ROOM
25
Special Report
nanosat volume, but the list of those we can
accommodate is surprisingly long. It includes:
magnetometers; optical/IR cameras; UV/
optical spectrometers; IR radiometers and
spectrometers, from the near-IR to far-
IR; microwave radiometers; sub-mm-wave
spectrometers; short wavelength radars; GPS
radio occultation; mass spectrometers; gamma
ray and X-ray spectrometers; and optical
communication lasers that can be used for
occultation. That’s quite a rich suite of science
instrumentation that reflects the investment
the science community has made in reducing
instrument size.
There are also some critical spacecraft
technologies that JPL and others within NASA
are investing in with high payoff for deep space
cubesats/nanosats, including: a low mass radio
transponder; reflector array antennas for X-band and
Ka-band telecommunications; a compact, deployable
Ka-band 0.5 m diameter reflector antenna; Micro-
Electric Propulsion (MEP) that can provide up to 1
km/s of Delta-V; the design of a standard attachment
container to deploy cubesats as hitch-hikers;
and onboard data reduction and data handling to
significantly reduce science data volumes.
Other technology developments that will
greatly enhance or enable deep space nanosat
missions include: low-power modes and duty
cycling; efficient, lightweight solar arrays;
greater energy storage capacity; on-board
data compression; delay-tolerant networking;
autonomous operations; terrain relative
navigation; radiation-tolerant avionics; and
multi-layer structures for more efficient
packaging and improved thermal balancing.
Looking ahead, compact radioisotope power
systems may eventually open up the outer solar
system to free-flying nanosat missions.
There is no point in arriving at an exotic destination
in the Solar System if you can’t make useful,
science-grade measurements once you get there
Looking forward
The future for space science using small
spacecraft looks bright. We are clearly at
the bottom of the growth curve but the pace
of change in this area is accelerating, and
a lot of innovation is happening across the
community. The two factors that will have the
most influence on this future from outside
the cubesat/nanosat community are whether
launch costs can be kept low (and in particular
whether dedicated, low cost launch vehicles
make it to market), and whether hitch-hiker
ride-along opportunities can be created on all
planetary missions flown by NASA, ESA and
other space agencies.
About the author
Anthony Freeman joined NASA’s JPL in 1987 and is now manager of
JPL’s incubator of new ideas, the Innovation Foundry, working on
many mission concepts across Earth Science, Planetary Science and
Astrophysics. He also teaches Aerospace Engineering (with a focus
on nanosats), Systems Engineering and Program Management at the
California Institute of Technology (Caltech).
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of many of
his colleagues at JPL who make up the cubesat community, especially
John Baker, Charles Norton, Jeff Booth, Jason Hyon, Peter Kahn,
Harald Schone, Les Deutsch, Pamela Walker, Pat Beauchamp, and
Andy Gray who are fellow members of the ‘cubesat kitchen cabinet’;
and some of the practitioners who are making deep space cubesats
a reality, such as Andy Klesh, Julie Castillo-Rogez, Courtney Duncan,
Lauren Halatek, Pez Zarifian, Joe Lazio, Kar-Ming Cheung, Andreas
Frick and Rob Staehle. The work described here was performed at
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
under contract with NASA.
JPL spacecraft
technology development
for cubesats/nanosats,
and the corresponding
mission they will be
demonstrated on. From
left to right – the deep
space transponder
(INSPIRE and MarCO),
micro-electric spray
propulsion (TBD),
compact, deployable 0.5 m
diameter reflector
(RainCube), and onboard
data reduction board
(M-Cubed/COVE-2).
NASA/JPL
