Abstract
Large-scale space projects rely on a thorough Assembly, Integration, and Verification (AIV) process to provide the upmost reliability to spacecraft. While this has not traditionally been the case with CubeSats, their increasing role in space science and technology has led to new verification approaches, including in educational CubeSats. This work describes the integration and verification approach for ISTSat-1, which is an educational CubeSat from the Instituto Superior Técnico in Portugal that partially discards the typical stage-gate approach to spacecraft development in favor of a more iterative approach, allowing for the system-level verification of unfinished prototypes. Early verification included software functional testing on a flatsat model, thermal vacuum and vibration testing on a battery model, ionizing radiation testing on the on-board computer, and non-ionizing radiation (EMC) testing on all subsystems. The testing of functional prototypes at an early development stage led to uncovering system-level errors that would typically require hardware redesign at a later project stage. The team considers the approach to be useful for educational projects that employ a small, co-located team with low non-recurring engineering costs.
Highlights
Verification of the design is a must in every discipline in engineering
Due to the AX.25 maximum payload and upper layer protocols, an ISTNanosat Control Protocol (INCP) message has a maximum size of 245 bytes in the radio link
The ISTSat-1 team opted to develop most of its CubeSat subsystems, a decision which involved more risk considering the team’s lack of experience
Summary
Verification of the design is a must in every discipline in engineering. Especially when complex systems are involved, the test techniques to ensure that systems work as desired represent a considerable part of the overall effort of a project team. Large-scale space projects rely on a thorough Assembly, Integration, and Verification (AIV) process to provide the upmost reliability to the spacecrafts under development. Especially CubeSat projects, tend to be light in this respect, as the impact of losing a CubeSat is small. This has a direct implication on the failure rate statistics related with this kind of S/C. According to the Nanosatellite and CubeSat Database [1], there were around 428 CubeSats launched in 2015, but only 345 were successfully deployed in orbit, as Figure 1 illustrates This results in a failure rate of Aerospace 2019, 6, 131; doi:10.3390/aerospace6120131 www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.