University, Netherlands. Cold-gas
Wren 2013, StaDoKo, Germany. pulsed plasma thrusters, failed
ALICE  2013, Air Force Institute, US. CNT arrays, appears classified now
POPSAT-HIP1, 2014. Microspace, Singapore. Cold-gas
BRICSat-P 2015, United States Naval Academy/ GWU, US. micro-arc thruster, µCAT

Almasat, CUSat, Wren are not CubeSats and the CNTs on ALICE have no propulsive function.

Appreciate the corrections - but isnt the exact form factor beside the point of functioning micropropulsion ?
Almasat-1 was the size of 6U, although it didn't follow the form factor. Wren was 1p PocketCube which is about half the dimensions of 1U. CUSats were about 12U equivalent, but again different form factor.
ALICE - yes, appears to have been more of a component test, and no details published post launch.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #182 on: 05/18/2016 07:11 pm »


Cubesat to big for your purposes, how about a Suncube at 3x3x3cm. A 1U can carry 9 Sun cubes. 


http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2984/1


Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8683
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #183 on: 05/18/2016 08:28 pm »


Cubesat to big for your purposes, how about a Suncube at 3x3x3cm. A 1U can carry 9 Sun cubes. 


http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2984/1


Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk



I suspect that it can carry 27 cubes (33).

At this size can the metal boxes be replaced by a light weight plastic such as Kevlar?
« Last Edit: 05/18/2016 08:29 pm by A_M_Swallow »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #184 on: 05/19/2016 01:06 am »
My mistake only thinking 2D not 3D forgot the other 2 layers.

With these SunCubes and a few cubesats a planetary orbiter could use shotgun approach to sampling. Deploy a few cubesats which in turn would use SunCubes for expendable sensing missions. Each Cubesat could be loaded with a mix bag of SunCubes giving some redundancy especially if a Cubesat is lost. The SunCubes would do the sampling while Cubesat would act as comms relay to mother ship orbiter.


Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #185 on: 05/19/2016 07:33 pm »
NRO using cubesats and smallsats for real missions not just technology demonstrators.

 http://spacenews.com/nro-planning-shift-to-smaller-satellites-new-ground-system/

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6016
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 2527
  • Likes Given: 1901
Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #186 on: 05/20/2016 05:37 pm »
Two CubeSats Deployed from the International Space Station

Published on May 20, 2016
This movie of a CubeSat deployment from the International Space Station shows a compilation of photos taken by astronauts on May 16, 2016. The bottom-most CubeSat is the NASA-funded MinXSS CubeSat, built by the University of Colorado in Boulder. MinXSS observes soft X-rays from the sun. Such X-rays can disturb the ionosphere and thereby hamper radio and GPS signals. The second CubeSat is CADRE — short for CubeSat investigating Atmospheric Density Response to Extreme driving - built by the University of Michigan and funded by the National Science Foundation.

Credit: NASA

Tony De La Rosa

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #187 on: 08/05/2016 09:41 pm »
Nice see TU Hydos making process.


http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/08/03/tethers-unlimited-signs-contracts-deliver-hydros-waterpropelled-thrusters/

Typical DV for cubesat would be 100-300m/s but with large enough tank 2km/s.


Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Moon Express MX-1
« Reply #188 on: 08/06/2016 03:59 am »
This is link to CAT plasma thruster about the only cubesat propulsion system that I know of capable of >3km/s (7km/s?). Still a while away from flying. There are some systems close to 3km/s, may do earth escape but leaves nothing in tank for mission.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35143.msg1227561.msg#1227561

It looks like the University of Michigan has licensed Phase Four to manufacture the CAT thruster.
 ΔV 0.2 - 8km/sec
http://www.phasefour.io/cat-engine.html
« Last Edit: 08/06/2016 04:00 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #189 on: 08/10/2016 10:52 am »
Deep Space Industries Comet1 propulsion system.
This uses superheated water to generate thrust, ISP 150-200ISP.

http://deepspaceindustries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DSI_Comet1_Thruster_Specs_4.pdf

Offline bolun

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2888
  • Europe
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 72

Offline joncz

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Atlanta, Georgia
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 181
Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #191 on: 08/18/2016 11:26 am »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #192 on: 08/18/2016 03:25 pm »

Article on Clyde space and their production line manufacturing of Cubesat.

http://www.satellitetoday.com/nextspace/2016/08/17/clyde-space-ceo-no-slowdown-cubesat-demand-horizon/?utm_content=buffer40acf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.V7TmfRMBo80.twitter

The company thinks it will be big satellite operators eg SES, Thaicom etc that will invest heavily in smallsats in near future.


Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #194 on: 09/09/2016 10:05 pm »


London pegged that number at 16 CubeSats ( equatorial orbit )for this demonstration. At a reasonable altitude, he said this number would provide the level of coverage the Army is seeking to prove at a targeted price point. He acknowledged that the halo would not cover a huge percentage of the Earth, but said that it would reach important areas of responsibility within U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM), Africa Command (USAFRICOM), and parts of Pacific Command (USPACOM).


Some of the challenges the Army faces in fielding this system are sufficient launch capability and operating a ground segment that can run demonstration satellites. Previously, the Army pursued it’s own launch system, the three-stage Multipurpose NanoMissile System (MNMS) program, as well as the JCTD Soldier-Warfighter Operationally Responsive Deployer for Space (SWORDS), but ultimately decided both were too expensive to continue. London said launching to an equatorial orbit remains a challenge, but expressed confidence that commercial systems such as Orbital ATK’s Pegasus and Virgin Galactic’s LauncherOne could possibly provide such a service for the military in the future.

http://www.satellitetoday.com/regional/2016/09/09/army-weighs-ring-cubesats-next-satellite-demonstration/


Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #195 on: 09/16/2016 08:30 pm »
http://www.space.com/34088-water-propelled-cubesat-moon-cornell-video.html?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=socialtwitterspc&cmpid=social_spc_514648#?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=2016twitterdlvrit


The "Cislunar Explorers" are a team of Cornell University graduate and undergraduate students that are working on a cubesat design that will electrolyze water in its tank and turn it into combustible hydrogen and oxygen gas.

NB these are not only people doing this, check out Tethers Unlimited Hydros on post #188.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2016 08:32 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 988
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #196 on: 11/04/2016 01:46 am »
https://twitter.com/OxfordSpace/status/793505528844517377

Quote
Industry record: AstroTube, world's longest retractable cubesat boom system successfully deployed. Thanks to all who made it possible!
Background:
http://spaceflight101.com/pslv-c35/alsat-nano/

Quote
AstroTube is a test of the world’s longest retractable boom compatible with the CubeSat form factor. In this test flight, it deploys to a length of two meters and only occupies the volume of a packet of cigarettes when in its stowed configuration. Boom technology for small satellites is an important part for future passive deorbiting systems.

The boom system requires around 0.5U of volume and supports a high-precision deployment with an accuracy of +/-0.25 millimeters. The boom itself consists of composite material and allows for partial deployment without losing structural integrity. Possible applications of the boom are for payload deployment and retraction, solar panel and antenna deployment, and deorbit structures. Because the boom is deployed with a motor and does not have any stored energy, its deployment will avoid any shocks to the satellite structure and its instruments.

A scaled-up version of the boom design known as AstroTube Max can support lengths of 12 meters.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #197 on: 11/04/2016 03:51 pm »
Given cubesats are built on smartphone technology, it was only matter of time before somebody gave them a selfie stick.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 988
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #198 on: 11/04/2016 04:25 pm »
Given cubesats are built on smartphone technology, it was only matter of time before somebody gave them a selfie stick.

Haha ... but most cubesats are not built on 'smartphone technology' - most of them run much lower end SoCs than you find in smartphones. Mostly simply modern 32-bit MCUs and FPGA's, not highly integrated applications processors like you find in phones. With many exceptions of course
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CubeSat and NanoSat Technology
« Reply #199 on: 11/06/2016 05:35 pm »
SLS EM1 mission cubesat and their technology from Von Braun Symposium.

 http://livestream.com/accounts/563450/events/6533675/videos/140210586

NASA developed a few new technologies for these cubesat,  most importantly rad harden electronic,  deepspace radio and star tracker. These 3 technologies give them core of deepspace cubesat. Just add propulsion and payload to suit mission.

For planetary missions they may deploy cubesats in flocks 1-2 for earth comms with others carrying specific payloads.

Tags: