.png?w=1024)
Chapter Contents
- Chapter Glossary
- 2.1 Introduction
- 2.2 State-of-the-Art – Spacecraft Platforms
- 2.3 Other Complete Spacecraft Platforms Providers
- 2.4 Programmatic and Systems Engineering Considerations
- 2.5 Summary
- References
Chapter Glossary
| (COTS) | Commercial-off-the-Shelf |
| (EELV) | Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle |
| (ESPA) | EELV Secondary Payload Adapter |
| (GEO) | Geostationary Equatorial Orbit |
| (I&T) | Integration and Test |
| (kg) | Kilogram |
| (LEO) | Low Earth Orbit |
| (MEO) | Medium Earth Orbit |
| (MTBF) | Mean Time Between Failures |
| (NASA) | National Aeronautics and Space Administration |
| (SHF) | Super High Frequency |
| (SPA) | Secondary Payload Adapter |
| (STMD) | Space Technology Mission Directorate |
| (TRL) | Technology Readiness Level |
| (UHF) | Ultra High Frequency |
| (UK) | United Kingdom |
| (Unk) | Unknown |
| (USA) | United States of America |
| (VLEO) | Very Low Earth Orbit |
| (VHF) | Very High Frequency |
| (W) | Watts |
| (xGEO) | Beyond Geostationary Equatorial Orbit |
2.1 Introduction
Small spacecraft continue to enable a broad range of science missions, technology demonstrations, and operational services. Regardless of mission type, each spacecraft relies on a bus, which provides essential services to the payload. These services typically include power generation and storage, thermal control, attitude determination and control, navigation and timing, communications, propulsion, and command and data handling. While this report examines the state of the art for individual subsystems, this chapter focuses on complete, readily available spacecraft platforms that practitioners can procure or access as services.
To reflect how teams make acquisition decisions, the chapter is organized into two main categories: hosted orbital services and spacecraft bus procurement. Hosted orbital services offer end-to-end mission support by integrating customer payloads onto provider-managed spacecraft and conducting system-level integration, test, commissioning, and operations. Spacecraft bus procurement focuses on purchasing a flight-proven or development-stage bus and, depending on the provider, optionally leveraging their system-level integration and test support while the customer leads mission operations. The procurement section is further subdivided by platform class: PocketQube, CubeSat, and ESPA-class.
Procuring a complete platform—whether as a hosted service or as a bus—can reduce technical and programmatic risk by leveraging proven hardware and established processes. It does not eliminate the need for mission-level trades and responsibilities, which typically include payload-to-bus interface definition and verification, environmental qualification, regulatory and spectrum licensing, concept of operations development, commissioning, and on-orbit data handling. Hosted services can shift many of these responsibilities to the provider, allowing investigators to focus on payload development and data ground processing; purchasing a bus can provide greater control over mission tailoring and operations, at the cost of increased integration effort.
Inclusion in this chapter is non-exhaustive and intended as a snapshot of the market as of January 2026; offerings evolve rapidly, and readers should confirm details directly with providers.
To use this chapter, start by clarifying your mission needs and payload envelope (mass, volume, power). If you seek end-to-end support and faster access to space, review hosted orbital services first. If you plan to own and operate the spacecraft, proceed to the bus procurement section, selecting among PocketQube, CubeSat, and ESPA-class platforms based on size and capability. Each subsection includes summary tables to help compare offerings, and Section 2.4 outlines systems engineering considerations and links to relevant guidance documents for the development of small spacecraft.
2.2 State-of-the-Art – Spacecraft Platforms
2.2.1 Hosted Orbital Services
Hosted orbital services provide end-to-end mission support by integrating customer payloads onto provider-managed spacecraft and conducting system-level integration and test, launch accommodations, commissioning, and on-orbit operations with data return. Providers differ in vehicle type, business model, and the degree of transparency and control they offer to customers, but the common objective is to reduce barriers to flight and streamline the path from payload development to scientifically or operationally useful data. This section focuses on hosted orbital services using small spacecraft platforms; other space-based hosting opportunities—such as hosting on the International Space Station, on launch vehicle structures, or on returnable capsules—exist but are beyond the scope of this chapter. Hosted orbital services can be implemented in several ways. The choice among these models depends on payload needs, desired control and customization, as well as schedule, and budget.
- Dedicated spacecraft: a single customer’s payload flies on its own spacecraft, with the full bus resources reserved for that mission.
- Shared hosted capacity on provider missions: unused mass, power, and data margins on the provider’s internally funded mission are allocated to one or more customer payloads.
- Multi‑payload missions: multiple customer payloads share a single spacecraft bus with partitioned resources and interfaces.
- Virtual or software‑only hosting: payload functionality is implemented as software on an existing spacecraft, leveraging onboard processing and data links without dedicated hardware.
The benefits of hosted orbital services are centered on speed, cost, risk reduction, flexibility, and focus. Standardized interfaces and recurring flight campaigns can shorten the timeline from payload delivery to on-orbit operations, accelerating technology maturation and science return. Shared spacecraft resources and established processes reduce non-recurring engineering and programmatic overhead relative to building and launching a bespoke spacecraft. Providers typically leverage flight-proven buses, deployers, ground networks, and mission assurance practices, which can improve the probability of mission success. Services can be tailored to payload needs and scaled across flights or constellations, allowing adjustments to bandwidth, coverage, and mission duration as needed. Importantly, hosted services enable investigators to concentrate on instrument development and data ground processing while the provider handles spacecraft integration, commissioning, and routine operations.
Although offerings vary, hosted orbital services generally articulate clear payload acceptance envelopes and interface requirements. Customers should expect specifications for mass, volume, mounting constraints, keep-out zones, and center-of-gravity limits; power budgets, including average and peak draw, duty cycles, inrush limits, and electrical interfaces; thermal interfaces, allowable temperature ranges, and heat rejection capability; data interfaces, protocols, expected throughput, onboard storage, and downlink schedules; and attitude determination and control performance available to the payload, including pointing knowledge, control/accuracy, and stability/jitter. Providers typically define environmental qualification expectations (random vibration, shock, thermal vacuum, electromagnetic compatibility/interference), radiation environment assumptions and component-level tolerance, and software integration approaches, including flight software architectures, command/telemetry schemas, and on-orbit authority. Ground segment provisions—data formats, latency, delivery mechanisms, security measures, and archiving—are also defined as part of the interface.
Several considerations warrant careful attention during selection and contracting. Data rights and access should be explicitly defined, including ownership, latency, formats, and any restrictions on redistribution or publication. Operational authority and autonomy must be clear: who can command payload modes, update software, and respond to anomalies on orbit, and what safeguards or approval workflows apply. Regulatory and licensing responsibilities—such as spectrum coordination and remote sensing approvals—require planning; customers should confirm what support the provider offers and which tasks remain with the payload team. Cybersecurity posture across command and data links and ground systems should address authentication, encryption, monitoring, and incident response. In multi-payload missions, resource partitioning and contention management are central to predictable operations; customers should understand how power, data, pointing, and schedules are allocated and prioritized. Lead times and manifests must be realistic, and should include contingency plans for integration delays or launch slips. Mission assurance practices and flight heritage should be reviewed for relevance to the target orbit and environment, while end-of-life planning should ensure deorbit or passivation meets applicable guidelines. Finally, export controls may affect certain providers or payload components; early planning for compliance can help mitigate delays.
