5 ms·

One interesting development in the area of cubesats is that most teams are shifting towards open source designs. In the past, cubesats were mostly using old and

One interesting development in the area of cubesats is that most teams are shifting towards open source designs. In the past, cubesats were mostly using old and expensive hardware (like the pumpkin board). Now a lot of teams are using open source designs like PyCubed and building the electronics themselves. As a result, the price to enter the cubesat space has dropped dramatically. This has enabled a bunch of university teams to start building their own cubesats. Many of these open source projects actually use consumer / hobbyist grade components instead of using commercial aerospace-grade components. The commercial hardware for cubesats is made with a specific manufacturing process that makes them resistant to radiation in space. However, this increases manufacturing costs. Also, most of the radiation resistant hardware being sold is sort of slow / outdated. The solution some open source projects came up with was to just take components from Mouser and run their own radiation tests on it then choose the ones that fared good enough to be used in space. That way they can make satellite boards for way cheaper. Another interesting development is there are some startups now offering sub 50k launches for cubesats, such as launcher space. They essentially buy launches from SpaceX then outfit it with hardware to launch a massive amount of cubesats at once. As a result of the number of cubesats they’re able to fit on one launch, the prices are now relatively cheap compared to the hundreds of thousands if not millions required in the past. However, most of these startups are heavily subsidizing the cost using VC money so these low prices won’t stay forever. Also, if anyone has any questions about cubesats feel free to AMA. I work at Isomer space which is a not for profit building cubesats. I would love to answer any questions about cubesats or our work.

