CEAS Space Journal (2020) 12:573–586

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12567-020-00300-0

ORIGINAL PAPER

Utility and constraints of PocketQubes

J. Bouwmeester1   · S. Radu1 · M. S. Uludag1 · N. Chronas1 · S. Speretta1 · A. Menicucci1 · E. K. A. Gill1

Received: 16 September 2019 / Revised: 20 January 2020 / Accepted: 21 January 2020 / Published online: 5 February 2020
© The Author(s) 2020

Abstract
PocketQubes are a form factor of highly miniaturized satellites with a body of one or more cubic units of 5 cm. In this paper,
the characteristics of PocketQubes in terms of their constraints and their (potential) utility are treated. To avoid space debris
and limit collision risk, the orbits of PocketQubes need to be constraint. An analysis of orbital decay characteristics has
been carried out which, considering existing space regulations and a pro-active attitude, PocketQubes should preferably be
launched in low Earth orbits below 400 km altitude. Due to technical constraints, such as form factor, power and attitude
control, the domain of applications for single PocketQube missions is limited. Still, they can act as low-cost training and
technology demonstration platforms. To make PocketQubes an attractive platform for other types of missions, not only the
launch cost, but also the development, production and operations cost should be significantly lower than CubeSats. When
the PocketQube platform matures and produced in high numbers, networks of PocketQubes can enable new applications.
Applications considered feasible are in the field of (but not limited to) continuous surveillance using optical instruments,
gravity field monitoring using precise orbit determination, in-situ measurements of the space environment, low data rate or
bandwidth communication services and inexpensive probes around other celestial bodies.

Keywords  PocketQube · Application · Orbit · Cost-efficiency · Constellation · Constraints

1 Introduction and is currently used by the majority of PocketQube devel-

opers. Given this deployment system and the additional
PocketQubes have been introduced by Prof. Bob Twiggs external envelope, PocketQubes cannot be economically
in 2009 [1]. They are satellites comprising of one or more fitted into CubeSat deployers anymore. A publicly available
cubic units of 5 cm and with a maximum mass of 250 g per PocketQube standard definition, focussing on mechanical
unit. The number of units is typically presented with suffix dimensions and interfaces, has been released in 2018 [2].
‘p’ instead of ‘U’ as for CubeSats. The original idea was Besides PocketQubes, several competitive form factors
that 8 PocketQubes would fit in a single unit CubeSat (in for picosatellites (satellites with a mass between 0.1 and
2 × 2 × 2 configuration) and could be deployed through exist- 1.0 kg) exist. It is possible to ‘slice’ a CubeSat into satellites
ing CubeSat deployers. A cooperation between Morehead smaller than one unit. For example, Swarm Technologies
State University and GAUSS Srl. has led to the development has launched four SpaceBEE satellites of 0.25U size into
of a dedicated PocketQube deployment system (MRFOD). orbit. ThinSats are a competitive standard with a unit size
Instead of using the corners to slide in the deployment sys- of 11.1 mm × 114.2 mm × 12.5 mm and a mass per unit of
tem, like for CubeSats, a baseplate extending a few millime- about 280 g [3]. There are 60 ThinSats launched in April
tres from the main body is used which slides in guide rails of 2019. Both CubeSats slices and ThinSats have a relatively
the PocketQube deployer. This concept was used for the first large body surface area compared to PocketQubes, which
ten PocketQubes which have been launched so far, four in can be advantageous for solar arrays and ‘flat’ payloads such
2013 using the MRFOD and six in 2019 using the AlbaPOD, as phased array antennas. On the other hand, PocketQubes
are more suitable to host payloads which require more depth
such as optical instruments. Besides the suitability for spe-
* J. Bouwmeester cific payloads, the dimensions have an impact on the internal
[email protected]
physical architecture, the electrical and mechanical inter-
1
Delft University of Technology, Kluyverweg 1, faces and attitude disturbance torques. It is, however, not the
2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

574 J. Bouwmeester et al.

studies and a number of existing national guidelines have

found 25 years to be a reasonable and appropriate lifetime
limit.” [5].
The orbital lifetime has been analysed using the free ESA-
DRAMA software tool [6]. First, the effective cross-section
in the flight direction has been calculated using the CROC
module within the tool. Analysis has been performed on 1p,
2p and 3p satellites with solar panel configurations rang-
ing from solely body mounted up to four-folded solar panel
wings. It is expected that deployable solar panels are used on
Fig. 1  Photo of partially integrated Delfi-PQ advanced PocketQubes with some form of attitude control
for which a uni-directional solar array would be most advan-
intention of this study to perform a full trade-off between tageous. Figures 2 and 3 show the 3D models as used in the
these competitive standards. CROC module for the most minimalistic and extreme con-
Delft University of Technology is currently developing a figuration, respectively. The solar panels are 2 mm smaller
3p PocketQube called Delfi-PQ, which is shown in Fig. 1. A (in both dimensions) than the sides of the satellite body. The
bottoms-up iterative development approach is implemented results are presented in Table 1.
to improve and demonstrate PocketQube capabilities [4]. As can be seen in Table 1, there is a large spread in effec-
Meanwhile, the potential of operational applications with tive cross section (drag) area depending on the satellite con-
PocketQubes is currently investigated to provide a vision figuration as well as its attitude. The minimum drag area can
and long term technology development roadmap. This paper be achieved with attitude control to extend the orbital life
provides the first results of this investigation. time. Likewise, attitude control can be used to maximize
At present, the pioneers developing PocketQubes perform the drag for a de-orbit at the end of the operational lifetime.
research on the limits of satellite miniaturization and use Since active de-orbit manoeuvres are complex and it can be
the platform for small satellite technology demonstration. expected that some PocketQubes may fail prematurely, the
On the long term the sustainability of PocketQubes requires best way to assess the orbital life time with respect to space
a clear advantage in terms of financial cost effectiveness debris mitigation is the non-operational case. Aerodynamic
compared to larger satellites for scientific or commercial torques can in principle stabilize a satellite with solar panel
applications. In terms of quantity, CubeSats are currently wings with their small surface in ram direction, but only
dominant and there is a very good availability of CubeSat when there is an energy dissipating actuator to reduce ini-
components, subsystems or even complete spacecraft busses. tial momentum and counteract other disturbance torques [7].
For PocketQubes, the investment needed to achieve a similar Except for satellites which are intentionally designed with a
maturity demands not only a bottoms-up technology devel- passive attitude control using magnetic hysteresis material,
opment but also on an outlook towards future applications.
This paper provides the boundary conditions for a sus-
tainable future for PocketQubes in terms of legal, regulatory,
technical aspects and financial aspects. Also the application
domains for PocketQubes are discussed and several exam-
ples are provided which look worthy of further investigation.
In chapter 2, the conditions for PocketQubes are presented
and in chapter 3 potential applications are presented, fol-
lowed by final conclusions in chapter 4.