To compare hosted orbital services effectively, customers can frame their selection around mission outcomes and constraints. Begin with the target orbit, coverage, and revisit rates the provider can offer, and assess whether these meet science or operational objectives. Examine payload envelopes—mass, volume, power, and thermal—and verify interface compatibility against provider standards. Evaluate the attitude control performance available to the payload and the vibration/jitter environment relative to pointing or imaging requirements. Communications capacity, downlink latency, and ground network architecture should align with data volumes and cadence; confirm that onboard storage and scheduling flexibility support high-duty-cycle payloads. Propulsion capabilities, if relevant, should cover orbit changes, collision avoidance, and disposal. Flight heritage and reliability metrics provide insight into expected performance; preference may be given to providers with demonstrated performance in similar missions. Integration and test services, facilities, and verification approaches should be commensurate with payload complexity, and data services—including processing, storage, and delivery guarantees—should meet analysis workflows. Regulatory and licensing support, cybersecurity features, schedule and production cadence, and cost structure (including any per-bit or per-pass fees) round out the comparison. Terms governing data rights, on-orbit authority, and change control should be negotiated early and documented.
Procurement of hosted orbital services typically proceeds through commercial agreements that include a statement of work, interface control documents, verification and validation plans, acceptance test procedures, project lifecycle reviews, and service-level agreements for operations and data delivery. Clear definition of deliverables and decision gates—such as project lifecycle review entrance/exit criteria, payload acceptance review, environmental test reports, mission operations plan, commissioning report, and data handover specifications—helps reduce ambiguity. Roles and responsibilities for licensing, launch integration, anomaly response, and end-of-life disposition should be explicitly assigned. If you intend to use government procurement mechanisms or programs, confirm current eligibility, terms, and contracting pathways through official documentation and appropriate contracting office.
Not all hosted service providers sell their spacecraft buses. If owning the bus is required, refer to the Spacecraft Bus Procurement section of this chapter. Offerings evolve rapidly; treat provider lists and capabilities as a snapshot as of January 2026 and confirm details directly with providers.
| Table 2-1: Hosted Orbital Service Providers (The fields indicate maximum capability; organizations may offer multiple options including smaller capabilities within the Hosted Orbital Services category) | |||||
| Organization | Largest Platform | Peak Power (W) | 3-σ Pointing Control/ Knowledge | Destination | US Office |
| 2NDSpace Italy | CubeSat | >100 | 0.1°/0.02° | VLEO, LEO, MEO | No |
| AAC Clyde Space Sweden | CubeSat | 400 | <0.01°/<0.0075° | LEO | Yes |
| Aerospacelab Belgium | ESPA | 300 | <0.005°/ <0.005° | LEO, GEO | Yes |
| Alba Orbital UK | PocketQube | 15 | 5°/2° | LEO | Yes |
| Alén Space Spain | CubeSat | 180 | 0.2°/0.1° | LEO | No |
| Apex USA | ESPA | 4,000 | 0.005°/ 0.0025° | LEO, MEO, GEO | Yes |
| Argotec Italy | ESPA | 440 | <0.01°/<0.008° | LEO, MEO, GEO, Deep Space | Yes |
| Artemis Space Technologies UK | ESPA | 1,500 | 0.01°/0.01° | LEO, MEO, GEO, Lunar and Deep Space | No |
| Astranis Space Technologies Corp. USA | ESPA | 300 | <0.1°/ <0.09° | GEO | Yes |
| Astro Digital USA | ESPA | 3,000 | <0.03°/ <0.02° | LEO, GTO, GEO | Yes |
| Axelspace Japan | ESPA | 1,800 | <0.05°/ <0.04° | LEO | No |
| BAE Systems SMS USA | ESPA | 2,500 | <0.006°/<0.003° | LEO, MEO, GEO, Cislunar, Deep Space | Yes |
| Berlin Space Technologies Germany | ESPA | 2,500 | <0.017°/< 0.017° | LEO | Yes |
| Blue Canyon Technologies USA | ESPA | 1,082 | 0.002°/0.002° | LEO, GEO, Deep Space | Yes |
| C3S Electronics Development Hungary | CubeSat | 505 | 0.4°/ 0.6° | LEO, MEO | No |
| CesiumAstro USA | ESPA | 4,500 | <0.1°/<0.01° | LEO | Yes |
| CREOTECH Poland | ESPA | 600 | <0.02°/< 0.015° | LEO, MEO, GEO, Lunar, Deep Space | No |
| D-Orbit Italy | ESPA | 300 | 0.1°/ 0.05° | LEO | No |
| D-Orbit USA | ESPA | 2,000 | 0.1°/ 0.05° | LEO, GEO | Yes |
| EnduroSat Bulgaria | ESPA | 6,800 | 0.1°/0.006° | LEO | Yes |
| Exobotics UK | ESPA | 3,600 | 0.1°/ 0.008° | LEO, MEO, HEO, GEO, Lunar | No |
| FOSSA Systems Spain | CubeSat | 60 | <0.1°/<0.1° | LEO | No |
| German Orbital Systems Germany | CubeSat | 150 | <1°/< 1° | LEO | No |
| GomSpace Denmark | CubeSat | 150 | 0.070°/ 0.056° | LEO, MEO, GEO, Lunar, Deep Space | Yes |
| Harpy Aerospace India | ESPA | 2,100 | 0.35°/0.35° | LEO, GEO, Lunar, ISS | Yes |
| Hemeria France | ESPA | 250 | <0.03°/<0.01° | LEO, GTO, GEO | No |
| HEX20 India | CubeSat | 150 | 0.008°/ 0.008° | LEO, MEO, Lunar | Yes |
| Hydra Space Systems Spain | CubeSat | 30 | <1°/< 1° | LEO | No |
| Innova Space Argentina | CubeSat | 4 | <15°/< 15° | LEO | Yes |
| Loft Orbital USA | ESPA | 4,000 | <0.01°/<0.007° | LEO | Yes |
| Magellan Aerospace Canada | ESPA | 200 | 0.01°/0.01° | LEO | No |
| Malin Science Space Systems USA | ESPA | 918 | <0.015°/<0.015° | Mars | Yes |
| Momentus Space USA | ESPA | 3,000 | 0.008°/ 0.008° | LEO, MEO, GEO, Lunar, Deep Space | Yes |
| Moog USA | ESPA | 2,000 | <0.050°/<0.033° | LEO, GEO | Yes |
| Muon Space USA | ESPA | 4,000 | 0.01°/0.004° | LEO | Yes |
| NanoAvionics Lithuania | ESPA | 378 | 0.15°/ 0.03° | LEO | Yes |
| Nara Space South Korea | CubeSat | 120 | 0.05°/ 0.03° | LEO | No |
| NearSpace Launch USA | CubeSat | 160 | 0.5°/ 0.2° | LEO | Yes |
| Northrop Grumman USA | ESPA | 420 | <4°/<1° | LEO | Yes |
| NovaWurks USA | ESPA | >5,000 | 0.002°/0.0004° | LEO, GEO, xGEO | Yes |
| NPC SPACEMIND Italy | CubeSat | 100 | <0.1°/<0.1° | LEO, MEO | Yes |
| OHB LuxSpace Luxembourg | ESPA | 600 | <0.022°/ 0.01° | LEO | No |
| OHB Sweden Sweden | ESPA | 1,500 | 0.008°/ 0.008° | LEO, MEO | No |
| Orbital Astronautics UK | ESPA | 5,000 | <0.05°/<0.01° | LEO, MEO, GEO, Deep Space | No |
| Orion Space Solutions USA | CubeSat | 400 | <1°/<1° | VLEO, LEO, GEO, Lunar | Yes |