enviclash 4y ago
What are the main commercial or scientific uses of cubesats?
- Ephil012 4y ago
  For commercial, the big use case is satellite imagery. Satellite imagery is pretty useful for mapping, agriculture, and even planning out large construction projects. CubeSats are especially useful if you need a cluster of satellites for cheap to blanket the Earth for imagery or sensor data. I think that there are also a bunch of defense companies using CubeSats for sensor data. I believe in general the US gov is investing heavily in defense companies using CubeSats. There are also other use cases involving communications. I have heard of companies looking into using them for IoT and phone communication. That might not be fully developed because right now there are some limits on data transmission speed from CubeSats. Another big use case is asset tracking. You can keep track of exactly where cargo ships are at sea. You can also use them to track planes in the air. As a whole, though a lot of these use cases I mentioned are very early stage / theoretical since CubeSats are a relatively new tool for companies to use. In terms of practical use right now, I think it's mostly satellite imagery / sensor data that it's being used for. However, I expect it to expand in the future to the other use cases I mentioned and many more. In terms of scientific, I think it's best to think of CubeSats as a floating lab. You can basically stick whatever you want on there (size permitting). One thing you can do is stick cameras on there to track climate change through a cluster of tiny cheap CubeSats. Another is to put sensors to measure different particles in space. CubeSats are also useful for testing out new forms of propulsion like ion thrusters. You can also use them to test new materials in space. I have even heard putting bacteria inside CubeSats to see how they react in space. In general, CubeSats are just insanely useful for collecting sensor data for research and putting items in space to see how they react. The big appeal though is you can do all of this stuff I mentioned for the fraction of the cost of a normal satellite. As a result, CubeSats are great for smaller companies or researchers who don't have unlimited cash to spend on a big satellite. Hope all this info helps!
  - enviclash 4y ago
    This is cool and very informative, thanks! From my angle I can see that applications to track El Niño and its impacts on real time could provide information with very high market value in the immediate timelines.
    - Ephil012 4y ago
      Yeah, it would be useful for that. In general, anything involving tracking changes on the Earth is fair game for CubeSats. I haven't heard of any organizations / companies using CubeSats for El Niño, but I think that could be a use case in the future. I think there is also a pretty good use case for gov agencies tracking hurricanes that might form due to the influence of El Niño.
a_d 4y ago
Imagine if one were to launch a swarm of cubesats with cameras on them looking away from Earth —- what would you imagine those cameras would see? (Let’s say cameras allow very long exposure shots?) Another way to ask my question is: can cubesat be used as “mini-Hubbles” to get closeups of planets/moon in the solar system or nearby stars? Second question (somewhat related to first) — can a cubesat stream video to a server on earth? (Or does one need a ‘big Sat’ to do video streaming?
- Ephil012 4y ago
  So we are actually adding imagery to our satellite so I think I can answer these pretty well. For question 1, I do think you could use it for astrophotography. You could probably capture pictures of the stars if you have stabilization on the CubeSat. However, the photos would probably be similar to the photos taken of space from the ISS. What I mean by this is you might be able to take photos of the stars, but it wouldn't be able to see anywhere as far out as Hubble. I know a bunch of CubeSats use smartphone quality cameras so you would probably get a decent photo that might make a nice desktop wallpaper, but it wouldn't really compare to a bigger satellite. It would show an overview of the stars, but it wouldn't be significantly different from existing images imo except maybe it being from a different perspective. As far as zooming in, that would actually be kind of hard due to space constraints. CubeSats are small, like really small (10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm in some cases). So it would be hard to fit any substantial zoom lens system in there. That might make getting ultra close ups hard. Maybe as camera tech improves in the future what you are suggesting would be possible though. Aiming it at a specific planet also might be a bit of a challenge. CubeSats mostly don't have propulsion (although we are adding an ion thruster in ours). They can use reaction wheels to rotate though. However, accurately rotating it towards a tiny planet in the sky could be hard. However, I will say you could go for a really big CubeSat design and fit a good camera system in that. Then if you solve the aiming issue you could get some really cool images that are zoomed in on planets / stars. For question 2, we actually considered trying this. I had the idea to live stream the satellite on Twitch. We discovered that livestreaming it was hard. If you are sending data from the CubeSat to earth, the data transmission is very slow. That basically rules out livestreaming. Maybe you could transmit it to a big communications sat in orbit which then sends it to Earth. However, I suspect the data transmission speed might still be less than ideal. Plus, using a communications sat network (like Iridium) could be expensive. Let's say though communication tech gets better and you can transmit directly to Earth at a fast speed. There is still are two major issues. Regulations and getting ground stations. Every single ground station (basically an antenna on Earth that gets data from space) requires you list it on your FCC application. If it involves ground stations in other countries (especially countries the USA isn't friendly with) it can get very messy from a regulations perspective. Also, getting those partnerships to begin with can be messy as well. There are some networks like SatNogs that do allow for receiving data from volunteer ground stations in other countries. Although, I don't know if they would really be practical for livestreaming due to coverage. I know Amazon has some offerings where they let you access their ground station network that might allow for livestreaming one day. However, I haven't really explored too much into it. I also haven't heard of any teams using AWS Ground Station personally though. Honestly, you'd be forced into using Iridium regardless due to coverage being shoddy for ground stations. Overall though, I think the data speeds just aren't there yet to livestream, at least not with LoRa (which is the protocol a lot of teams use for transmission).
ackbar03 4y ago
This is great, I've been curious about this for a while, thanks for offering to answer questions! > The solution some open source projects came up with was to just take components from Mouser and run their own radiation tests on it then choose the ones that fared good enough to be used in space. That way they can make satellite boards for way cheaper. Isn't there a requirement for all cube-sats to pass radiation tests / shock tests or whatever for them to be accepted for launch? From what I've read researching this stuff, the sats themselves aren't necessarily difficult or expensive to build, but its because of this testing / component requirement that makes them expensive. E.g., see the first comment on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8TSiKHZbC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8TSiKHZbC8 > I work in this industry and yes these things are seriously expensive but also the cost isn't necessarily due to the hardware being expensive. The cost comes from testing and verification. Most integrators and launch providers want detailed information concerning vibration testing, material certifications for outgassing, vacuum testing and burn in. A lot of the players in the sat industry can't really afford to mess this up so they want to make sure the one shot they do have works. All of this additional engineering and testing costs are what kills the affordability. Even if you can get away with doing this all yourself, either academically or otherwise, no launch provider is going to let you on a ride share without this work, which requires specific testing hardware and a lot of man hours... which coincidentally costs a lot of money.
- jdiez17 4y ago
  > Isn't there a requirement for all cube-sats to pass radiation tests / shock tests or whatever for them to be accepted for launch? The launch provider usually doesn't care about radiation tests. For CubeSats they mostly only want to see vibration test reports. Now, you and your user(s) will want to make sure that the satellite will work for a certain time while in orbit. So you throw all the functional and environmental tests that you can reasonably perform at it. And indeed, that's where you spend a lot of money.
- naavis 4y ago
  > Isn't there a requirement for all cube-sats to pass radiation tests / shock tests or whatever for them to be accepted for launch? I guess the launch provider doesn't care whether your satellite will actually work and survive in orbit. They just don't want it to break into pieces during launch and damage the rest of the payload. So they most likely just want vibration tests.
carrozo 4y ago
Hi there! What kind of photographic resolution of the earth’s surface is possible given the cubesat’s small size?
- Ephil012 4y ago
  Depends on the size. If you’re doing a small one (1U) you are probably just getting smartphone quality pictures. The reason why is because in my experience a lot of the electronics and stabilization hardware takes up enough space inside you can’t fit a super large camera system there. Although, I do think there have been upgrades to camera tech recently so maybe you could actually fit something with a decent zoom on earth if you’re careful with how you design it. Although, I doubt something similar in quality to a DSLR camera would be able to fit in a 1U. If you upgrade to bigger sizes you can get satellites that are high enough quality that they could see decently close up to earth. For instance, a bunch of CubeSats are able to get good enough images to monitor deforestation. Another commenter asked a variation of this deep space planets. That’s harder because it’s a much smaller target to aim for in the sky and would probably require a much better camera system. https://dragonflyaerospace.com/products/ https://dragonflyaerospace.com/products/ Here is an example of some CubeSat cameras to give you an idea of resolution.