2 Constraints for PocketQubes

2.1 Legal and regulatory guidelines

Most promising opportunities for applications of Pock-

etQubes are in vast distributed networks. A very important
aspect related to this is their risk of contributing to space
debris. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Com-
mittee (IADC) stated in 2007: “This IADC and some other Fig. 2  1p PocketQube with body mounted solar cells

13
Utility and constraints of PocketQubes 575

Fig. 3  3p PocketQube with two

quadruple solar panel wings

Table 1  Cross section area Satellite Configuration Calculated effective cross section area ­(m2) Ballistic Parameter
and ballistic parameter range when Tumbling (kg/
for different PocketQube m2)
configurations
Unit size Solar panel configuration Minimum Geometric average Maximum Minimum Maximum

1p Body mounted 0.0029 0.0042 0.0048 29.8 59.6

Single panel wings 0.0030 0.0057 0.0075 24.5 43.5
Dual panel wings 0.0031 0.0077 0.0112 20.4 32.5
Triple panel wings 0.0031 0.0096 0.0150 18.0 26.1
Quadruple panel wings 0.0031 0.0117 0.0189 16.2 21.4
2p Body mounted 0.0033 0.0076 0.0092 33.0 66.1
Single panel wings 0.0035 0.0108 0.0156 26.2 46.4
Dual panel wings 0.0037 0.0150 0.0244 21.0 33.4
Triple panel wings 0.0039 0.0194 0.0332 17.8 25.7
Quadruple panel wings 0.0041 0.0239 0.0420 15.8 20.9
3p Body mounted 0.0038 0.0109 0.0138 34.3 68.5
Single panel wings 0.0039 0.0160 0.0244 26.4 46.8
Dual panel wings 0.0041 0.0228 0.0387 20.7 32.9
Triple panel wings 0.0043 0.0300 0.0531 17.3 25.0
Quadruple panel wings 0.0045 0.0373 0.0674 15.2 20.1

it can be assumed that a non-operational satellite is free using the OSCAR module of the ESA-DRAMA tool. A final
tumbling. Next to the drag area, the mass of the satellite is important input parameter is the launch date since atmos-
an important parameter for the orbital lifetime. The maxi- pheric densities in low Earth orbit are varying due to the
mum mass per PocketQube unit is 250 g as defined in the 11-year solar cycle. A sensitivity analysis was carried out
PocketQube Standard [2]. The minimum is assumed to be at which revealed that a launch at the 01-01-2019 provides
least 125 g per unit for a satellite without deployable panels average results on orbital life-time, while launch dates on
and an additional 8 g per unit per panel. This results in a 01-01-2024 and 01-01-2028 provides results which are near
ballistic parameter range for the tumbling scenario, which the lower and upper orbital life time, respectively. Figure 4
can be found in the two columns in the right in Table 1. The provides the results for both the minimum and maximum
maximum mass-over-area ratio is found to be 69 kg/m2 for mass-over-area cases for the three different launch dates.
a 3p PocketQube with body mounted solar cells and a mass As can be concluded from the results presented in Fig. 4,
of 750 g in de randomly tumbling scenario. The minimum a maximum orbital life time of 25 years for PocketQubes
case is 15 kg/m2 for a 3p PocketQube with two quadruple can only be guaranteed for circular orbits lower than 630 km
panel wings (see Fig. 3) and a mass of 567 g. With these altitude. As the guideline of 25 years has been established
values, the orbital life time for circular orbits is predicted before the rapid growth of very small satellite and the

13

576 J. Bouwmeester et al.

30.00

25.00
Orbital Life Time [years]

20.00

15.00
69 kg/m2 15 kg/m2
2024 2028
10.00 69 kg/m2
2028
15 kg/m2
69 kg/m2 2019
5.00
2019
15 kg/m2
2024
0.00
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Altitude of Circular Orbit [km]

Fig. 4  Orbital life time predictions for PocketQubes in circular orbits

emerging plans for mega-constellations, it can be expected below 300 km, however, seem to be unattractive for Pock-
that this guideline will be revised in the near future. For etQubes as the natural orbital life time will be less than a few
PocketQubes it is recommended to take the more general months and propulsion with high specific impulse is techni-
UN guideline to “Limit the long-term presence of space- cally unrealistic for PocketQubes. Because of the low natural
craft and launch vehicle orbital stages in the low-Earth orbit orbital life time of Very Low Earth Orbits (VLEO) below
(LEO) region after the end of their mission” [8] in mind 400 km, this orbital regime is not densely populated with
and also consider the orbital lifetime in the context of their space objects yet as shown in Fig. 6. Therefore, the ideal
limited intended operational lifetimes and potentially large orbital regime for PocketQubes is between 300 and 400 km
infant mortality rate. The authors of this paper, therefore, altitude for circular orbits. The launch of six PocketQubes
propose to maximize the orbital lifetime to approximately on December the 6­ th of 2019 has been launched to an orbit
5 years regardless of the operational status of the satellite. of 380 km with an Electron launcher, showing that a launch
This implies a maximum of between 480 and 620 km as of PocketQubes to this orbital regime is feasible. Recently,
can be seen in Fig. 5. Because of this significant spread and plans for using the VLEO regime for large constellations are
the uncertainty of the launch date for some missions, the emerging such as the request for the Starlink communication
minimum orbital lifetime during nominal operations should network to put 7518 satellites in an orbit of 340 km to reduce
be investigated as well. Furthermore, satellite observability the round trip latency [9]. Also for high resolution imagery
and collision risk are other related aspects which should be VLEO gains interest. This may mean that the ideal orbital
taken into account. regime for PocketQubes will need to be further reduced in
Figure 5 provides a zoomed-in graph. In this figure also the future once these constellations are a reality.
the orbital life time of the two satellite configurations are Next to orbital life time, the observability by radar facili-
presented in case active attitude control is used to minimize ties (such as from NORAD) is important as these systems
the drag over the operational life time. For education and are used to track satellite orbits and calculate collision risks
technology demonstration, orbital lifetimes of 3 months to between satellites. Public repositories such as Celestrak
2 years would be appropriate. For scientific and commercial provide the tracked orbital parameters by these facilities in
missions of very small satellites, life times between 1 and the form of Two-Line-Elements (TLEs). A recent study has
7 years would be appropriate. However, it would be accept- been performed on the trackability of PocketQubes [10].The
able that active orbit maintenance using on-board propul- four launched PocketQubes are in a near-circular orbit of
sion would be required to extend the natural lifetime. Orbits approximately 600 km altitude. All four have been tracked