| Pumpkin Space USA | CubeSat | 400 | 0.05°/<0.05° | LEO, Lunar | Yes |
| Quantum Space USA | ESPA | 400 | 0.006°/0.006° | LEO, GEO, Cislunar, Lunar, Deep Space | Yes |
| Quub, Inc.USA | CubeSat | 50 | 5°/2° | LEO, Lunar | Yes |
| Redwire Space USA | ESPA | 500 | 0.005°/0.0017° | LEO, MEO, GEO and Deep Space | Yes |
| Reflex Aerospace Germany | ESPA | 3,000 | <0.01°/<0.005° | LEO | No |
| SatRev Poland | CubeSat | 150 | 1°/1° | LEO | No |
| SFL Missions Inc.Canada | ESPA | 1,500 | 0.009°/0.004° | LEO, GEO, Lunar | No |
| Sierra Space USA | ESPA | 500 | 0.001°/ <0.001° | LEO, MEO, GEO | Yes |
| SITAEL Italy | ESPA | 2,000 | 0.0017°/ 0.001° | LEO | No |
| Southwest Research Institute USA | ESPA | 1,550 | 0.015°/0.002° | LEO, GEO | Yes |
| Space Dynamics Laboratory USA | ESPA | 2,000 | 0.021°/0.021° | LEO, GEO, GTO, Cislunar, Deep Space | Yes |
| Space Inventor Denmark | ESPA | 1,500 | <0.008°/<0.008° | LEO, GEO, MEO, Lunar | No |
| Spacemanic Czech Republic | CubeSat | 216 | 1°/ 0.5° | LEO, MEO, GEO, Lunar | No |
| Spire Global USA | CubeSat | 300 | 0.1°/ 0.05° | LEO | Yes |
| Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. UK | ESPA | 2,000 | <0.01°/ <0.01° | LEO, MEO, GEO, Lunar | No |
| Terran Orbital USA | ESPA | 1,500 | 0.014°/0.002° | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Yes |
| U-Space France | ESPA | 250 | 0.007°/0.005° | LEO | No |
| Varda Space Industries USA | ESPA | 500 | 2.25°/ 0.40° | LEO with Re-entry Recovery | Yes |
| York Space Systems USA | ESPA | 2,200 | 0.002°/ 0.0004° | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Yes |
2.2.2 Spacecraft Bus Procurement
The SmallSat market includes providers of complete spacecraft bus solutions, encompassing system-level integration and test (I&T) and operations capabilities. Providers that deliver end-to-end services are addressed in Section 2.2.1. The providers profiled here offer bus procurement and possibly provide system-level I&T. Readers should use this document to narrow candidate options; refer to Table 2-9 for providers websites and contact information.
2.2.2.1 PocketQubes
PocketQubes are very small satellites built around a 5 cm cube unit, denoted “P.” A 1P spacecraft occupies a single 5 cm cube, and larger configurations combine units (for example, 2P, 3P, and beyond where deployers permit). Figure 2.3 illustrates the standard dimensions of a 1P unit, providing a visual reference for the geometry used across PocketQube designs. Figure 2.5 shows an example of a PocketQube. The PocketQube ecosystem has matured in recent years, and multiple providers offer off-the-shelf buses that integrate power, command and data handling, communications, and basic attitude sensing within extremely constrained mass and volume envelopes. These platforms are well suited to tightly focused technology demonstrations and compact instruments that can tolerate limited power and modest attitude control.
Selecting a PocketQube bus centers on a clear understanding of payload constraints and mission requirements. Mechanical considerations include strict keep-out zones, mounting features compatible with the chosen deployer, and center-of-gravity placement to meet deployment requirements. Figure 2.4 shows PocketQubes and deployers for integration. Electrical power budgets are typically low, with tight limits on average and peak draw, duty cycles, and inrush currents; payload modes must align with available storage and generation. Communication subsystems generally offer lower data rates relative to larger classes, so data volume, latency, and downlink scheduling should be planned accordingly. Attitude determination and control capabilities vary, but pointing performance is often limited by scale; payloads that demand fine pointing or low jitter may require tailored solutions or selection of a larger platform class. Environmental qualification—random vibration, shock, thermal vacuum, and electromagnetic compatibility—should match the launch and orbit, and radiation tolerance assumptions should be confirmed with the provider.
PocketQube deployers define the mechanical interface and envelope for flight. While a typical deployer accommodates up to 3P, larger systems may exist; specific dimensions, clamp features, and external volume allowances are determined by the deployer and launch integration configuration. As shown in Figure 2.4, understanding the deployer integration early helps ensure mechanical compatibility and proper verification of separation mechanisms. Prospective buyers should coordinate with their sponsoring organization or launch provider to identify the deployer that will be used and verify bus compatibility. The summary table in this subsection lists representative PocketQube buses, including power availability, communications options, and any optional integration services.
| Table 2-2: PocketQubes Market Solutions (The fields indicate maximum capability; organizations may offer multiple options including smaller capabilities within the PocketQube category) | ||||||
| Organization | Peak Power (W) | 3-σ Pointing Control/ Knowledge | Comm Options | Intended Destination | Maturity | US Office |
| Alba Orbital UK | 15 | 5°/2° | UHF, S | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| DIYSATELLITE Argentina | 9 | <5°/<5° | VHF, UHF, SHF | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO | No |
| FOSSA Systems Spain | 10 | <5°/<5° | UHF, S | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| Hydra Space Systems Spain | 8 | 5°/5° | VHF, UHF | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| Innova Space Argentina | 3.9 | N/A -Magnetic Passive | UHF | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Quub, Inc. USA | 26 | 5°/2° | UHF, S | LEO, Lunar | Flown LEO | Yes |
2.2.2.2 CubeSats
CubeSats are modular small satellites built from 10 cm cube units, denoted “U.” The standard—originally developed to facilitate access to space for educational missions and now widely adopted—supports a range of sizes from sub‑unit form factors up to multi‑unit configurations (e.g., from sub-1U form factors up to 27U-class configurations). The market offers a broad spectrum of CubeSat buses spanning basic platforms for rapid technology demonstrations to highly capable systems with precise pointing, increased power generation, redundant subsystems, and integrated propulsion. Examples of flown CubeSats at multiple sizes are shown in Figure 2.6, illustrating the diversity of implementations.
