Of course, any messaging by the Aerospace Corporation that "We need a
new standard because cubesats aren't the right answer", is somewhat
diluted by the fact that the Aerospace Corporation keeps A: flying and
B: bragging about, straight 1U to 3U cubesats.
John Schilling
john.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(661) 718-0955
On 8/2/2019 10:07 PM, Ben Brockert wrote:
Perhaps a good first step would be to find out why the new smallsat
standard proposed by the Aerospace Corporation hasn't seemed to gain
any traction. There's probably a better theory than "because the
Aerospace Corporation has been a leech on the aerospace industry since
it was created as an act of corruption in the Atlas program".
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aerospace.org_launch-2Du&d=DwIFaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=rPTfWqtJdrL0Ber-yr0E_hSjRXuvJH6ZmQx03u8-2as&m=5g4WXHebkchXUHyYHlQq3VtKOL183bYhPvg-o761bC0&s=4_yUh21LlKbNvdVAuKdl8qR7AIKG5y84b57-2APO138&e=
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:58 PM adam paul <pauladam316@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