13
Utility and constraints of PocketQubes 577

6.00

5.00 69 kg/m2
2028
Orbital Life Time [years]

4.00
125 kg/m2
2019
3.00
69 kg/m2
2019 69 kg/m2
2024
2.00 199 kg/m2 15 kg/m2
2019 2019
15 kg/m2
1.00 2028
15 kg/m2
2024

0.00
200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Altitude of Circular Orbit [km]

Fig. 5  Orbital life time predictions for PocketQubes in circular orbits (zoomed in)

Fig. 6  Density of space objects versus altitude, NASA (CC-PD) [5]

successfully and TLEs have been updated several times similar orbits. Thus, the accuracy of orbit determination with
per day. However, PocketQubes show a higher covariance radar detection reduces with spacecraft size. This would
between subsequent TLEs compared to larger satellites in also yield a lower accuracy in predicting potential orbital

13

578 J. Bouwmeester et al.

collisions. A lower orbit will, however, increase the observ- laws, approximately four times less for similar solar panel
ability by radar facilities on the ground. The reflected radar configurations and the same number of units.
signal is linearly proportional to the effective radar cross- Communication downlink is typically limited by the
section of the object and inversely proportional to the ­4th amount of power. When all other radio link parameters are
power of the distance (which would be altitude in zenith equal, there is a linear relationship between radio transmis-
direction). Although a further study should provide evi- sion energy and the achievable downlink volume. If the
dence, it is expected that a single unit PocketQube at 400 km utility of the satellite scales with the amount of data which
has similar observability to a single unit CubeSat at 600 km. can be downlinked, this would mean that the utility of a
This would again be an argument to launch PocketQubes in single 1p PocketQube is approximately one fourth of that of
the propose orbital regime of 300 to 400 km altitude. 1U CubeSat. Considering that the same ratio applies to the
number of PocketQubes which can be launched compare to
the number of CubeSats, the effect of the technical trade-off
2.2 Technical limits and considerations between the two platforms for networks of satellites would
be neutral from an utility perspective, provided that all sub-
The PocketQube is first of all volume- and mass-constrained. systems and payload can be fitted on both platforms. Pock-
Based on the mechanical interface standard [2], the maxi- etQubes would allow for a cheaper constellation deployment
mum mass per PocketQube unit is 250  g compared the with respect to CubeSats, leading also to a potentially more
1.33 kg of the CubeSat mechanical interface standard [11], congested spectrum. Given that the preferred frequency allo-
a ratio of approximately five. The volume of a 1U CubeSat is cation for small satellites is UHF, additional spectrum has
1000 ­cm3 and for a 1p PocketQube this is 125 ­cm3, yielding been granted during the World Radio Conference in 2019
a ratio of eight. However, the allowed thickness of external [12], providing extra spectrum in the 400 MHz band and
components and the stand-off distance between single unit also in the 137 MHz band, both dedicated to TT&C. When
satellites outside the main body is not scaled as it is 6.5 mm attitude control in PocketQubes becomes more advanced,
for CubeSats [11] and 7.0 mm for PocketQubes [2] for all a directional link with higher frequencies can be used for
sides of the body. The difference of 0.5 mm is explained by increased bandwidth.
the tolerance taken for CubeSats whereas this is left to the In terms of attitude actuators for such small form-fac-
developer for PocketQubes. For multiple unit satellites, the tor platforms, there technical and financial limitations
stand-off distance is accumulated in the internal body vol- are restrictive and challenging. To be able to perform de-
ume. Taking the external volume as reference, the volume tumbling and dump momentum build up by disturbance
ratio between CubeSats and PocketQubes would be slightly torques, magnetorquers are considered to be the only fea-
below six. Considering that PocketQube deployers cannot sible option. The current attitude determination and con-
be scaled down linearly in terms of volume and mass com- trol design for Delfi-PQ is shown in Fig. 7 and comprises
pared to CubeSat deployers as well, it can be assumed that three custom made magnetorquers and two commercially
one can launch about four times the number of PocketQubes available integrated inertial measurement units. The system
compared to CubeSats in an allocated launch vehicle (slot). was designed to be able to stabilize the satellite from the
This is ratio is a factor two less than the original concept of
PocketQubes.
It should be noted that trading PocketQubes against the
larger CubeSats will only make sense if the required subsys-
tems and the intended payload do fit in a PocketQube. If the
latter is not the case, the PocketQube is simply discarded as
an option and only the larger platforms can be considered.
This may seem trivial, but it means that one cannot just sim-
ple take an existing mission concept for CubeSats (or larger)
and trade the utility indicators of a single satellite for a larger
number of satellites.
Next to mass and volume, power is another important
technical consideration. The orbit average available power
for a PocketQube can be just a few hundred milli-Watts
for a 1p body-mounted solar panel configurations up to
values beyond 10 Watts for a sun-pointed multi-foldable
solar array on a 3p PocketQube. Compared to CubeSats,
the amount of available power is, based on basic scaling Fig. 7  Delfi-PQ de-tumbling system engineering model