Selecting a CubeSat bus typically begins by mapping mission requirements to size and capability. Smaller buses (e.g., 1U–3U) often suit low‑power payloads and missions with relaxed pointing or data demands, while mid‑size platforms (e.g., 6U) provide more power and volume, enabling more capable ADCS, communications, and propulsion subsystems. Larger configurations (e.g., 12U, 16U and above) support higher duty cycles, larger instruments, and more stringent pointing and stability requirements. Figure 2.7 provides visual examples of 6U and 16U CubeSat form factors. Across sizes, common trade factors include average and peak power availability, battery capacity and array configuration, ADCS performance (pointing accuracy, knowledge, stability, and jitter), communications bands and data rates, onboard storage, and optional propulsion (including propellant type and expected delta‑V). Heritage in similar orbits and environments and the provider’s test and quality practices are important indicators of reliability.
Mechanical interface compliance is fundamental. CubeSat deployers enforce strict keep‑out zones, surface features, and load paths. Two primary interface families are in use: classic corner rails and tab‑based systems (clamped and unclamped variants). Most bus providers offer adaptations to support both, but buyers should verify the specific deployer used by their launch provider and ensure the bus meets the corresponding mechanical and environmental requirements. Differences in deployer location on the launch vehicle can affect shock, vibration, and thermal environments; qualification plans should account for these conditions. Figure 2.8 illustrates this variability, showing the location of Artemis CubeSat deployers between the Orion Crew Vehicle and the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (left), and the NASA Nodes mission deployment from the International Space Station (right). Payload teams should also confirm electrical interfaces and protocols, data handling and downlink scheduling, and any software integration requirements, including flight software hooks and command/telemetry schemas.
This report organizes CubeSat buses by size to streamline comparison. The summary tables for 0.25U–3U, 6U, 12U, and 16U+ list representative platforms. Offerings evolve quickly; readers should treat the tables as a starting point and engage providers to obtain current details.
| Table 2-3: 0.25U-3U Market Solutions (The fields indicate maximum capability; organizations may offer multiple options including smaller capabilities within the 0.25U-3U category) | ||||||
| Organization | Peak Power (W) | 3-σ Pointing Control/ Knowledge | Comm Options | Intended Destination | Maturity | US Office |
| 2NDSpace Italy | >100 | 0.1°/0.02° | VHF, UHF, S, X | VLEO, LEO, MEO | Flown LEO | No |
| AAC Clyde Space Sweden | 90 | <0.1°/<0.01° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Blue Canyon TechnologiesUSA | 27 | 0.003°/0.003° | L, S, X | LEO, GEO, Deep Space | Flown LEO Qualified GEO and Deep Space | Yes |
| Deimos Space Spain | 35 | 0.2°/0.2° | UHF, X | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| EnduroSat Bulgaria | 84 | <1°/<0.6° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Exobotics UK | 75 | 0.1°/ 0.05° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO | Under Development | No |
| FOSSA Systems Spain | 30 | 1°/1° | UHF, S | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| German Orbital Systems Germany | 35 | <1°/<1° | UHF, VHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| GomSpace Denmark | 35 | 0.139°/0.056° | S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Gran Systems Taiwan | 50 | 2°/ 2° | VHF, UHF, S | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| GUMUSH AeroSpace Turkey | 80 | <1°/ <0.1° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| Harpy Aerospace India | 72 | <0.1°/<0.01° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Qualified LEO and Lunar | Yes |
| HEX20 India | 30 | 0.003°/ 0.003° | VHF, UHF, S | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Hydra Space Systems Spain | 30 | <1°/ <1° | VHF, UHF, Ka | LEO | Under Development | No |
| Innova Space Argentina | 7.5 | <15°/<15° | UHF | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| ISISPACE The Netherlands | 50 | <15°/<15° | VHF, UHF, S | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| NanoAvionics Lithuania | 175 | 13.20°/12.93° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| NearSpace Launch USA | 100 | 0.5°/0.2° | L, UHF, S, X | VLEO, LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| NPC SPACEMIND Italy | 51.6 | <0.1°/<0.1° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, MEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO and MEO | Yes |
| Orbital Astronautics UK | 400 | 0.1°/ 0.01° | S, X, K, Ka, Optical | LEO, MEO | Flown LEO Qualified MEO and GEO | No |
| Orion Space Solutions USA | 8 | 1°/1° | L, S, X | LEO | Qualified LEO | Yes |
| Pumpkin Space Systems USA | 200 | 0.05°/<0.05° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Quub, Inc. USA | 44 | 5°/2° | UHF, S | LEO, Lunar | Flown LEO | Yes |
| SatRev Poland | 150 | 0.01°/0.01° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| SFL Missions Inc. Canada | 100 | 0.009°/0.004° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO Qualified GEO and Lunar | No |
| Space Inventor Denmark | 100 | 0.01° / 0.01° | VHF, UHF, S, X, L | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| Spacemanic Czech Republic | 48 | 1°/0.5° | VHF, UHF, S | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO | No |
| U-Space France | 35 | 10°/10° | S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| Table 2-4: 6U Market Solutions (The fields indicate maximum capability; organizations may offer multiple options including smaller capabilities within the 6U category) | ||||||
| Organization | Peak Power (W) | 3-σ Pointing Control/ Knowledge | Comm Options | Intended Destination | Maturity | US Office |
| 2NDSpace Italy | >100 | 0.1°/0.02° | VHF, UHF, S, X | VLEO, LEO, MEO | Flown LEO | No |
| AAC Clyde Space Sweden | 150 | <0.1°/<0.01° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Argotec Italy | 80 | <0.02°/<0.01° | UHF, S, X | Deep Space | Flown Deep Space | Yes |
| Astro Digital USA | 240 | <0.1°/<0.05° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Blue Canyon Technologies USA | 108 | 0.003°/0.003° | L, S, X | LEO, GEO, Deep Space | Flown LEO and Lunar Qualified GEO and Deep Space | Yes |
| Deimos Space Spain | 40 | 0.05°/0.05° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Under Development | No |
| EnduroSat Bulgaria | 172 | 0.08°/0.04° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Exobotics UK | 400 | 0.1°/ 0.008° | VHF, UHF, S, X, Optical | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| FOSSA Systems Spain | 60 | <0.1°/<0.1° | UHF, S | LEO | Under Development | No |
| German Orbital Systems Germany | 70 | <1°/<1° | UHF, VHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| GomSpace Denmark | 103 | 0.070°/0.056° | S, X | LEO, Deep Space | Flown LEO and Deep Space | Yes |
| GUMUSH AeroSpace Turkey | 160 | <0.1°/<0.05° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO | Under Development | No |
| Harpy Aerospace India | 160 | <0.1°/<0.01° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO | Qualified LEO | Yes |
| HEX20 India | 100 | 0.003°/0.003° | UHF, S, X | LEO, MEO, Lunar | Under Development | Yes |
| ISISPACE The Netherlands | 100 | <0.3°/<0.3° | UHF, S, X | LEO, Lunar | Flown LEO Qualified for Lunar | No |
| NanoAvionics Lithuania | 175 | 0.18°/0.12° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Nara Space South Korea | 120 | 0.05°/0.03° | VHF, UHF, S | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| NearSpace Launch USA | 160 | 0.5°/0.2° | L, UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| NPC SPACEMIND Italy | 85.2 | <0.1°/<0.1° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, MEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Orbital Astronautics UK | 1,000 | 0.1°/0.01° | S, X, K, Ka, Optical | LEO, MEO | Flown LEO Qualified MEO and GEO | No |
| Orion Space Solutions USA | 15 | 1°/1° | L, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Pumpkin Space USA | 200 | 0.05°/<0.05° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, Lunar | Flown LEO Qualified Lunar | Yes |
| Quub, Inc.USA | 50 | 5°/2° | UHF, S, Ku | LEO, Lunar | Under Development | Yes |
