Odyssey

The Odyssey is our newsletter. Below, we’ve given you just a monthly sample of all of the articles in each issue:
May 2010

The Innovator’s Dilemma and the Emerging Market in CubeSat Launch Services – John Garvey at the AIAA Dinner Meeting, March 24, 2010

by Seth Potter

At the March 24, 2010 dinner meeting of the Los Angeles section of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, John Garvey addressed the relevance of “The Innovator’s Dilemma” to the emerging markets in dedicated launch services for very small spacecraft - picosatellites (<1 kg) and nanosatellites (1-10 kg). Garvey is president and CEO of Garvey Spacecraft Corporation (GSC), a small aerospace R&D company that has been developing cost-effective advanced space technologies and smaller test launch vehicles - nanosat launch vehicles (NLVs). These efforts have been in collaboration with California State University at Long Beach (CSULB).

Garvey cited author Clayton M. Christensen who, in “The Innovator’s Dilemma”, defined “disruptive technology”: “disruptive technologies underperform established products in mainstream markets. But they have other features that a few fringe (and generally new) customers value. Products based on disruptive technologies are typically cheaper, simpler, smaller, and, frequently, more convenient to use.” Garvey’s examples of “disruptive technology” were the focus of his talk: nanosats/ picosats and NLVs.

Garvey introduced nanosats/ picosats with some history. The Explorer and Vanguard programs produced and launched what now may be considered the original nanosats in the late 1950’s. Vanguard 1, the second artificial US satellite successfully placed into orbit after Explorer 1 and the oldest artificial satellite still in orbit, could be considered the first picosat (1.4 kg). Not long after, the Orbital Satellite Carrying Amateur Radio (OSCAR)-1 was the first nanosat to be carried and ejected as a secondary payload. Stanford University professor emeritus Robert Twiggs, along with Jordi Puig-Suari of California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly SLO), first developed CubeSats (10×10x10 cm, 1 kg). CubeSats offer opportunities for hands-on experience at university laboratories: they are inexpensive (as low as $10,000-$40,000) and are commercially available as kits in the $20,000-$30,000 range (http://www.cubesatkit.com/ Pumpkin, Inc., San Francisco, CA). Garvey described examples of CubeSat research at CSULB and Cal Poly SLO. One slide showed Cal Poly SLO’s CP4 in a picture taken just after deployment.

Another showed their Poly-Picosat Orbital Deployer (P-POD), by itself and installed in the Prospector 7. Garvey gave other examples of nanosat applications:
• NASA Ames’ PharmaSat carried an experiment assessing how microgravity affects microorganism reactions to drugs; it was launched in May 2009 aboard a Minotaur 1.
• Secondary payloads accompanied the RazakSAT Earth Observation satellite by Falcon 1 in July 2009.
• Nanosat-2 consisted of two satellites built by students from Arizona State University, New Mexico State University, and the University of Colorado at Boulder. The satellites were launched on a Delta IV-Heavy lifter in 2004. The two were to demonstrate technologies required for small satellite constellations, including imaging, micropropulsion and intersatellite communications.
• Satellite constellations forming sparse aperture antennae (versus one large, more cumbersome antenna)
• Tactical communications data relay (Army MILTEC SMDC-One)
• QuakeSat (assessing ability to predict earthquakes).

Nanosat developers have also turned to off-shore launching; Garvey listed the Dnepr (ISC Kosmotras; Russia/ Ukraine/Kazakhstan), and the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (Indian Space Research Organization). In addition, an audience member mentioned the Ariane rockets. However, off-shore launches are complicated by logistics such as export compliance laws (ITAR-related issues)

Fifty years after OSCAR-1, picosats and nanosats are still being launched primarily as secondary payloads. Garvey showed a slide of CSA’s EELV Secondary Payload Adapter ring, designed to fit smaller satellites on unused payload margins. When picosats and nanosats are piggybacked as secondary payloads, their cost is subsidized by that of the much larger primary payload; launching them as primary payloads has not been considered profitable by the larger companies. The cost of these launches - in the tens of millions of dollars - is out of reach of picosat and nanosat developers. This secondary payload status places nanosat/picosat developers and operators at a disadvantage: they have little, if any, control over the primary payload’s schedule and requirements–assuming that the launch provider is even willing to include secondary payloads.

So what advantages do nanosats/ picosats and dedicated launch services offer? Why is their technology “disruptive”?