13
Utility and constraints of PocketQubes 579

thruster: the Vaporized Liquid Micro-resistojet (VLM) based

on vaporizing pressurized liquid water and the Low-Pressure
Micro-resistojet (LPM) based on molecular acceleration of
propellant molecules stored at low pressure [15]. Moreover,
the micro-propulsion system consists also of the tank, the
feed system and the afferent electronics board. The main
goal of the micro-propulsion payload is to demonstrate, test
and compare different resistojet technologies. The current
specification is a thrust between 0.1 and 3 mN with a specific
impulse from 50 to 100 s. The overall estimated mass of this
system, including propellant is around 75 g and the peak
power consumption of the system during trust is below 4 W.
Active thermal control on PocketQubes is very challeng-
ing due to the limited available power. With passive thermal
control it is possible to limit the cold and hot temperatures
for typical operational ranges for electronic components.
Active cooling for instruments is very difficult to achieve
with PocketQubes.
Fig. 8  Prototype of PocketQube reaction wheel Potential payloads are constrained by the volume of the
PocketQube. This poses physical boundaries on what can
be measured, for instance on the signal-to-noise ratio and
the resolution. For optical instruments, the diffraction limit
is provided by Eq. 1.
𝜆
( )
𝜃min = a sin 1.22 (1)
D
where 𝜃min is the diffraction limited angular resolution. 𝜆
is the wavelength. D is the diameter of the entrance pupil
(aperture) of the imaging lens.
Fig. 9  Artist impression of micro-thruster payload for a 3p Pock-
etQube
The aperture for a PocketQube camera would practically
be limited to approximately 4 cm. However, the limited
length of the optics inside the camera can also be a driving
maximum rotational speed of 180°/s [13]. The de-tumbling factor which may lead to an even smaller achievable aper-
stops when the measured rotational speed is 5°/s or lower. ture. In Fig. 10, the diffraction limited Ground Sampling
For fine control, a reaction wheel for of only 7 g and steady Distance (GSD) is provided for a 2 cm and 4 cm aperture
state power consumption of 25 mW has been developed at camera for at 300 km and 400 km altitude looking in zenith
TU Delft [14], as shown in Fig. 8 Prototype of PocketQube direction. The achievable GSD is approximately half of what
reaction wheel. Replacing the lubricant of the bearing with can be achieved with a linearly scaled CubeSat camera at
a vacuum proof variant would double the power consump- the same orbit.
tion due to increased friction, which is considered infeasi- Given a maximum total launch volume and/or mass, the
ble for the given power budget. A hermetic sealed reaction advantage of the PocketQubes could be that it provides more
wheel was developed instead, but the prototype was leaking simultaneous measurements (for in-situ monitoring). As
and further development is pending. Future research should long as all payload data can be downlinked by each Pock-
be performed to see if reaction wheels for fine control are etQube, there will not be any penalty. If this is not the case,
truly feasible within the limited technical budgets. A poten- the utility of the mission is a trade between the number of
tially better approach given the limited budgets would be to simultaneous measurements (satellites) versus the amount or
develop a momentum wheel instead. This would however rate of sequential measurements which can be downlinked.
limit the attitude control to one degree of freedom. Likewise, temporal resolution of Earth observation of the
At TU Delft, a versatile micro-thruster is under develop- same areas on Earth can be increased with PocketQubes
ment which can be adapted either to CubeSats or to Pock- compared to CubeSats, potentially at cost of the amount
etQubes by changing the tank size. It is foreseen as payload of coverage due to reduced downlink volume per satellite.
on Delfi-PQ or its successors and is shown in Fig. 9. As For single satellite PocketQube missions there is no techni-
technology demonstration payload, it is equipped with a dual cal advantage over CubeSats. They can, at best, be equal

13

580 J. Bouwmeester et al.

25.0
launch cost for CubeSats, which can be explained by the
fact that administrative overhead and services do not scale
down linearly with satellite mass. There are several ways to
20.0
achieve a lower launch cost per PocketQube unit:
minimum ground sampling distance [m]

2 cm aperture,
400 km altitude
15.0
• Optimizing the mass of a (containerized) deployment
system with respect to the satellite mass. This could
2 cm aperture,
potentially be achieved by batch deployment systems
10.0
4 cm aperture,
300 km altitude
(e.g. a 96p deployer as proposed by Alba Orbital Ltd.).
400 km altitude
• Standardizing and automating launch procurement,
administration and pre-launch procedures to reduce over-
5.0 4 cm aperture,
300 km altitude
head and service cost.
• Increased competition in the field of (small) launch vehi-
photographic UV blue green red near-infrared cles, driving down the gross specific launch cost.
0.0
3.00E-07

4.00E-07

5.00E-07

6.00E-07

7.00E-07

8.00E-07

9.00E-07
Depending on the success and implementation on the
optical wavelength [m]
developments described above, it is expected that the net
specific cost for PocketQubes of 40 k€/kg (50 kUSD/kg)
Fig. 10  Ground sampling distance of diffraction limited cameras
should be feasible in the future. This would yield 10 k€ (13
kUSD) per PocketQube unit. The ideal ratio of launch cost
if the utility of the satellite is not limited by the size of the between CubeSats and PocketQubes would be a factor four
PocketQube in any way (mass, volume, data downlink, duty based on the effective volume and mass ratio provided in
cycle, etc.). Sect. 2.2.
The launch cost is part of the overall mission cost. The
2.3 Financial conditions potential utility of PocketQubes per satellite is smaller than
that of CubeSats as explained in the previous section. When
According to a study in 2014 on small launch vehicles, the PocketQubes will grow beyond their infancy and reach a
specific launch cost to LEO ranges from 7 kUSD/kg (~ 5 k€/ maturity level comparable to CubeSats, satellite developers
kg) for a PSLV-CA launch to 45 kUSD/kg (~ 33 k€/kg) for will be required to select the appropriate size of satellite to
a Pegasus XL launch [16]. These are gross prices based on maximize the cost in relation to the utility. A paper on ‘right-
the total mass capacity. For PocketQubes and CubeSats, the sizing small satellites’ has investigated this [17]. According
actual price will also be based on the mass of the deployer, to D. Barnhart: “A concerning trend in small satellite indus-
the administrative overhead at the launch provider and the try is our fixation on a particular small satellite standard,
services provided by the any intermediary parties (launch namely the 3U CubeSat. While the 3U CubeSat is an excel-
brokers/service providers). According to the same study, the lent choice when the payload can readily fit without modifi-
launch of a 3U CubeSat in a P-POD on an Athena-IIc launch cation, the mission cost can skyrocket when the payload is
vehicle is 300 kUSD fir a 5 kg 3U CubeSat, yielding a net purposefully miniaturized to fit 3U CubeSat. The primary
satellite specific launch cost of 60 kUSD/kg, while the gross author has personally witnessed several payload develop-
specific launch cost for this vehicle is specified to be 20 ment programs with this aim. The result, in every case, was
kUSD/kg [16]. Emerging very small launch vehicles, such as program failure. These efforts to force-fit high functioning
the Vector-R and the Electron are estimated (based on infor- payloads within a 1.5U payload space proved to be cost-
mation in public announcements) to provide launch at gross prohibitive” [17]. These are lessons learnt which should also
specific cost of 25 kUSD/kg. This is significantly higher than be taken into account when PocketQubes are considered.
for the medium class PSLV. However, since these vehicles When considering mission applications for PocketQubes,
can launch CubeSats and/or PocketQubes only, it is expected a simple guideline would be that the total of the develop-
that the administration, handling, safety procedures and ser- ment, production and operations cost per satellite should ide-
vices can be tailored and optimized such that the net specific ally be on par with the launch cost. The rationale behind this
cost per satellite will approach similar figures as for larger is that if the development, production and operations cost
launch vehicles. At the PocketQube workshop held in 2018 would grossly exceed the launch cost, it would be appro-
in Delft, the prices presented for PocketQube launches were priate to consider larger spacecraft (such as CubeSats) to
20 k€ per unit. With a maximum mass of 250 g per unit, this increase the utility per satellite to optimize the overall util-
yields a net specific launch cost of 80 k€/kg (~ 100 kUSD/ ity per total cost. Likewise, if the launch cost would very
kg as of April 2018). This is slightly higher than the specific dominant, it would make sense to investigate if further

