Attack of the CubeSats: A Statistical Look

In previous conferences, we have presented a statistical history of university-class small satellites. Those studies need to be revised, because university-class spacecraft have reached a significant inflection point: in 2010-2011, we can identify a strong trend towards independent schools flying “real” CubeSat missions. For that trend, we must credit NASA and ESA for their sponsorship of competitively-selected CubeSat flights. For this paper, we will revise previous studies in two ways: 1) Include the results of the past two years, which will show a continued upward trend in the number of universityclass missions, a continued downward trend in the size of the spacecraft, and a not-so-continued dominance of the flagship universities. Have we hit a second turning point in the history of CubeSats, where they switch from novelties to actually-useful missions? (The preliminary answer: maybe.) 2) Expand the study to consider other small spacecraft mission types: specifically the professionally-built CubeSats. We will perform side-by-side comparison of the two. The results will be used in a brave but ultimately naive attempt to predict the next few years in university-class and CubeSat-class flights: numbers, capabilities, and mix of participants. INTRODUCTION We have been documenting the history of universityclass space missions for seven years. The result of those studies can be broadly summarized as follows: 1) There sure are a lot of student-built satellites, and there will be even more next year. 2) University-class missions have had two watershed years: 1981, when the first university-class mission flew (UoSAT-1), and 2000, when a string of onorbit failures nearly ended student satellite missions in the United States (and directly led to the introduction of the CubeSat standard). 3) The student launchspace is dominated by flagship universities, whose satellites are the most reliable and have the most significant missions. These flagships also fly a new spacecraft every few years. 4) By contrast, the “independent” schools tend to field spacecraft that fail more often, provide little-to-no value outside the school, and the overwhelming majority of independents only fly one spacecraft. Ever. 5) We’re not sure what to make of these CubeSats, but they have the potential to upend the conclusions drawn from points #3 and #4 (while making point #1 more true than ever). We concluded our 2009 report by noting that that the year 2010 could be the third “watershed” year in the history of university-class missions, with a large number of (primarily international) CubeSats flying. Well, in true aerospace fashion, there was a schedule slip, and 2011 has become the watershed year. In the two years since our last review, CubeSats have effectively taken over the university-class launchspace, burying the flagships in an avalanche of first-time independents – and unexpectedly carrying along a large number of professional programs into the CubeSat domain. As in all previous years, we still confess that we have little-to-no idea what CubeSats mean for the long-term future of space missions: are they just a phase, another launch option, or a fundamental change in the way that space missions are pursued? Our opinions have indeed shifted: in 2004, we leaned towards short-term phase; today, we have more confidence that CubeSats are a long-term trend with revolutionary implications for