See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311204566

Nanosatellites and their Demand for Changes in Space Policy

Conference Paper · September 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 124

8 authors, including:

M. Emanuelli Laura Bettiol

Gomspace University of Padova
10 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Maria Grulich
European Space Agency
7 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concepts Academic Linkage (RASC-AL) 2016 (Winning Team) View project

Space Station Design Workshop 2015 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Grulich on 30 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 67th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Guadalajara, Mexico, 26-30 September 2016.
Copyright ©2016 by the Copyright 2016 by Space Generation Advisory Council (SGAC).
Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

IAC-16-A6.8.7

Nanosatellites and their demand for changes in space policy

Matteo Emanuellia*, Laura Bettiola, Maria Grulicha, Juan Esteban Gramajo Gonzaleza, Justin Atchisona,
Laura León Péreza, Jordan Sotudeha
a
Space Generation Advisory Council, c/o ESPI, Schwarzenbergplatz 6, 1030 Vienna, Austria,
matteo.emanuelli@spacegeneration.org, laura.bettiol@spacegeneration.org, maria.grulich@gmail.com,
juan.gramajo@spacegeneration.org, justin.atchison@jhuapl.edu, laura.lnprz@gmail.com, jordansotudeh@gmail.com
* Corresponding Author

Abstract
In recent years, thanks to system miniaturization and decreasing expenses in development and launch, the
nanosatellite market has grown exponentially. Concerns also grown over the unsafe practices of new actors, like
start-ups, universities, nongovernmental organizations and even amateurs supported by crowdfunding campaigns,
particularly in Earth’s most crowded orbit: low Earth orbit (LEO). Lawmakers and policymakers have been unable to
keep up with the rapid advance. The October 2016 Space Generation Congress Policy Working Group, with the
support of the Secure World Foundation, attempted to address the core issues surrounding nanosatellites. Over the
course of three days, 18 space professionals and students from 13 different countries discussed and debated issues
surrounding nanosatellites and in particular the long-term sustainability with the issues brought by future
constellations and mega-constellations. The Working Group produced a set of recommendations, presented at
UNCOPUOS in February 2016, including a specific orbital range for nanosatellites where short-lived craft without
debris mitigation systems onboard or potential onboard operational capabilities would have a commensurate orbit
lifetime. This paper will focus on a detailed definition of the recommendations and best practices necessary to
mitigate the space debris issue caused by nanosatellites’ poorly regulated deployment in LEO.
Keywords: (nanosatellites, policy, SGAC)

1. Introduction
This paper includes the results of the workshop that
was held in October 2015 in Jerusalem (Israel) during
the Space Generation Congress (SGC) organized by the
Space Generation Advisory Council (SGAC), a global
non-profit organization that aims to represent university
students and young professionals to the United Nations,
space agencies, industry and academia. The
recommendations included in this paper were presented
at the Technical Meeting of the UNCOPUOS in
February 2016. Figure 1 Nano and Microsatellite Markets’ forecast
In the past 5 years, nanosatellite market has had an [2]
enormous development, exponentially increasing its
market share. In particular, the miniaturization of the 2. Definition
technology and electronic devices used in the spacecraft Considering the scope of this paper, nanosatellites
as well as the reduced costs for developing and are defined as satellites with a mass less than or equal to
launching them have made nanosatellites very popular 10 kg [3]. This definition makes also the final
among universities and amateurs, as well as among recommendations applicable to the current and short-
small companies and start-ups, that have launched and term scenarios. Nanosatellites can be launched
are planning to launch hundreds of nanosatellites [1]. individually or in a swarm/constellation, increasing their
The ease at which nanosatellites can be developed offers attractiveness for commercial purposes. In addition to
a significant opportunity to promote innovation and commercial purposes (usually related to Earth
increase the technology base of developing countries. It observation and internet connectivity), nanosatellites are
is essential that educational initiatives and commercial also preferred to carry technology demonstrators and
ventures be given access to space through a reasonable scientific experiments. Examples of companies that are
framework of regulations. commercially exploiting nanosatellites include Spire,
Planet and Sky and Space Global (SSG).