13
Utility and constraints of PocketQubes 581

miniaturization would be physically feasible and be more which typically would require procurement of commercial
cost-effective. Development cost is mainly based on human subsystems. For PocketQubes there is still a need for devel-
resources and the difference between a sophisticated Cube- opment of this technology starting from a low technology
Sat or PocketQube development may not be very different readiness level and basic performance, which at present pro-
when looking at effort. The only way to reduce the develop- vides excellent opportunities to align research, development
ment cost per satellite is by producing and launching many and education objectives at universities.
identical satellites such that development cost can become To this respect, the experience of building a PocketQube
a minor contributor to the overall cost. If for example the platform in a strongly education-oriented context represents
development cost of a sophisticated small based mission is an ideal continuation of the previously taken steps within the
10 M€, the development cost per satellite is still 100 k€ per Delfi Program. The Delfi Program is a frame under which
satellite for network a 100 satellites which could be justi- satellites are built by TU Delft since 2004 in a collaborative
fied for CubeSats, but at 1000 satellites it becomes 10 k€ effort by staff, students and industrial parties to contribute
for which PocketQubes could be financially attractive. Also to miniaturization of space systems and demonstrate innova-
production cost (including unit testing, assembly and inte- tive space technology. The program has three main objec-
gration) should be significantly lower than for CubeSats. tives: education, technology demonstration and platform
This will not be achieved by the reduction of materials only. innovation. The program supported many MSc theses and
Smart architectural concepts such as the integration of sev- students projects at various levels. More than 150 students
eral subsystems and a quick assembly of integrated outer have participated in the program so far, and many of them
panels [18] as well as automated unit testing can be ways to have found a career in space. Delfi-C3 was the first CubeSat
make a larger differentiation in terms of cost per satellite. launched by a team on April ­28th of 2008 in the frame of the
Delfi program, and it is still operational. The satellite was
developed with the technology, facilities and support of pro-
3 Potential applications for PocketQubes ject partners (Airbus DS, TNO, NLR, etc.) which enhanced
the visibility of the students within space industry and their
Taking the conditions discussed before into account, this future opportunities. Delfi-C3 was followed up by Delfi-n3Xt
chapter provides some insight into potential applications of which was launched on 21st of November 2013 and com-
PocketQubes. This is not meant as an exhaustive analysis pleted its primary mission goals within 3 months after which
or a complete overview, but to show the potential of Pock- it became non-operational. A spin-off company Innovative
etQube platforms and provide some of the main considera- Solutions In Space (ISIS) was established in 2006 based
tions to this respect. on the experience gained through the contributions to the
design of Delfi-C3. It is currently one of the world leaders
3.1 Training and education in the small satellite market.
The Delfi program currently continues with Delfi-PQ, the
Education and training on real satellite platforms is more first PocketQube in line. With the lower cost, TU Delft wants
inspiring and provides a deeper learning experience than to promote the idea of always having one or more space sys-
only theory or exercises. While each class of satellites has tems at hand in the cleanroom. This enables students to gain
differences in development approach and technology, the access to design and development of real space-systems and
basics of spacecraft technology are platform independent and understand through their work what the end-to-end develop-
it is always possible to apply the more extensive approaches ment of a unit/subsystem/satellite represents.
of larger spacecraft on the smaller platform for training and
education purposes. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of a 3.2 Technology demonstration
PocketQube platform is a major advantage for training and
education. While CubeSats have opened space to many new PocketQubes are excellent platforms for low cost technol-
players around the world, it is still cost-prohibitive for many ogy demonstration, provided that the demonstrated object
small companies and a majority of educational institutions. or concept fits in a PocketQube platform. Demonstration of
PocketQubes have the potential to open the doors for an even technology can be that of PocketQube-sized subsystems or
wider range of players. For PocketQubes the technology is components itself, but it can also be performed for technol-
not yet as mature as for CubeSats and for many (advanced) ogy which is meant for larger platforms. For instance, sun
subsystems. There are not many modules on the market sensors of a large spacecraft are typically still small enough
while for CubeSats the commercial available subsystems are to fit in a PocketQube. If this would be the only demonstra-
advanced and diverse, which poses a dilemma for academic tion payload, the technical requirements would be relatively
teams as educational/training objectives are sometimes in modest. A technical challenge however may be that for
conflict with the desire to keep up with the state-of-the-art perfect in-orbit demonstration or even characterization, the