enviclash 4y ago

What are the main commercial or scientific uses of cubesats?

Ephil012 4y ago
For commercial, the big use case is satellite imagery. Satellite imagery is pretty useful for mapping, agriculture, and even planning out large construction projects. CubeSats are especially useful if you need a cluster of satellites for cheap to blanket the Earth for imagery or sensor data. I think that there are also a bunch of defense companies using CubeSats for sensor data. I believe in general the US gov is investing heavily in defense companies using CubeSats. There are also other use cases involving communications. I have heard of companies looking into using them for IoT and phone communication. That might not be fully developed because right now there are some limits on data transmission speed from CubeSats. Another big use case is asset tracking. You can keep track of exactly where cargo ships are at sea. You can also use them to track planes in the air. As a whole, though a lot of these use cases I mentioned are very early stage / theoretical since CubeSats are a relatively new tool for companies to use. In terms of practical use right now, I think it's mostly satellite imagery / sensor data that it's being used for. However, I expect it to expand in the future to the other use cases I mentioned and many more. In terms of scientific, I think it's best to think of CubeSats as a floating lab. You can basically stick whatever you want on there (size permitting). One thing you can do is stick cameras on there to track climate change through a cluster of tiny cheap CubeSats. Another is to put sensors to measure different particles in space. CubeSats are also useful for testing out new forms of propulsion like ion thrusters. You can also use them to test new materials in space. I have even heard putting bacteria inside CubeSats to see how they react in space. In general, CubeSats are just insanely useful for collecting sensor data for research and putting items in space to see how they react. The big appeal though is you can do all of this stuff I mentioned for the fraction of the cost of a normal satellite. As a result, CubeSats are great for smaller companies or researchers who don't have unlimited cash to spend on a big satellite. Hope all this info helps!
- enviclash 4y ago
  This is cool and very informative, thanks! From my angle I can see that applications to track El Niño and its impacts on real time could provide information with very high market value in the immediate timelines.
  - Ephil012 4y ago
    Yeah, it would be useful for that. In general, anything involving tracking changes on the Earth is fair game for CubeSats. I haven't heard of any organizations / companies using CubeSats for El Niño, but I think that could be a use case in the future. I think there is also a pretty good use case for gov agencies tracking hurricanes that might form due to the influence of El Niño.

a_d 4y ago

Imagine if one were to launch a swarm of cubesats with cameras on them looking away from Earth —- what would you imagine those cameras would see? (Let’s say cameras allow very long exposure shots?) Another way to ask my question is: can cubesat be used as “mini-Hubbles” to get closeups of planets/moon in the solar system or nearby stars? Second question (somewhat related to first) — can a cubesat stream video to a server on earth? (Or does one need a ‘big Sat’ to do video streaming?