IAC-16-A6.8.7 Page 1 of 5
 67th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Guadalajara, Mexico, 26-30 September 2016.
Copyright ©2016 by the Copyright 2016 by Space Generation Advisory Council (SGAC).
Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms.
At present, the relatively small size of nanosatellite
introduces challenges for long duration missions and for
space catalogue maintenance and tracking. That is, it is
not currently common for nanosatellites to have mission
lifetimes greater than 3-5 years. Moreover, their small
length scales imply small visual magnitudes or radar-
cross-sections, making tracking nanosatellites difficult.
3. Current situation in orbit
According to a recent survey on nanosatellites [3],
the launch trend for 2016 is increasing exponentially,
with 437 planned launches as of May 15, 2016. The
actually launched nanosatellites in 2015 were ‘only’
128, and 141 in 2014. The majority of the nanosatellites
launched to date are divided almost equally between
universities and companies, with a small number of
nanosatellites launched by agencies, military, non-profit
organizations, amateurs, etc. The US have launched
66.3% of the total number of satellites, while European
satellites were 15.7%.
Among all the nanosatellites that were launched, 166
were operational as of May 15th, 2016, while 77 were
non-operational. This means that almost 32% of these
satellites currently in space are orbiting without control
and do not longer react to any commands. All these
nanosatellites are orbiting in Low Earth Orbit (LEO),
under 2000 km, which is the most crowded orbit region.
4. Current Practices and Polices
Mass and dimension differences notwithstanding,
nanosatellites are currently classified the same way as
any other satellite. Simply put, “a satellite is a satellite”.
They operate in the same orbital regions, share the same
Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum, and they are expected
to abide by the same national and international policies
and laws [5].
The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination
Committee (IADC) released the Space Debris
Mitigation Guidelines, which have been endorsed by the
United Nations (UN) Committee for the Peaceful Uses
of Outer Space (COPUOS) in 2008. In this document
they stated that they “have found 25 years to be a
reasonable and appropriate lifetime limit” for satellites
[6]. The cutoff altitude for a nanosatellite to deorbit in
25 years is around 600-700 km, which is still in the
LEO region [8].
In order to keep the costs and complexity low, many
nanosatellites do not have an active attitude control
capability, and this means that also when they are
operational, they can be considered a threat for other
operational satellites not being able to change orbit and
avoid possible impacts. This is a serious concern
because all these satellites will inevitably increase the
amount of space debris in case of collisions.
Nanosatellites are often launched as piggyback or
secondary payloads on rockets and they do not have the
IAC-16-A6.8.7
option of choosing the orbital insertion. In this way,
usually, the actual operational lifetime of nanosatellite is
much longer than their permanence in space, resulting
in a large number of inoperative objects orbiting the
Earth and threatening the safety of operational satellites.
5. Interested Stakeholders
The stakeholders listed in Table 1 were identified
and considered in developing this paper.
Table 1. Stakeholders
Stakeholder Rationale
Existing Any recommendations ought not to risk
Satellite existing satellites or capabilities.
Operators
Governments Governments are responsible for
authorizing any satellite launches from
their territory. This includes fault-based
liability for on-orbit actions, intentional
or unintentional. Any recommendations
should reflect a government’s rights
and responsibilities.
Launch The launch vehicle provider accepts
Vehicle legal and financial burdens for their
Providers cargo. Additionally, there are technical
constraints that limit the scope of
deployment possibilities available for a
given recommendation. For example, a
finite number of upper-stage restarts
may limit the number of separate
deployment orbits available to a set of
nanosatellites.
Insurance Insurance companies have a financial
Companies stake in the deployment and survival of
cargo. Any nanosatellite
recommendation should not
significantly increase the on-orbit risk.
Universities / Many nanosatellites are developed and
Educational operated at universities and educational
Institutions institutions globally. These are
typically associated with student teams.
The experience of a student team
successfully completing a CubeSat is
irreplaceable. However, typical
limitations for a low-budget group of
students must be acknowledged and,
possibly, the expectations for
adherence to complex practices should
be lowered.
“New Space” A variety of new business models are
Companies appearing. These capitalise on the short
development time, economies of scale,
and cheap launch-cost associated with
nanosatellites. Inasmuch as technology
is a critical international economic
sector, the interests of New Space
Page 2 of 5