13

582 J. Bouwmeester et al.

PocketQube should be able to provide additional high qual- without the need for active cooling and provide relatively
ity and reliable reference measurements and the platform low data volumes if they measure only one ground sample at
should, therefore, be mature. In the case of the Sun Sen- a time, they could also be suitable for PocketQubes. With a
sor example, the attitude determination of the PocketQube well distributed constellation of small satellites, it would be
should provide a good independent attitude reference. possible to monitor the whole Earth continuously and even
PocketQubes could also be good platforms to demon- provide insight into regional differences.
strate novel concepts and algorithms which are in principle For Earth observation in general, it may pay off to inves-
platform-size independent. Concepts can be based on new tigate if commercial available cameras or integrated imaging
architectural approaches [18], novel communication tech- sensors for terrestrial applications can be used as-is or with
niques but also on distributed systems such as formation fly- minor modifications for specific purposes. If successful, this
ing and rendezvous and docking. Novel attitude algorithms may lead to cost-effective solutions which are very different
can be tested on PocketQubes, provided that it fits within the from how CubeSat instruments are currently being devel-
available computational power and does not require large oped and implemented.
attitude sensors. Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers
which have two or more frequencies or feature real-time
3.3 Earth observation kinematics can be fitted inside a PocketQube [24]: multiple
receivers from several suppliers, developed for the consumer
Earth imagery can be performed with very small satellites, market, are available with a footprint of less than 2 c­ m2 and a
such as the 3U CubeSats of Planet using a platform opti- total consumption of less than 0.5 W. Typical accuracies are
mized diffraction limited camera. Planet has the ambition in the order of few centimetres: they could be used for meas-
to monitor the Earth daily at a ground sampling resolution uring the gravity field of Earth such as performed for GOCE,
of 3–5 m with a network of about 200 satellites [19]. For CHAMP and GRACE [25] but with a more limited accuracy.
PocketQubes, the diffraction limit will limit the achiev- According to the study on Earth observation for CubeSats,
able Ground Sampling Distance (GSD) to half of that of this was deemed infeasible “as it requires extremely fine
a CubeSat of similar configuration (see Sect. 2.2). As the attitude control and a very low orbit that would necessitate a
data produced per satellite has a quadratic relationship with continuously operating propulsion system” [20]. The advan-
GSD, just like the required power to downlink the data, the tage of PocketQubes, however, is that it approaches the ideal
amount of imaged land area per satellite per time unit can point-mass for these types of measurements and as such the
be identical between PocketQubes and CubeSats. As there requirements on the attitude can be relaxed to a few degrees
are already many CubeSat developers active in the field of to ensure that the receiver can lock onto the signals and the
Earth imagery and plans are being developed for large con- physical measurement offset is limited to less than a milli-
stellation for Earth observation, using PocketQubes only metre. For the L1 GPS frequency at 1575 MHz, an effective
makes sense for those applications which can still provide a quarter-wavelength patch antenna would 48 mm wide, which
complimentary function. Performing the same type of mis- is exactly possible on a PocketQube. A maximum determina-
sion as Planet at, for example, half the GSD and four times tion offset of 1 mm would yield a maximum phase offset of
the temporal resolution may not be the right approach since just 0.03 rad and would be excellent for precise orbit deter-
starting from scratch will make it difficult to be cost-com- mination. As discussed in Sect. 2.1, the ideal orbital regime
petitive against a scale-up of the existing solutions. Potential for PocketQubes is actually in line with the required very
applications in Earth imaging can better be found in niche low orbits for GNSS based gravity field measurements. It is
applications requiring large constellations which cannot be affordable to dispose the PocketQubes after a limited life-
easily performed by Earth observation constellations with time and replace them regularly.
general utility aimed at mass markets. An example of a
potentially useful application would be to monitor cloudy
regions, such as the Netherlands, from different angles to 3.4 Space weather observation
maximize the change that images of the ground can be shot.
Another example would require simultaneous multipoint The foreseen low orbit regime of PocketQubes limits the
measurement with full Earth coverage. Earth radiation, the scope of applications of space weather, but the dynamics
combination of the reflection of Sunlight (Albedo) and its of the Earth magnetic field in combination with the radia-
own body radiation (infrared dominant), provides valuable tion penetrating into the thermosphere can still cover a gap
information for climate models. In a study on CubeSats for in science when simultaneous multipoint measurements are
Earth observation it has been found that uncooled micro- required. Also the effect of radiation in LEO on electronics
bolometers are suitable for CubeSats [20]. As these instru- can be investigated with statistical relevance using a network
ments are not diffraction limited, they require little power of similar PocketQubes.

13
Utility and constraints of PocketQubes 583

Science grade magnetometers can fit in a PocketQube for missions targeting broad spectrums, for example a the
as physics allow them to be small and the data rates are HawkEye 360 pathfinder missions [26], which require more
not extremely high. For example, a scientific fluxgate mag- complex antennas (and thus bigger). Identification of under-
netometer which was developed for CubeSats with sensor utilized bands, discovery of perpetrators (radio pirates) or
dimensions of 36 mm × 32 mm × 28 mm and a power con- defence related intelligence (e.g. use of radars, jammers,
sumption of 400 mW [21] would in principle also fit in a etc.) are very difficult to achieve in PocketQubes due to the
PocketQube. The influence of the other electronics in the low available power for on-board computations and lim-
satellite needs to be mitigated, for example with boom simi- ited downlink capability. PocketQubes are more suited for
lar as the one developed for the CubeSat payload [21]. At TU smaller mission, targeted at specific signals, like monitoring
Delft, an ongoing study investigates if the need for a boom the vertical leakage from TV towers as being demonstrated
can be omitted by distributing several magnetometers within on the Smog-1 PocketQube [27]. The small form factor and
the spacecraft to be able to differentiate between the external low cost make them ideal for a dedicated mission, rather
magnetic field and local disturbances. As the geomagnetic than at a generic system, benefitting from a fast development
field is very dynamic, “Multiple satellite missions measuring cycle and potentially frequent launches.
simultaneously over different regions of the Earth offer the With the advance of IoT devices on Earth, in-situ moni-
only way to take full advantage of the enormous improve- toring vast amounts of areas and objects of interest becomes
ment in instrumentation that has been achieved during the possible provided that the signals of these monitoring
last years.” [22]. A constellation of PocketQubes can push devices can be picked up. For remote locations, such as the
the limits of in-orbit spatial resolution in a cost-effective arctic [28], a satellite constellation may be more cost-effec-
way. tive than installing ground based reception systems. The data
Very small radiation sensors, such as the Highly rates produced by the ground-based sensors are very limited,
Miniaturized Radiation Monitor (HMRM) of only typically in short messages of a few bytes sent only once per
1.7 cm × 2.4 cm × 2.2 cm [21], can be fitted inside a Pock- few minutes to hours. With an increasing number of sensors,
etQube. However, the power consumption of these sensors it becomes interesting to perform a trade-off between several
remains too high for the PocketQube platform. To meet the classes of satellites to optimize for the total data bandwidth
power requirement, other novel methods to detect particle but also to properly deal with mutual interference.
radiation are currently studied at TU Delft, such as the 3D The final application related to commercial services
NAND memory based sensors which aim to detect single could be to allocate a single PocketQube to one or only a
events particle tracks as well as other type of commercially few telephony or low bandwidth data communication chan-
available electronic components (e.g. Floating Gate Dosim- nels. This should in principle be feasible with a PocketQube.
eters) for monitoring total ionization dose in a cost effec- While a constellation can improve the continuous availabil-
tive and relatively easy-to-implement manner. Although ity and linearly scale up the number of available channels,
the radiation environment in LEO is generally benign, the it will not be feasible to address the bulk consumer market.
potential scientific application for PocketQubes based par- The applications would, therefore, be limited to military and
ticle radiation instruments in these orbits is best exploited emergency purposes. As they are likely not competitive to
by a distributed network of sensors ideally on-board of a (existing and emerging) networks of larger satellites, the
constellation of satellites. The analysis of the measurements potential advantage can be found in the fact that a dense
provided by the radiation sensors can bring valuable insights network of PocketQubes would be very difficult to taken out
on the dynamicity of space weather in time and position. of operation. Also in case of a major disaster, for example
related to an extreme solar particle event, PocketQubes may
3.5 Communication services be used to quickly set up a global communication network
for critical (but limited) communication services.
Communication as a service for PocketQubes is extremely
limited by the available electrical power. The data volumes 3.6 Space exploration
and/or signal bandwidth which can be achieved is prohibi-
tive for commercial services base on mass market telephony PocketQubes could potentially go beyond Earth orbit, e.g.
or internet. However, it is still possible to use PocketQubes to the Moon or other planets in our solar system, using ride-
for services which require low data volume downlinks and/ share capacity of larger satellite missions. The main advan-
or bandwidth. The areas of interest are spectrum monitor- tage is this case is that the cost per mass or volume unit to
ing, Internet-of-Things (IoT) and individual communication these orbits is significantly higher compared to LEO, which
services. Spectrum monitoring using software defined radios would be a stronger motivation for further miniaturization.
can be used to identify the global, regional and local use of This could justify a higher development cost per satellite
the radio frequency spectrum. PocketQubes are not suited following the argumentation in Sect. 2.3.

