CubeSat Industry Days 2017

Working Groups (preliminary info)

Overall objectives:

• Consult the CubeSat industry on key issues relevant for future operational missions with ESA or commercial:
  • CubeSat COTS radiation hardness
  • CubeSat avionics bus/interface standards
  • CubeSat engineering and quality standards
  • CubeSat inter-operability standards

 

Working Group 1: CubeSat COTS radiation hardness
Chair: Ali Zadeh (ESA)

Topics:

• Radiation hardness assurance best practices
• COTS EEE component database for CubeSats
• Low-cost radiation testing procedures
• ESA support for radiation testing

Questions:

1. How much are radiation hardness assurance practices performed in the CubeSat industry?
2. What actions are necessary to improve the radiation harness of CubeSats?
3. How can we identify COTS components used through the CubeSat industry?
4. How can we determine if the COTS components have flight heritage or require radiation testing?
5. How can we reduce risk associated with radiation induced failures/outages whilst keeping the radiation testing costs low?
6. How can ESA help with radiation hardness assurance?

 

Working Group 2: CubeSat avionics bus/interface standards
Chair: Rafaele Vitulli (ESA)

Topics:

• Existing de facto standard PC104 stack connector & I2C bus
• New standards for connector and data bus for improved reliability & robustness
• Reduction of harness and increased ease of AIV through automation

Questions:

1. Is there a need for a (new) CubeSat bus standard regarding electro-mechanical interfaces?
   1. Need for different databus, power distribution, wiring & connectors?
   2. Need for 1 or more standards?
2. What are the alternative candidates for a new CubeSat bus & connector standard?
   1. Pros and cons with respect to reliability, robustness and resources?
   2. How can the wiring harness be eliminated/reduced?
   3. How can ease of integration be improved?
3. What is the best approach for establishing a new CubeSat standard?

1. Bottoms-up: may the “best” win?
2. International working group with industry, institutions & academia?
3. Using an existing standard?
4. Adoption by the industry developing COTS products?

 

Working Group 3: Engineering and quality standards
Chair: Roger Walker (ESA) & Fulvio Capogna (ESA)

Topics:

• ESA IOD CubeSat engineering and quality standards
• Industry standards
• Analysis/Testing for requirements verification
• Documentation & reviews

Questions:

1. To what extent is industry applying its own standards or the ESA tailored standards for CubeSat projects to cover mission assurance for customers?
2. What is the industry experience with applying ESA tailored CubeSat standards?
   1. Is the balance right?
   2. What improvements can be made?
3. What is the industry experience with regard to ESA CubeSat projects reviews and the requirements for documentation?
   1. Is the balance right?
   2. What improvements can be made?
4. To what extent should we specify standards for analysis and testing for requirements verification and risk reduction?
   1. Standard thermal and mechanical test specifications for LEO missions?
   2. Mechanical and thermal analysis specifications?
   3. AOCS analysis specification?
5. Should ESA maintain a generic lessons learned database?
   1. Would industry contribute?

 

Working Group 4: Inter-operability standards
Chair: Quirien Wijnands (ESA)

Topics:

• Data layer protocols
• Mission control/EGSE software standards
• Reference facility for software verification

Questions:

1. Which data packet standards and on-board control procedures are used by the industry to control CubeSat?
2. Is there a need to have a new standard for CubeSat operations to ensure inter-operability?
   1. CCSDS / PUS / MO Services?
   2. Open source standards?
3. How can operations standards help to support multi-node constellations and ground station networks?
   1. needed technology developments?
4. Do we need standard MCS/EGSE software standards?
5. How can we ensure a through verification of software for acceptance on CubeSat projects before and after launch?
   1. Is there a role for a reference facility in order to provide an independent standard environment for software testing?