Stricter grounding standards for one. I’ve been talking way too much to my
colleague, a power engineer that used to work for a commercial cubesat
component provider, and he has way too many horror stories of noise from
unintentional ground loops that can lead to a loss of a mission.
I’m assuming you’d want a umbilical to top off batteries and do last minute
software changes? Probably would want something like a zero separation force
connector or would at least want to check that the separation force is low
enough for the spring to overcome.
-Jordan
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
adam paul
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 8:58 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] CubeSat V2
Hi Everyone,
Something I've been thinking about lately is the idea of an updated version of
the CubeSat standard. The standard was originally meant to define secondary
payloads that could be integrated with absolute minimal obstruction to the
primary payload, however, we're seeing several launchers now (like Electron and
Vectors family) that are geared towards CubeSats as primary payloads.
With that in mind, I was thinking about changes that you could make to the
standard to support this shift in mission design. My first thoughts were
removing restrictions on propulsion and adding electrical umbilicals between
the CubeSat and the deployer. What would be on your wishlist for a "CubeSat
v2"? Would you even use the CubeSat standard at all or start from scratch?
