Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, used the standard CubeSat shape and size for their Ions, Neutrals, Electrons, Magnetic Fields project.
Image: Photograph by Spencer Lowell
In Brief
- A standardized technology for satellites is making space missions more affordable and accessible than they have ever been before.
- These one-liter, one-kilogram “CubeSats” are often made of components that are shared among researchers. They can also can piggyback on other missions’ rockets.
- The satellites can take as little as one year to develop and can be linked into networks of space sensors. Most also fall to the surface in a relatively short time, which means they do not add to orbiting space junk.
- Universities, companies, countries and even hobbyists can afford to do serious science missions in fields ranging from atmospheric physics to microgravity experiments.
Ever since Sputnik kicked off the age of space satellites more than fifty years ago, big institutions have dominated the skies. Almost all the many thousands of satellites that have taken their place in Earth orbit were the result of huge projects funded by governments and corporations. For decades each generation of satellites has been more complicated and expensive than its predecessor, taken longer to design, and required an infrastructure of expensive launch facilities, global monitoring stations, mission specialists and research centers.
In recent years, however, improvements in electronics, solar power and other technologies have made it possible to shrink satellites dramatically. A new type of satellite, called CubeSat, drastically simplifies and standardizes the design of small spacecraft and brings costs down to less than $100,000 to develop, launch and operate a single satellite—a tiny fraction of the typical mission budget of NASA or the European Space Agency.
This article was originally published with the title Citizen Satellites.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentReading the Cubesat Forum (see the link) I have realized that there is still a long way till cubesats will be real competitors for big satellites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese cubesats can not develop enough power for high speed communication. At 1200 bps, even 9600 bps they are not of much use for most practical application.
Unless a revolutionary small power source is discovered cubesats will remain toys.
http://cubesat.ifastnet.com/forum/index.php
They might seem like toys but they are still making it to space and anyone can design a toy but a Cube sat involves more than creativity. Its funny how we focus on the big things but we forget about the small details that can have a deeper and more amazing impact over our lives, future and Science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod Bless
As a spacecraft engineer, this proliferation of space access is definitely a welcome advancement: more knowledgable practitioners will have many positive impacts on the fields of space science. However, two potentially negative aspects not discussed in depth in the article must be noted. First is that CubeSat operators are still beholden to the treaties and conventions established at the beginning of the space age. Most relevant is that countries which launch items into space are ultimately responsible for those items--both on orbit and upon re-entry. Though their small size means CubeSats would likely not survive atmospheric re-entry, and therefore pose minimal risk terrestrially, on-orbit collisions become more likely as the sheer number of objects increases. And despite their diminutive mass, it's the velocity they maintain in space that creates a debris threat. Secondly, in a related vein, is the concept of traffic management in space for both satellites and radio signals. The UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) maintains a registry of space objects as reported by launching States, but pre-launch approval by COPUOS is not required. The UN's International Telecommunications Union performs a similar role for space-based signal sources. The situation can be likened to air travel without air traffic control: a collision is in no one's best interests, but orbital collision avoidance is ad hoc or performed by willing participants only.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are not insurmountable problems, and neither should detract from the goodness of CubeSat's potential to do for satellites what Henry Ford did for automobiles. But, like standards we now have for automobile operation, agreed upon norms for the responsible use of space are a necessary complement to any spacecraft propagation.
Nick Martin
Well put - Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat kind of damage could one of these little monsters do to a communications satellite or the International Space Station, for example, in the name of youth science projects?
It is good to see the cost of producing space junk is coming down.