They are disruptive because of their lower cost and faster production as well as shorter time to market. CubeSat labs can be set up in a matter of weeks. Relatively inexpensive off-the-shelf electronics technology can be used, which is often more current than traditional space-rated items. Experimentation and failures are not nearly as expensive as with the larger satellites, helping students gain far more experience. New approaches for deployment and sustainment are possible. CubeSats’ smaller size, lower cost and faster development can also facilitate increased stockpiling: this is key for “Operationally Responsive Space”, or faster responsiveness of space capabilities to meet national security requirements. Garvey noted that such responsiveness led to the success of the Corona space photo reconnaissance satellites launched from Thor/Agena rockets. Nanosat/ picosat development and use are also taking place on the international level - but this raised the specter of use by adversaries.

Garvey noted that nanosat/picosat launch demand is more responsive to launch price changes compared with existing launch markets. However, to develop and operate cost-effective NLVs, several challenges must be overcome. Costs of dedicated launch operations are difficult to determine because there are insufficient valid market data on demand curves; costs of secondary payload rides are being subsidized; and satellite cost is measured per kilogram as opposed to the total. Also, for the smaller satellites, the launch costs are a higher fraction of the total cost. Traditional (government) launch R&D sponsors are less interested in developing dedicated launch services, focusing on their current missions and/or improving their next-generation systems. The window may already be starting to close for small players as bigger ones get more involved. Information is difficult to get because Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) applications tend to be classified. Lack of standardization further complicates matters: requirements and approaches vary from operation to operation.

So is it really possible to develop and operate cost-effective NLVs?

Garvey addressed this by outlining GSC/CSULB’s development of the Prospector NLVs. Their reference NLV flies at low altitudes in a circular polar orbit, has operational capability of 10 kg (one nanosat or several CubeSats) to 250 km, uses liquid fuel, and is expendable. However, Garvey also showed examples of reusables. Garvey showed the development path of NLVs, with the Prospector prototypes as the model, from the Prospector-5 (P-5) to the P-9, and onward. The P-6 was a demonstration of stage separation and recovery (its first stage was the recovered P-5 first stage: a full-scale, low-fidelity prototype of the NLV first stage). The P-7A-D and the P-9 showed reusable launch vehicle fast-turnaround capability. The P-9 featured two linerless composite cryogenic propellant tanks from Microcosm/ Scorpius SLC, and manifested multiple wireless sensor experiments from NASA/Johnson Space Center and a CubeSat deployer from Ecliptic.

Garvey also described different launch architectures such as mid-air capture as an alternative to the rocket-back booster for recovering the first stage. He noted that both are inexpensive.

Garvey concluded by re-iterating his major points. CubeSats and nanosats are already transitioning from technology experiments to operational applications. Dedicated launch services will be the key to fully utilizing this disruptive technology to transform space operations.

Saturn Continued: Cassini’s Extended Mission

By Wilson Lee

Bridget Landry gave a talk on the Cassini Mission to Saturn with great enthusiasm and depth on March 6th, 2010, at the El Dorado Neighborhood Library.

The lecture started off with a special tribute to the artist Robert T. McCall, who created the memorable artwork for the masterpiece film 2001: A Space Odyssey, when the speaker mentioned the extensive influence it had on people at the time it was released.

In the lecture, Ms. Landry, with the help of her organized slide show, gave a brief yet insightful presentation on the Cassini Mission to Saturn. The highlight of the presentation included new discoveries such as evidence of the existence of an atmosphere on Saturn’s moon Enceladus, the contribution of distinctive colors to the argument of Iapetus being a dark moon with white spots or a white moon with dark spots, the difference between radio emission data of Saturn collected by Cassini and Voyager, and so forth.

Throughout, Landry used a humorous and passionate tone that compelled even some of the mere numbers or statistics to be interesting. Ms. Landry talked about “women in science” in the close of her talk. She urged, as a role model herself, the audience to encourage females into the course of science and technology. “If you ever have a girl in your life, tell her that it’s okay to like science and it’s okay to be smart,” Landry passionately delivered.

The room in the El Dorado Neighborhood Library had a quite small capacity, which helped the audience to focus. Throughout, the audience was engaged into the talk and some members of the audience threw out questions at appropriate times. Overall, the talk moved at a good pace and finished in about an hour.

The lecture on Cassini’s extended emission to Saturn was an overall success. The atmosphere in the lecture room was comfortable for the audience while the speaker poured great energy and passion into the material. Based on the reaction from the audience after the lecture, it could easily be surmised that all people attending the lecture had a wonderful intellectual experience.