| SatRev Poland | 150 | 0.01°/0.01° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| Space Dynamics Laboratory USA | 400 | 0.021°/0.021° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, GEO, GTO, Cislunar, Deep Space | Flown LEO Qualified GEO, GTO, Lunar and Deep Space | Yes |
| SFL Missions Inc.Canada | 240 | 0.009°/0.004° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO Qualified GEO and Lunar | No |
| Space Inventor Denmark | 200 | <0.008°/<0.008° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| Spacemanic Czech Republic | 432 | 1°/0.5° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Qualified LEO | No |
| Terran Orbital USA | 180 | 0.021°/0.007° | UHF, S, X | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO and Lunar | Yes |
| Table 2-5: 12U Market Solutions (The fields indicate maximum capability; organizations may offer multiple options including smaller capabilities within the 12U category) | ||||||
| Organization | Peak Power (W) | 3-σ Pointing Control/ Knowledge | Comm Options | Intended Destination | Maturity | US Office |
| 2NDSpace Italy | >100 | 0.1°/0.02° | VHF, UHF, S, X | VLEO, LEO, MEO | Flown LEO | No |
| AAC Clyde Space Sweden | 400 | <0.01°/<0.0075° | VHF, UHF, S, X, K, Ka, Ku, Optical | LEO | Qualified LEO | Yes |
| Argotec Italy | 100 | <0.02°/<0.01° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Under Development | Yes |
| Blue Canyon Technologies USA | 108 | 0.002°/0.002° | L, S, X | LEO, GEO, Deep Space | Flown LEO and GEO Qualified Deep Space | Yes |
| EnduroSat Bulgaria | 346 | 0.08°/0.04° | UHF, S, X, K/Ka | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Exobotics UK | 400 | 0.1°/ 0.008° | VHF, UHF, S, X, Optical | LEO, HEO, Lunar | Flown LEO and HEO | No |
| German Orbital Systems Germany | 144 | <0.1°/<0.1° | UHF, VHF, S, X | LEO | Qualified LEO | No |
| GomSpace Denmark | 108 | 0.070°/0.056° | S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| GUMUSH AeroSpace Turkey | 240 | <0.05°/<0.05° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO | Under Development | No |
| Harpy Aerospace India | 420 | <0.1°/<0.01° | VHF, UHF, S, X, K, Ka, Ku, Optical | LEO | Qualified LEO | Yes |
| HEX20 India | 125 | 0.008°/0.008° | UHF, S, X, Optical | LEO, MEO, Lunar | Under Development | Yes |
| ISISPACE The Netherlands | 190 | <0.03°/<0.03° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO | Under Development | No |
| NanoAvionics Lithuania | 175 | 0.18°/0.09° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Nara Space South Korea | 120 | 0.05°/0.03° | S, X | LEO | Qualified LEO | No |
| NearSpace Launch USA | 500 | 0.5°/0.2° | L, UHF, S, X | LEO, MEO | Under Development | Yes |
| NPC SPACEMIND Italy | 96 | <0.1°/<0.1° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, MEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Orbital Astronautics UK | 2,000 | 0.05°/0.01° | S, X, K, Ka, Optical | LEO, MEO, GEO | Flown LEO Qualified MEO and GEO | No |
| Orion Space Solutions USA | 40 | <1°/<1° | L, S, X, Ka | LEO, GEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Pumpkin Space USA | 400 | 0.05°/<0.05° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, Lunar | Qualified LEO | Yes |
| Space Dynamics Laboratory USA | 400 | 0.021°/0.021° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, GEO, GTO, Cislunar, Deep Space | Flown LEO Qualified GEO, GTO, Lunar and Deep Space | Yes |
| SFL Missions Inc.Canada | 322 | 0.009°/0.004° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO Qualified GEO and Lunar | No |
| Space Inventor Denmark | 200 | <0.008°/<0.008° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| Spacemanic Czech Republic | 432 | 1°/0.5° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Under Development | No |
| Terran Orbital USA | 100 | 0.021°/0.007° | UHF, S, X | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO and Lunar | Yes |
| U-Space France | 150 | 0.009°/0.008° | S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| Table 2-6: 16U+ Market Solutions (The fields indicate maximum capability; organizations may offer multiple options including smaller capabilities within the 16U+ category) | |||||||
| Organization | Format | Peak Power (W) | 3-σ Pointing Control/ Knowledge | Comm Options | Intended Destination | Maturity | US Office |
| 2NDSpace Italy | 16U | >100 | 0.1°/0.02° | VHF, UHF, S, X | VLEO, LEO, MEO | Qualified LEO | No |
| AAC Clyde Space Sweden | 16U | 400 | <0.01°/<0.0075° | VHF, UHF, S, X, K, Ka, Ku, Optical | LEO | Qualified LEO | Yes |
| Argotec Italy | 16U+ | 220 | <0.02°/<0.01° | UHF, S, X, K, Ka | GEO, Deep Space | Under Development | Yes |
| Astro Digital USA | 16U+ | 500 | <0.05°/<0.01° | UHF, S, X, Ku, Ka, V, W, Optical | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Blue Canyon Technologies USA | 16U | 108 | 0.002°/0.002° | L, S, X | LEO, GEO, Deep Space | Qualified LEO, GEO and Deep Space | Yes |
| Deimos Space Spain | 16U+ | 100 | 0.025°/0.025° | UHF, S, X | LEO, Lunar, Deep Space | Under Development | No |
| EnduroSat Bulgaria | 16U | 346 | 0.08°/0.04° | UHF, S, X, K/Ka | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Exobotics UK | 16U | 400 | 0.1°/ 0.008° | VHF, UHF, S, X, Optical | LEO | Under Development | No |
| German Orbital Systems Germany | 16U+ | 164 | <1°/<1° | UHF, VHF, S, X | LEO | Qualified LEO | No |
| GomSpace Denmark | 16U | 116 | 0.070°/0.056° | S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| GUMUSH AeroSpace Turkey | 16U | 240 | <0.05°/<0.05° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO | Under Development | No |
| Harpy Aerospace India | 16U, 27U | 420 | <0.1°/<0.01° | VHF, UHF, S, X, K, Ka, Ku, Optical | LEO | Qualified LEO | Yes |
| HEX20 India | 16U, 27U+ | 200 | 0.008°/0.008° | UHF, S, X, Optical | LEO, MEO, Lunar | Under Development | Yes |
| ISISPACE The Netherlands | 16U | 190 | <0.03°/<0.03° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO | Under Development | No |
| NanoAvionics Lithuania | 16U | 175 | 0.18°/0.09° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Nara Space South Korea | 16U | 120 | 0.05°/0.03° | S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| NPC SPACEMIND Italy | 16U | 120 | <0.1°/<0.1° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, MEO, GEO, Lunar | Under Development | Yes |
| Orbital Astronautics UK | 16U, 27U | 2,000 | 0.05°/0.01° | S, X, K, Ka, Optical | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Qualified LEO and GEO | No |
| Orion Space Solutions USA | 16U+ | 400 | <1°/<1° | L, S, X, Ka | VLEO, LEO, GEO | Qualified VLEO, LEO | Yes |
| Pumpkin Space USA | 16U, 27U | 400 | 0.05°/<0.05° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, Lunar | Qualified LEO | Yes |
| SatRev Poland | 16U | 150 | 0.01°/<0.01° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Under Development | No |
| Space Dynamics Laboratory USA | 16U+ | 1,600 | 0.021°/0.021° | UHF, S, X, Ka, Optical | LEO, GEO, GTO, Cislunar, Deep Space | Flown LEO Qualified GEO, GTO, Lunar and Deep Space | Yes |
| SFL Missions Inc. Canada | 16U+ | 500 | 0.009°/0.004° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO Qualified GEO and Lunar | No |
| Space Inventor Denmark | 16U | 200 | <0.008°/<0.008° | VHF, UHF, S, X, L, Ka, Ku, QV | LEO, GEO, MEO | Flown LEO and GEO | No |
| Spacemanic Czech Republic | 16U | 432 | 1°/0.5° | VHF, UHF, S, X | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Under Development | No |
| Terran Orbital USA | 16U | 100 | 0.021°/0.007° | UHF, S, X | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO and Lunar | Yes |
| U-Space France | 16U | 150 | 0.009°/0.008° | S, X | LEO | Under Development | No |
2.2.2.3 ESPA-Class
ESPA-class spacecraft are designed to fly as secondary payloads on launch vehicles using the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) or similar structures. The ESPA ring separates the primary payload from the upper stage and provides multiple mounting locations for secondary spacecraft. Rings can be stacked to accommodate additional payloads. Figure 2.9 illustrates a populated ESPA ring on the Landsat‑9 mission, showing a practical arrangement of payloads and mass ballasts and providing context for available mounting configurations. For the purposes of this chapter, ESPA-class refers to platforms with mass typically under 500 kg that can be adapted to rideshare opportunities on ESPA or analogous interfaces. While some ESPA-class missions exceed this mass, the focus here aligns with SmallSat taxonomy and common rideshare constraints.
