MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596122351

How to Set Up a CubeSat Project – Preliminary Survey Results

2016· article· en· W2596122351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucy Berthoud, Mark Schenk

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Design and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCubeSatChinaVariety (cybernetics)Order (exchange)Public relationsPoint (geometry)EngineeringMarketingBusinessPolitical scienceComputer scienceMathematicsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CubeSats have been developed by many different institutions since they were introduced by California Polytechnic State University and Stanford University in 1999. A number of papers give lessons learned for individual satellites, some from a technical perspective and other from an educational point of view. However, there is no existing overview of how CubeSat projects are generally set up. The aim of this paper is to fill this gap, in order to offer those wishing to start a CubeSat programme some ideas of where to start, what equipment is needed and some lessons learned in terms of management. This information was gathered via a survey which was publicised via conferences, mailing lists and LinkedIn groups. At time of writing, 40 groups have completed the survey, including universities, agencies and companies. The respondents came from the US, Europe, Canada, Taiwan, Korea, China, Africa and South America. The majority of the groups were building 1U or 3U CubeSats with Technology Demonstrator or Science Experiment payloads. The groups were asked a series of questions relating to the characteristics of their projects, including the duration of the project, costs and what they spent their money on - including which components they built themselves and which they bought from suppliers. The groups were asked what first steps they took in setting up their programme and what equipment and facilities were necessary. They were also asked about how they managed and scheduled the project across multiple cohorts of students. This was identified as problematic by many groups and a variety of ideas and solutions were proposed. Lessons learned covered many aspects of the project with some common themes emerging: planning, learning from other groups, student continuity, documentation, integrating the project within the curriculum, mentoring, software development, simplicity and testing. The groups were asked for their advice to future programme leaders and this is summarised in the paper.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University)Same topicSpacecraft Design and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207