 67th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Guadalajara, Mexico, 26-30 September 2016.
Copyright ©2016 by the Copyright 2016 by Space Generation Advisory Council (SGAC).
Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms.
companies should be accommodated.
Developing Nanosatellites are a first step for many
Countries developing countries to operate in
space. It is appropriate to consider this
access if introducing any guidelines.
The guidelines ought not to introduce
undue burden or restrict access to
space.
6. Recommendations’ Principle
According to these premises, it is not possible to
address the issue of increasing presence nanosatellite in
LEO without taking into consideration three main
factors or principles.
First, space and radio spectrums have to be
considered at same level as global resources that must
be managed responsibly. As already mentioned,
nanosatellites are not an exception, they require radio
frequencies as every other bigger satellite. Therefore,
the high amount of nanosatellite launches should be
considered regarding these global resources. Any
practice, even if legal, ought to address its impact on the
current and future state of access to space.
Second, the community of existing satellite
operators should develop policies and norms that any
new satellite stakeholders should attempt to respect.
Third, nanosatellites offer many clear benefits to the
global community. They represent a significant means
of encouraging innovation, education, science, and
economic growth and therefore their usage should be
fostered, not limited.
Based on these guiding principles, four actions are
recommended here with the intent of promoting a path
for sustainable, cooperative use of space between
existing satellite operators and new nanosatellite
operators. This path benefits all parties and, while non-
binding, still sets forth a worthwhile best practice for
satellite operators as well as nanosatellite operators.
7. Developing Guidelines and Best-practices
An appropriate, cognizant, international organization
(e.g. UN, International Academy of Astronautics (IAA),
International Astronautical Federation (IAF),
International Institute of Space Law (IISL), IADC,
International Association for Advancement of Space
Safety (IAASS)) should introduce dialog, initiate
coordination, and possibly develop guidelines or best-
practices for nanosatellite operators and launch
organizations. It must be kept in mind, however, that
any specific agreement or guideline will likely be
accepted only on the condition that it clearly benefits all
of the stakeholders. Dialogue will be critical for
ensuring that each party is satisfied.
In addition, given that the number of nanosatellites
to be launched each year is noticeably increasing, this
IAC-16-A6.8.7
dialogue should be initiated immediately, so that the
conversation is prescriptive rather than reactive.
These best practices should evaluate the
sustainability for the specified region(s) of most impact
ensuring that short-lived satellites would have a
commensurate orbit lifetime, to mitigate long-term,
unsustainable debris issues.
In addition, it is recommended to propose the
establishment of open orbital regions for nanosatellites
that would be constrained to an altitude up to 400 km
(LEO), likely below human spaceflight operations, as
shown in Fig. 1. Locating the nanosatellite’s orbital
regime below human spaceflight activities minimizes
any potential impact to the important human activities in
LEO. In addition to the International Space Station,
various countries (e.g. China) and commercial
enterprises (e.g. Bigelow Aerospace) are considering
human space stations in their future plans. These plans
ought to be taken into consideration.
Moreover, the practice could make clear allowances
for satellites to operate in any region higher than 400
km of space. Such allowances might include
consideration of the following:
 Satellite deorbit capability, including active and
passive means
 Anticipated satellite operational lifetime,
including assessment of radiation hardening and
redundancy
 Satellite operator and intent (e.g., developing
country conducting scientific experiment)
However, these practices would be not sufficient
with current state of launches. Therefore, the
organization should also consider approaches to
promote the small satellite launcher market, enabling or
facilitating the dedicated regimes described above.
Practically, where possible, governments and
international organizations should facilitate and
advocate for the sustainable development and regulation
of new small satellite launch vehicle concepts.
The fostering of the small satellite launchers’ market
is consistent with current trends suggesting that a
number of commercial options are entering the market.
Page 3 of 5
 67th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Guadalajara, Mexico, 26-30 September 2016.
Copyright ©2016 by the Copyright 2016 by Space Generation Advisory Council (SGAC).
Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms.
Fig. 1. Proposed open orbital region
8. Rationale
With the emerging nanosatellite market, an
increasing number of well-known as well as new actors
are developing and launching nanosatellites. Market