Procuring an ESPA-class bus introduces considerations distinct from PocketQubes and CubeSats. For example, requirements for safety compliance will be more stringent as an ESPA spacecraft is not encased by a deployer. Mechanical compatibility with the ring or equivalent adapter must be confirmed, including the choice of separation system, envelope constraints, and interface loads. Shock and vibration environments at the ring can differ from other locations in the stack, and qualification plans should reflect these specifics. Rideshare accommodations can also be implemented via plate-based adapters rather than direct ring ports, as depicted in Figure 2.10.
Larger buses typically offer significantly higher power generation and storage, enhanced attitude determination and control with precision pointing and jitter control, multiple communications bands and high data rates, robust thermal control, and propulsion systems capable of meaningful orbit changes and end‑of‑life disposal. These capabilities support a wider range of mission types, including more demanding remote sensing, communications, and technology demonstrations, potentially beyond low Earth orbit depending on the bus design and heritage.
Selection should balance capability with integration complexity and schedule. Understanding the provider’s flight heritage in the target orbit and environment, mission assurance practices, and production cadence helps assess programmatic and technical risk. Payload envelope and interfaces—mechanical, electrical, thermal, data, and software—must be specified in detail, and ground segment accommodations for data delivery, latency, and security must be confirmed. Regulatory and licensing responsibilities, including spectrum and remote sensing approvals where applicable, should be planned early. End‑of‑life and disposal must meet applicable guidelines, and passivation requirements should be incorporated into bus design and operations. Figure 2.11 depicts an ESPA‑class satellite bus from Muon Space during integration at a SpaceX facility for the Transporter‑14 rideshare mission.
The ESPA-class summary table in this subsection presents representative commercially available platforms. As with other classes, readers should verify current specifications and lead times with providers and ensure compatibility with the specific rideshare opportunity and adapter that will be used.
| Table 2-7: ESPA-Class Market Solutions (The fields indicate maximum capability; organizations may offer multiple options including smaller capabilities within the ESPA-Class category) | ||||||
| Organization | Peak Power (W) | 3-σ Pointing Control/ Knowledge | Comm Options | Intended Destination | Maturity | US Office |
| Aerospacelab Belgium | 1,000 | <0.003°/<0.003° | S, X, Ka, Optical | LEO, GEO | Flown LEO Under Development GEO | Yes |
| Airbus US Space & DefenseUSA | 2,200 | <0.006°/<0.006° | S, X, Ka, Optical | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Apex USA | 4,000 | 0.005°/0.0025° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, MEO, GEO | Flown LEO Under Development GEO | Yes |
| Argotec Italy | 440 | <0.01°/<0.008° | UHF, S, X, K, Ka | LEO | Qualified LEO Under Development MEO, GEO, Deep Space | Yes |
| Astro Digital USA | 3,000 | <0.03°/<0.02° | UHF, S, X, Ku, Ka, V, W, Optical | LEO, GTO, GEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Astroscale USA | 3,530 | 0.05°/0.025° | S, X, C | LEO, GEO | Under Development | Yes |
| Axelspace Japan | 1,800 | <0.05°/<0.04° | S, X, Ka | LEO | Under Development | No |
| BAE Systems SMS USA | 2,500 | <0.006°/<0.003° | L, S, X, Ka | LEO, MEO, GEO, Cislunar, Deep Space | Flown LEO and Deep Space | Yes |
| Berlin Space Technologies Germany | 2,500 | <0.017°/<0.017° | S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| BlackSky USA | 2,000 | 0.013°/0.009° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Blue Canyon Technologies USA | 1,082 | 0.002°/0.002° | L, S, X | LEO, GEO, Deep Space | Flown LEO and GEO Qualified Deep Space | Yes |
| CREOTECH Poland | 600 | <0.02°/<0.015° | S, X, Optical | LEO, Lunar | Flown LEO | No |
| Deimos Space Spain | 300 | <0.005°/<0.005° | S, X, iDRS | LEO | Under Development | No |
| EnduroSat Bulgaria | 3,500/ 7,000 | 0.1°/0.006° | S, X, K/Ka, L, Optical | LEO | Qualified LEO (3,500W) Under Development (7,000W) | Yes |
| Exobotics UK | 3600 | 0.08°/ 0.008° | VHF, UHF, S, X, Optical | LEO | Under Development | No |
| Harpy Aerospace India | 2,100 | 0.35°/0.35° | S, Ka, Optical | LEO | Qualified LEO | Yes |
| Hemeria France | >1,000 | <0.03°/<0.01° | S, X | LEO, GEO, GTO | Flown LEO Qualified GEO and GTO | No |
| Lockheed Martin USA | 500+ | <0.1°/<0.1° | S, X, Ka | LEO, GEO, Lunar, Deep Space | Flown LEO Qualified GEO, Lunar and Deep Space | Yes |
| Magellan Aerospace Canada | 200 | 0.01°/0.01° | S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| Malin Science Space Systems USA | 918 | <0.015°/<0.015° | UHF, X, Ka | Mars | Under Development | Yes |
| Moog USA | 2,000 | <0.050°/<0.033° | S, X, Ka, Optical | LEO, GEO | Flown LEO Under development GEO | Yes |
| Momentus Space USA | 3,000 | 0.008°/0.008° | S, X, Ka, Optical | LEO, MEO, GEO, Lunar, Deep Space | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Muon Space USA | 4,000 | 0.01°/0.004° | S, X, Optical | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| NanoAvionics Lithuania | 660 | 0.24°/0.09° | UHF, S, X | LEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Northrop Grumman USA | 400 | <0.01°/<0.008° | S, X, Ka | LEO, GEO, HEO | Flown LEO, GEO, and HEO | Yes |
| NovaWurks USA | >5,000 | 0.002°/0.0004° | UHF, S, L, X, Ka, Ku and Optical | LEO, MEO, GEO, GTO, HEO, Lunar and Deep Space | Flown LEO and GTO | Yes |
| OHB LuxSpace Luxembourg | 834 | <0.022°/ 0.01° | S, X | LEO | Qualified LEO | No |
| OHB Sweden Sweden | 1,500 | 0.008°/0.008° | S, X, L | LEO, MEO | Flown LEO | No |
| Orbital Astronautics UK | 5,000 | 0.05°/0.01° | S, X, K, Ka, Optical | VLEO, LEO, MEO, GEO, Deep Space | Qualified LEO | No |
| Quantum Space USA | 1,000 | 0.006°/0.006° | S, X, Ka | LEO, GEO, Cislunar, Lunar, Deep Space | Under Qualified Development | Yes |
| Reflex Aerospace Germany | 3,000 | <0.01°/<0.005° | S, X, Ka, Ku, Optical | LEO | Flown LEO | No |
| Redwire Space USA | 600 | 0.005°/0.0017° | UHF, S, X | VLEO, LEO, GEO | Flown LEO Under Development VLEO and GEO | Yes |
| SFL Missions Inc. Canada | 1,500 | 0.009°/0.004° | UHF, S, X, Ka | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO Qualified GEO and Lunar | No |