13

584 J. Bouwmeester et al.

Because of the electrical power limitations and the large 3.7 Overview of applications
communication distance, a large ‘mother-satellite’ acting as
relay would most likely be required in the near to medium In Table  2, an overview is provided to summarize the
term future. Applications could be in the field of distributed described applications and complimented with the foreseen
networks of PocketQubes to increase temporal resolution feasibility and required maturity for implementation.
or for spatially distributed in-situ measurements around
other celestial bodies. They could create a constellation to
establish a navigation system at that specific body (similar to 4 Conclusions
GPS) and perform space weather monitoring (for space situ-
ational awareness). The PocketQubes could also be dropped PocketQubes are a new class of very small satellites which
on the respective surface of celestial bodies as probes. A can enable new types of applications provided that technical,
concrete example of this potential application can be related legal, regulatory and financial constraints are properly taken
to a specific Lunar mission in which Delft University of into consideration. Single satellite PocketQube missions are
Technology is participating, called LUMIO [29]. LUMIO ideal for education and training purposes as well as a limited
is a 12U CubeSat that will orbit around the Earth-Moon set of technology demonstration objectives.
Lagrangian point L2 to monitor the micro-meteoroid impacts For Earth observation and communication services, the
that occur on the Lunar far side, which can be identified and will most likely only show their true potential in vast distrib-
characterized through the flashes they make at impact. The uted networks of hundreds to thousands of satellites. With
optical observations performed by LUMIO could be poten- these numbers, a conservative approach should be taken on
tially combined, to cross-check and validate their outcomes, the risk to create space debris. The orbit of PocketQubes
the measurements performed by in-situ PocketQubes that are should be below 500 km of (average) altitude to limit the
distributed and dropped on the far-side of the moon and can orbital life time to 5 years, with a preference to limit it fur-
act as seismographs. ther in the future to circular orbits between 300 and 400 km
There are major technical challenges in the field of while using the potential of on-board propulsion to extend
radiation tolerance and thermal control. Most PocketQube the operational lifetime.
technology at present is developed with commercial of the For a sustainable PocketQube mission, the launch cost
shelf electronics for terrestrial purposes, which is unsuit- should be approximately four times less than that of a Cube-
able as-is for the harsh radiation environment and high ioni- Sat and the total of development, production and operations
zation doses encountered outside the LEO environment. cost per satellite should ideally be on par with the launch
PocketQubes have a relatively high ratio of outer surface cost. The volume and mass constraints of a PocketQube lead
area over internal heat capacity compared to larger satellites, to less available electrical power compared to CubeSats and
making thermal control outside the Earth’s orbit around the also physically limits the achievable measurements or ser-
Sun very challenging. The very limited available electri- vices. Instead of simply scaling down the instruments of
cal power makes it difficult to compensate this with active CubeSats and increasing the number of satellites, it is advo-
heating or cooling. Studies on using CubeSats on interplan- cated that further differentiation from existing and planned
etary missions provide a roadmap for these class of satellites CubeSat missions may be more promising. For Earth obser-
beyond LEO [30]. In this study, an 8 mm thick Aluminium vation, continuous monitoring of dedicated areas of Earth
shielding is proposed to tackle the radiation issue. While or globally distributed simultaneous measurements of par-
it is questionable if such shielding provides adequate pro- ticle radiation, the Earth magnetic field or the Earth infra-
tection against all types of particle radiation effects, such red radiation would be vastly different from the concepts
shielding would in any case be prohibitive for PocketQubes. of today where the Earth is monitored on a daily basis. For
The question whether PocketQubes can provide useful and communication services, low data rate and/or bandwidth
cost-effective platforms beyond LEO requires a dedicated applications as well as specific RF spectrum monitoring
study with a critical comparison with larger platforms at a could enable niche applications, but further investigation
mission level, taking the utility and overall cost into account. is required to compare those concepts with respect to larger
Finally, they can be a step towards further miniaturization of satellites in lower numbers. PocketQube missions beyond
satellites which can eventually, in combination with laser/ Earth may have their potential as probes or used in a constel-
solar sails or with multistage electric propulsion, push the lation and could be cost competitive to larger platforms due
boundaries of satellite distance. An exotic mission such as to increased launch cost per mass unit, but challenges such
Breakthrough Starshot, where tiny spacecraft will be sent as the harsh radiation environment and thermal challenges
to Alpha Centauri [31], creates an ultimate frontier to work will require a major advancement of the platforms.
towards and PocketQubes can be used to demonstrate the Overall, it can be concluded that PocketQubes provide
first steps. sufficient potential for present and future applications.