projections foresee that more than 1,000 nanosatellites
will be launched by 2020 [8]. A typical nanosatellite
launched by a university or an amateur does not include
an attitude determination and control system (ADCS)
that can avoid collisions with other objects in its orbit or
deorbiting mechanism for a controlled re-entering in the
Earth’s atmosphere. This poses a great risk to the
existing space assets, especially to the manned
International Space Station (ISS) or future outposts in
LEO. Developing a new set of recommendations
targeted to nanosatellites is considered a “must do” for
the immediate future, in order to avoid collisions and
mitigate the risk posed by space debris. The
recommendations in this paper include the
establishment of a specific orbital area, possibly below
the ISS, where nanosatellites without the possibility of
being controlled from the ground or performing orbital
maneuvers can be placed. This lower orbit means that
the satellite will remain in orbit for 1-2 years at most,
which is also the current typical operational time for a
satellite of this class. Even in case of collisions, the
debris caused by an impact in this lower orbit will
deorbit in short time. On the contrary, in order to be
authorized to launch a nanosatellite in an orbit higher
than the ISS, it will be necessary to provide the required
documentation to demonstrate that it is able to perform
orbit changes in due time and can avoid collisions. This
means that the satellite has relevant ADCS and
propulsion systems onboard. In addition to this, the
nanosatellite operator needs to prove that its spacecraft
will re-enter within 25 years, which will likely require a
passive or active deorbiting system.
Finally, the promotion of the small launcher market
would make available new lines of rockets able to
IAC-16-A6.8.7
provide a more precise insertion in orbit for
nanosatellites, avoiding piggyback launches to altitudes
unsustainable for systems without proper control or
deorbiting means.
9. Conclusion
The Policy Working Group at the Space Generation
Congress 2015 discussed the implication of the raising
number of nanosatellites against concern on the
sustainability especially of the lower LEO region. The
group acknowledged the difficulties of tackling these
issues especially taking into consideration the necessity
of avoiding restrictions for current and above all, new
players in the space sector, governmental, commercial,
academic or amateur. The recommendations of this
paper have been thought to preserve the rights of both
old and new players to launch craft in space.
Acknowledgements
The present paper is the product of the work of an
international and interdisciplinary team of 18 space
professionals and students, who were part of the Policy
Working Group during the Space Generation Congress.
We want to thank all of them for the great dedication
they put in the discussion and implementation of the
recommendations. They are, in addition to the authors
of this paper: Sirisha Bandla, Emmanuelle David, Alon
Davidi, Leehandi De Witt, Matt Driedger, Chantelle
Dubois, Blake James Edwards, Suman Gautam, Eren
Gorur, Gabriel Lapilli, Milan Mijovic, and Caroline
Thro.
Special thanks go to our subject matter experts
Meidad Pariente (Spacecialist, Israel), Chris Johnson
(Secure World Foundation, USA) and David Finkelman
(SkySentry, US) for their guidance during the entire
time of the workshop.
References
[1] SpaceWorks’ 2014 Nano/Microsatellite Market
Assessment,
http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/Spa
ceWorks_Nano_Microsatellite_Market_Assessment
_January_2014.pdf (accessed 31.08.16).
[2] NSR’s Nano and Microsatellite Markets, 2nd Edition,
http://www.nsr.com/research-reports/commercial-
space/nano-and-microsatellite-markets-2nd-edition-/
(accessed 31.08.16).
[3] Gottfried Konecny, Small satellites – A tool for
Earth Observation? XXth ISPRS Congress, 12 - 23
July 2004, Istanbul, Turkey
[4] http://www.nanosats.eu/ (accessed 31.08.16).
[5] United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.
“Compendium of space debris mitigation standards
adopted by States and international organizations.”
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/ (accessed 31.08.16)
Page 4 of 5
 67th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Guadalajara, Mexico, 26-30 September 2016.
Copyright ©2016 by the Copyright 2016 by Space Generation Advisory Council (SGAC).
Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

[6] Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination

Committee, Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines
http://www.iadc-online.org/Documents/IADC-2002-
01,%20IADC%20Space%20Debris%20Guidelines,
%20Revision%201.pdf (accessed 31.08.16).
[7] S. Clark, NASA: Tracking CubeSats is easy, but
many stay in orbit too long,
https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/30/nasa-
tracking-cubesats-is-easy-but-many-stay-in-orbit-
too-long/ (accessed 31.08.16)
[8] The Economist, Nanosats are go!,
http://www.economist.com/news/technology-
quarterly/21603240-small-satellites-taking-
advantage-smartphones-and-other-consumer-
technologies (accessed 31.08.16)

IAC-16-A6.8.7 Page 5 of 5

View publication stats