| Sierra Space USA | 500 | 0.001°/ <0.001° | UHF, S, X | LEO, MEO, GEO | Flown LEO | Yes |
| SITAEL Italy | 2,000 | 0.0017°/0.001° | S, X | LEO | Qualified LEO | No |
| Southwest Research Institute USA | 1,550 | 0.015°/0.002° | S, X, Ka | LEO, GEO | Flown LEO Under Development GEO | Yes |
| Space Dynamics Laboratory USA | 2,000 | 0.021°/0.021° | UHF, S, X, Ka, Optical | LEO, GEO, GTO, Cislunar, Deep Space | Flown LEO | Yes |
| Space Inventor Denmark | 1,500 | <0.008°/<0.008° | VHF, UHF, S, X, Ka, Ku, Q | LEO, GEO, MEO, Lunar | Flown LEO | No |
| Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. UK | 2,000 | <0.01°/<0.01° | S, X, Ka, Ku, ISL | LEO, Lunar | Flown LEO Under Development Lunar | No |
| Terran Orbital USA | 1,500 | 0.014°/0.002° | UHF, S, X | LEO, GEO, Lunar | Flown LEO | Yes |
2.3 Other Complete Spacecraft Platforms Providers
The Small Spacecraft State of the Art team attempts to reach out to companies and organizations to obtain information directly, but the team is not always successful in receiving responses. To keep the information as updated as possible, Section 2.6 indicates if the team received a response for this edition, the previous edition or other. For companies in previous editions with older data, they have been removed from the main tables and are summarized in this section as potential providers since we have been unable to confirm their input for 2 years or more. This table also includes newly added companies from which the team has not received responses but which appear to offer spacecraft buses and/or hosted orbital services.
| Table 2-8: List of other companies that may offer spacecraft buses and/or Hosted Orbital Services | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Organization | PocketQubes | CubeSats | ESPA-Class |
| Berlin Nanospacecraft Alliance | X | ||
| General Atomics EMS | X | X | |
| IMT | X | ||
| In-Space Missions | X | X | |
| Open Cosmos | X | X | |
| Quantum Galactics | X | ||
| Rocket Lab | X | ||
| Satellogic | X | ||
| Space Information Laboratories | X | ||
| XDLINX Space Lab | X | X | |
2.4 Programmatic and Systems Engineering Considerations
When determining the optimal mission design approach, small satellite mission developers should carefully evaluate the programmatic and systems engineering considerations that align most with their specific objectives and constraints. This assessment is crucial for making informed decisions that best serve the mission’s goals and requirements. Examples of these considerations include:
- Environments the system will endure during development and in flight
- Concept of operations, including desired orbit and mission duration
- Functional and performance requirements
- Key performance parameters with appropriate margins (e.g., mass, volume, power, data link, data budget, pointing)
- Software considerations such as development environment and re-use
- Technology development considerations such as flight heritage, Technology Readiness Level (TRL), and reliability
- Risk posture for development and performance
- Trades between performance, cost, and schedule
- Procurement considerations such as production/lead time and contractual mechanisms
- Licensing requirements, as-applicable (e.g., RF licensing, remote sensing, export control, re-entry)
In addition to the considerations listed above, hosted orbital service missions should also consider:
- Payload priority/mission lifetime for multi-customer/multi-manifest missions
- Balance costs vs payload usage of platform resources (e.g., mass, volume, power, data link, data budget, pointing)
Before finalizing any mission design decisions, it is essential to thoroughly analyze and consider these factors for each potential option within the trade space. Given mission system performance requirements for key performance parameters like mass, volume, power, data link, data budget, and pointing, a functional importance rating and risk-based trade study should be used to screen the many options available. In addition to functional performance, relevant flight heritage or TRL, production lead time, and any available reliability data should be included in the trades. These, as well as cost, could drive the design to be done via COTS or commercial support.
Mission developers may want to consider the following guides to help them in their selection and design process:
- NASA CubeSat 101 Book
https://www.nasa.gov/content/cubesat-launch-initiative-resources - NASA CubeSat 201 Small spacecraft process, lessons learned, and reference database
https://s3vi.ndc.nasa.gov/cubesat201 - NASA Systems Engineering Handbook
https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/nasa-systems-engineering-handbook - NASA Small Spacecraft Technology Program Guidebook for Technology Development Projects
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/smallsattechdevguidebook_rev-508d1.pdf
2.5 Summary
Several vendors have pre-designed fully integrated small spacecraft buses that are space-rated and available for purchase. The market ranges from companies that are willing to heavily modify their systems to fit the customer’s needs to companies that standardize their systems with minimal customization to achieve lower cost. This chapter consolidated a long list of providers with key characteristics to facilitate the research and down-selection process for SmallSat practitioners.
For feedback about this chapter, email: arc-sst-soa@mail.nasa.gov. Please include a business email in case of follow up questions.
References
The references in this section are provided to facilitate the process in which practitioners can obtain information from the providers. The source indicates how the information provided in this chapter was obtained.
Source definition:
Current = organization provided the information through direct communication with the State-of-the-Art team for the current edition of the document.
Previous = organization provided the information through direct communication with the State-of-the-Art team on the previous edition of the document, and the team was unable to communicate with the organization to update the current edition of the document.
New = the inclusion of the organization is new for the document, but the SOA team was unable to communicate with the organization to obtain information. Organizations are encouraged to contact the SOA team to include information on corresponding tables or be removed from the chapter completely.