13
 Utility and constraints of PocketQubes

Table 2  Overview of application domains of PocketQubes

Application domain Implementation Feasibility

Training and education Using the mission and the platform to gain hands on knowledge of all aspects of Can be implemented directly and more cost effectively than CubeSats
satellite development
Technology demonstration Demonstrating small spacecraft components, algorithms and architectural Good feasibility provided that the technology or concept can fit in a PocketQube
concepts and reliable PocketQube platforms are secured
Earth observation Remote monitoring of Earth with a constellation of PocketQubes equipped with Not deemed to be competitive for mass market imagery. Technically infeasible for
custom or commercially available sensors active instruments. Niche applications can be found in the field of simultaneous
global coverage of the Earth gravity field and radiation budget as well as con-
tinuous low resolution monitoring of specific areas. PocketQube platforms need
to be matured significantly, a.o. with active attitude control as well as propul-
sion for constellation control
Space weather observation Simultaneous multi-point in-situ measurements of particle radiation and the Considered feasible for scientific applications in LEO where time and position are
magnetic field of relevance and required accuracy of the measurements are limited. Ideally the
attitude can be controlled to a fixed orientation. The use of swarms may allevi-
ate the requirements on orbit control
Communication services A constellation of PocketQubes for dedicated telephony or data services and RF Only feasible for limited bandwidth applications and spectrum monitoring of ded-
spectrum monitoring icated channels in fast response and/or high temporal resolution. The required
platform maturity depends on the required bandwidth and availability
Space exploration Using PocketQubes as probes or satellites in a constellation around other celes- Can be complimentary to larger satellites as inexpensive probes at other celestial
tial bodies bodies or used in constellations for remote sensing or even the creation of a
local navigation system around other celestial bodies. Due to increases cost/
mass ratio could be competitive. Major technological advancement is required

13
585

586 J. Bouwmeester et al.

Instead of being competitive platforms to CubeSats, they 15. Pallichadath, A., Radu, V., de Athayde Costa e Silva, S., Guerrieri,
should be regarded as a complementary class of satellites M., Cervone, D.: Integration and miniaturization challenges in the
design of micro-propulsion systems for picosatellite platforms. In:
which enable new cost-effective applications. Space Propulsion Conference (2018)
16. Crisp, N., Smith, K., Hollingsworth, P.: Small satellite launch to
Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- LEO: a review of current and future launch systems. Trans. Japan
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- Soc. Aeronaut. Sp. Sci. Aerosp. Technol. Japan 12, 1–9 (2014)
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long 17. Barnhart, D.J., Sweeting, M.N.: Right-sizing small satellites
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, David. In: Proceedings of the AIAA/USU Conference on Small
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes Satellites, pp. 1–8 (2014)
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are 18. Bouwmeester, J., Gill, E., Speretta, S., Uludag, S.: New approach
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated on the physical architecture of CubeSats & PocketQubes. In: Pro-
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in ceedings of the 15th Reinventing Space Conference, pp. 1–13
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not (2017)
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will 19. Boshuizen, C.R., Mason, J., Klupar, P., Spanhake, S.: Results from
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a the planet labs flock constellation. In: 28th Annual AIAA/USU
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Conference on Small Satellites, pp. SSC14-I–1 (2014)
20. Selva, D., Krejci, D.: A survey and assessment of the capabili-
ties of Cubesats for earth observation. Acta Astronaut. 74, 50–68
(2012)
References 21. Miles, D.M., et al.: A miniature, low-power scientific fluxgate
magnetometer: a stepping-stone to cube-satellite constellation
1. Twiggs, R.: Making it Small. Cal Poly Developers’ Workshop, missions. J. Geophys. Res. Sp. Phys. (2016)
San Luis Obispo (2009) 22. Olsen, N., Moretto, T., Friis-Christensen, E.: New approaches
2. Radu, S., et al.: The PocketQube standard (2018) to explore the earth’s magnetic field. J. Geodyn. 33(1–2), 29–41
3. Twiggs, R., et al.: The ThinSat program: flight opportunities for (2002)
education, research and industry. In: 32nd Annual AIAA/USU 23. Mitchell, E.F., et al.: The highly miniaturised radiation monitor.
Conference on Small Satellites (2018) J. Instrum. 9(7) (2014)
4. Speretta, S., et al.: CubeSats to Pocketqubes: opportunities and 24. Shibasaki, D.M.R..: Presentation: low-cost GNSS receiver for
challenges. In: Proceedings of the International Astronautical high-precision GNSS data processing. In: COPUOS Meeting
Congress (2016) (2019)
5. Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee. IADC space 25. Jäggi, A., Bock, H., Prange, L., Meyer, U., Beutler, G.: GPS-only
debris mitigation guidelines. IADC Sp. Debris Mitig. Guidel., gravity field recovery with GOCE, CHAMP, and GRACE. Adv.
Revision 1, pp. 1–10 (2007) Sp. Res. 47(6), 1020–1028 (2011)
6. Gelhaus, J., et al.: Upgrade of DRAMA, ESA’s space debris miti- 26. Cajacob, D., Mccarthy, N., O’Shea, T., McGwier, R.: Geolocation
gation analysis tool suite. In: 6th European Conference on Space of RF emitters with a formation-flying cluster of three microsatel-
Debris, vol. 2013, no. April, pp. 22–25 (2013) lites. In: 30th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites
7. Kumar, R.R., Mazanek, D.D., Heck, M.L.: Simulation and shut- (2016)
tle hitchhiker validation of passive satellite aerostabilization. J. 27. Dudas, L., Szucs, L., Gschwindt, A.: The spectrum monitoring
Spacecr, Rockets (1995) system by Smog-1 satellite. In: Proceedings of 14th Conference
8. United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs and Committee on Microwave Techniques, COMITE 2015 (2015)
on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, “Space Debris Mitiga- 28. Birkeland, R., Hornig, A.: On how a CubeSat swarm can improve
tion Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer the coverage for an Arctic ground based sensor network. In: The
Space,” (2010) 4S symposium, June, pp. 1–13 (2016)
9. Yang, X.: Low earth orbit (LEO) mega constellations—satellite 29. Speretta S, et al.: LUMIO: an autonomous CubeSat for lunar
and terrestrial integrated communication networks. University of exploration. In: Space Operations: Inspiring Humankind’s Future
Surrey (2018) (2019)
10. Speretta, S., Sundaramoorthy, P., Gill, E.K.A.: Long-term perfor- 30. Staehle, R., Blaney, D., Hemmati, H.: Interplanetary CubeSats:
mance analysis of NORAD two-line elements for CubeSats and opening the solar system to a broad community at lower cost. J.
PocketQubes. In: 11th IAA Symposium on Small Satellites for Small Satell. 2(1), 161–186 (2013)
Earth Observation (2017) 31. Parkin, K. L. G.: The breakthrough starshot system model. Acta
11. California Polytechnic State University. Cubesat design specifica- Astronaut. (2018)
tion. (2009)
12. ITU. Provisional final acts WRC-19 (2019) Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
13. Fonod, R., Gill, E.: Magnetic detumbling of fast-tumbling picos- jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
atellites. In: Proceedings of the International Astronautical Con-
gress, IAC (2018)
14. Vergoossen, T., Guo, J., Bouwmeester, J., Groen, W.A.: Design,
integration, and testing of world’s smallest satellite reaction
wheel. In: Proceedings of the International Astronautical Con-
gress, IAC (2017)

13