Ephil012 4y ago
So we are actually adding imagery to our satellite so I think I can answer these pretty well. For question 1, I do think you could use it for astrophotography. You could probably capture pictures of the stars if you have stabilization on the CubeSat. However, the photos would probably be similar to the photos taken of space from the ISS. What I mean by this is you might be able to take photos of the stars, but it wouldn't be able to see anywhere as far out as Hubble. I know a bunch of CubeSats use smartphone quality cameras so you would probably get a decent photo that might make a nice desktop wallpaper, but it wouldn't really compare to a bigger satellite. It would show an overview of the stars, but it wouldn't be significantly different from existing images imo except maybe it being from a different perspective. As far as zooming in, that would actually be kind of hard due to space constraints. CubeSats are small, like really small (10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm in some cases). So it would be hard to fit any substantial zoom lens system in there. That might make getting ultra close ups hard. Maybe as camera tech improves in the future what you are suggesting would be possible though. Aiming it at a specific planet also might be a bit of a challenge. CubeSats mostly don't have propulsion (although we are adding an ion thruster in ours). They can use reaction wheels to rotate though. However, accurately rotating it towards a tiny planet in the sky could be hard. However, I will say you could go for a really big CubeSat design and fit a good camera system in that. Then if you solve the aiming issue you could get some really cool images that are zoomed in on planets / stars. For question 2, we actually considered trying this. I had the idea to live stream the satellite on Twitch. We discovered that livestreaming it was hard. If you are sending data from the CubeSat to earth, the data transmission is very slow. That basically rules out livestreaming. Maybe you could transmit it to a big communications sat in orbit which then sends it to Earth. However, I suspect the data transmission speed might still be less than ideal. Plus, using a communications sat network (like Iridium) could be expensive. Let's say though communication tech gets better and you can transmit directly to Earth at a fast speed. There is still are two major issues. Regulations and getting ground stations. Every single ground station (basically an antenna on Earth that gets data from space) requires you list it on your FCC application. If it involves ground stations in other countries (especially countries the USA isn't friendly with) it can get very messy from a regulations perspective. Also, getting those partnerships to begin with can be messy as well. There are some networks like SatNogs that do allow for receiving data from volunteer ground stations in other countries. Although, I don't know if they would really be practical for livestreaming due to coverage. I know Amazon has some offerings where they let you access their ground station network that might allow for livestreaming one day. However, I haven't really explored too much into it. I also haven't heard of any teams using AWS Ground Station personally though. Honestly, you'd be forced into using Iridium regardless due to coverage being shoddy for ground stations. Overall though, I think the data speeds just aren't there yet to livestream, at least not with LoRa (which is the protocol a lot of teams use for transmission).

ackbar03 4y ago

This is great, I've been curious about this for a while, thanks for offering to answer questions! > The solution some open source projects came up with was to just take components from Mouser and run their own radiation tests on it then choose the ones that fared good enough to be used in space. That way they can make satellite boards for way cheaper. Isn't there a requirement for all cube-sats to pass radiation tests / shock tests or whatever for them to be accepted for launch? From what I've read researching this stuff, the sats themselves aren't necessarily difficult or expensive to build, but its because of this testing / component requirement that makes them expensive. E.g., see the first comment on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8TSiKHZbC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8TSiKHZbC8 > I work in this industry and yes these things are seriously expensive but also the cost isn't necessarily due to the hardware being expensive. The cost comes from testing and verification. Most integrators and launch providers want detailed information concerning vibration testing, material certifications for outgassing, vacuum testing and burn in. A lot of the players in the sat industry can't really afford to mess this up so they want to make sure the one shot they do have works. All of this additional engineering and testing costs are what kills the affordability. Even if you can get away with doing this all yourself, either academically or otherwise, no launch provider is going to let you on a ride share without this work, which requires specific testing hardware and a lot of man hours... which coincidentally costs a lot of money.

jdiez17 4y ago
> Isn't there a requirement for all cube-sats to pass radiation tests / shock tests or whatever for them to be accepted for launch? The launch provider usually doesn't care about radiation tests. For CubeSats they mostly only want to see vibration test reports. Now, you and your user(s) will want to make sure that the satellite will work for a certain time while in orbit. So you throw all the functional and environmental tests that you can reasonably perform at it. And indeed, that's where you spend a lot of money.
naavis 4y ago
> Isn't there a requirement for all cube-sats to pass radiation tests / shock tests or whatever for them to be accepted for launch? I guess the launch provider doesn't care whether your satellite will actually work and survive in orbit. They just don't want it to break into pieces during launch and damage the rest of the payload. So they most likely just want vibration tests.

carrozo 4y ago

Hi there! What kind of photographic resolution of the earth’s surface is possible given the cubesat’s small size?

Ephil012 4y ago
Depends on the size. If you’re doing a small one (1U) you are probably just getting smartphone quality pictures. The reason why is because in my experience a lot of the electronics and stabilization hardware takes up enough space inside you can’t fit a super large camera system there. Although, I do think there have been upgrades to camera tech recently so maybe you could actually fit something with a decent zoom on earth if you’re careful with how you design it. Although, I doubt something similar in quality to a DSLR camera would be able to fit in a 1U. If you upgrade to bigger sizes you can get satellites that are high enough quality that they could see decently close up to earth. For instance, a bunch of CubeSats are able to get good enough images to monitor deforestation. Another commenter asked a variation of this deep space planets. That’s harder because it’s a much smaller target to aim for in the sky and would probably require a much better camera system. https://dragonflyaerospace.com/products/ https://dragonflyaerospace.com/products/ Here is an example of some CubeSat cameras to give you an idea of resolution.