Obsolete = the information obtained by the State-of-the-Art team is obsolete since the team has been unable to communicate with the organization for more than 2 editions in a row. Organizations are encouraged to contact the SOA team to restore their place at the corresponding tables or to be removed from the chapter completely.
| Table 2-9: List of Contact Information for Organizations in this Chapter | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Organization | Source | Contact Email | Website |
| 2NDSpace | Current | giulio@2ndspace.eu | 2ndspace.eu |
| AAC Clyde Space | Current | enquiries@aac-clydespace.com | aac-clyde.space |
| Aerospacelab | Previous | gerry.jansson@aerospacelab.com | aerospacelab.com |
| Airbus US Space & Defense | Current | deborah.horn@airbusus.com | airbusus.com |
| Alba Orbital | Current | contact@albaorbital.com | albaorbital.com |
| Alén Space | Current | sales@alen.space | alen.space |
| Apex | Current | General Inquiries Page | apexspace.com |
| Argotec | Current | info@argotecgroup.com | argotecgroup.com |
| Artemis Space Technologies | Current | info@spaceartemis.com | spaceartemis.com |
| Astranis Space Technologies Corp. | Current | scott@astranis.com | astranis.com |
| Astro Digital | Current | brian@astrodigital.com | astrodigital.com |
| Astroscale | Previous | k.shahady@astroscale-us.com | astroscale-us.com |
| Axelspace | Current | Contact Page | axelspace.com |
| BAE Systems, Inc. SMS | Current | Contact Form | baesystems.com |
| Berlin Nanospacecraft Alliance | New | info@bna-space.de | bna-space.de |
| Berlin Space Technologies | Previous | info@berlin-space-tech.com | berlin-space-tech.com |
| BlackSky | Previous | Contact Form | blacksky.com |
| Blue Canyon Technologies | Current | info@bluecanyontech.com | bluecanyontech.com |
| C3S Electronics Development | Current | info@c3s.hu | c3s.hu |
| CesiumAstro | Current | info@cesiumastro.com | cesiumastro.com |
| CREOTECH | Current | space@creotech.pl | creotech.pl/space |
| D-Orbit- Italy | Current | eleonora.luraschi@dorbit.space | dorbit.space |
| D-Orbit- USA | Current | mike.kaplan@dorbit.com | dorbit.com |
| Deimos Space | Previous | cmentrena@deimos-space.com | elecnor-deimos.com |
| DIYSATELLITE | Previous | gus@diysatellite.com | diysatellite.com |
| EnduroSat | Current | Contact Page | endurosat.com |
| Exobotics | New | Contact Page | exobotics.space |
| FOSSA Systems | Current | contact@fossa.systems | fossa.systems |
| General Atomics EMS | Obsolete | Chris.white@ga.com | ga.com/EMS |
| German Orbital Systems | Current | info@orbitalsystems.de | orbitalsystems.de |
| GomSpace | Current | info@gomspace.com | gomspace.com |
| Gran Systems | Current | info@gransystems.com | gransystems.com |
| GUMUSH AeroSpace | Previous | gumush@gumush.com.tr | gumush.com.tr |
| Harpy Aerospace | Current | jayakumar@harpyaerospace.in | harpyaerospace.in |
| Hemeria | Previous | Contact Form | hemeria-group.com/en |
| HEX20 | Current | info@hex20.space | Hex20.space |
| Hydra Space Systems | Current | contacto@hydra-space.com | hydra-space.com |
| IMT | Obsolete | giovanni.cucinella@imtsrl.it | imtsrl.it |
| In-Space Missions | Obsolete | info@inspace.co.uk | in-space.co.uk |
| Innova Space | Previous | info@innova-space.com | innova-space.com/en |
| ISISPACE | Previous | sales@isispace.nl | isispace.nl |
| Lockheed Martin | Previous | timothy.m.linn@lmco.com | – |
| Loft Orbital | Current | justin.tilman@loftorbital.com | loftorbital.com |
| Magellan Aerospace | Current | rushi.ghadawala@magellan.aero | magellan.aero |
| Malin Space Science Systems | Current | yee@msss.com | msss.com |
| Momentus Space | Current | sales@momentus.space | momentus.space |
| Moog | Current | ddusza@moog.com | moog.com/markets/space |
| Muon Space | Current | info@muonspace.com | muonspace.com |
| NanoAvionics | Previous | info@nanoavionics.com | nanoavionics.com |
| Nara Space | Current | sales@naraspace.com | naraspace.com |
| NearSpace Launch | Previous | nsl@nearspacelaunch.com | nearspacelaunch.com |
| Northrop Grumman | Previous | John.Dyster@ngc.com | – |
| NovaWurks | Current | info@NovaWurks.com | novawurks.com |
| NPC SPACEMIND | Current | info@npcspacemind.com | npcspacemind.com |
| OHB LuxSpace | Previous | info@luxspace.lu | luxspace.lu |
| OHB Sweden | Current | spacesales@ohb-sweden.se | ohb-sweden.se |
| Open Cosmos | Obsolete | partnerships@open-cosmos.com | open-cosmos.com |
| Orbital Astronautics | Current | hello@orbastro.com | orbastro.com |
| Orion Space Solutions | Current | orioncontact@arcfield.com | orionspace.com |
| Pumpkin Space Systems | Current | sales@pumpkininc.com | pumpkinspace.com |
| Quantum Galactics | New | info@quantumgalactics.com | quantumgalactics.com |
| Quantum Space | Previous | sales@quantumspace.us | quantumspace.us |
| Quub, Inc. | Current | info@quub.space | quub.space |
| Redwire Space | Current | sales@rdw.com | rdw.com |
| Reflex Aerospace | Current | sales@reflexaerospace.com | reflexaerospace.com |
| Rocket Lab | New | enquiries@rocketlabusa.com | rocketlabusa.com |
| Satellogic | New | info@satellogic.com | satellogic.com |
| SatRev | Current | contact@satrev.space | satrev.space |
| SFL Missions Inc. | Current | info@sflmissions.com | sflmissions.com |
| Sierra Space | Previous | spaceapps@sierraspace.com | sierraspace.com |
| SITAEL | Previous | sales.space@sitael.com | sitael.com |
| Southwest Research Institute | Current | spacecraft-info@swri.org | – |
| Space Dynamics Laboratory | Current | info@sdl.usu.edu | sdl.usu.edu |
| Space Information Laboratories | Obsolete | sales@spaceinformationlabs.com | spaceinformationlabs.com |
| Space Inventor | Current | sales@space-inventor.com | space-inventor.com |
| Spacemanic | Current | sales@spacemanic.com | spacemanic.com |
| Spire Global | Current | sales@spire.com | spire.com |
| Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. | Previous | info@sstl.co.uk | sstl.co.uk |
| Terran Orbital | Current | info@terranorbital.com | terranorbital.com |
| U-Space | Current | contact@u-space.fr | u-space.fr |
| Varda Space Industries | Current | john.boyer@varda.com | varda.com |
| XDLINX Space Lab | New | info@xdlinx.space | xdlinx.space |
| York Space Systems | Current | BD@yorkspacesystems.com | yorkspacesystems.com |
