This presentation will try to address three leading myths related to nanosatellites and cubesats

1. Nanosatellite Myths Vs. Facts

2. Myth #1: Nanosatellites Reliability
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

3. Are COTS Reliable enough ?
‫• הגרף הבא מציג סטטיסטיקה(*) של נאנולווינים‬
CubeSat ‫מבוססי‬
• source: Wikipedia Cubesat page

4. Myth #2: Components Reliability
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

5. Most satellites are being built by amateurs
•Attack of the CubeSats: A Statistical Look: Michael Swartwout – Saint Louis University

6. Subsystems Failure analysis
• Keeping space industry standards during AIT
prevent failures
Source: SPACECIALIST research

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

8. Mission Lifetime for Nanosatellites
• 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
source of data: Cubesat page at the AMSAT web page

9. Summary
• 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

10. Thank you

11. 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