survey companion guide

CubeSat Mission Risk Survey

Question Companion Guide

Your response is greatly appreciated for these questions. A few clarifications:

No single question is required. However, the more responses received for each question, the

better the statistical analysis that will result.

For some questions, a few “N/A” response categories are provided in case the mission has not

yet reached a phase to enable answering the question.

If you are an organization with multiple missions, a separate survey is requested for each

mission. This will allow the responses to be categorized to specific missions and allow more

specific data points.

All results will be published in aggregate. No single organization will be identified by name or

mission in publications.

There is an option at the end to provide contact information for other CubeSat-knowledgeable

people. If their information is provided, an email will be sent to them with the information to

complete the survey. You may also forward the survey link to additional people.

To receive updates and additional information regarding this research, you can send an email to

[email protected] or scan the QR code below with your

smartphone:

mailto:[email protected]

Demographic Information

Question 1

What is the name of your CubeSat?

Points of clarification: None

Purpose of question: Classification, reference, contact information

How data will be analyzed:

Classification

Question 2

What is your CubeSat form factor? Please answer in "U's" as defined by the CubeSat standard. (e.g. 3)

Points of clarification: Enter value in U’s

Purpose of question: Classification


Classification

Question 3

What is the mass limit to which you’re designing the CubeSat? (e.g. 4)

Points of clarification:

This is the design limit of the spacecraft – either imposed by the form factor, or by the summing the mass of spacecraft components. The value entered may be over the limit imposed by the form factor, if you’re planning on applying for a waiver.



Classification

Question 4

Has this CubeSat been launched yet?




Classification

Question 5

If you have been launched: when was the launch? (e.g. 11/1/2010) If you have been manifested or promised a launch: when is the projected launch? (e.g. 9/2014)




Classification

Question 6 & 7

Question 6: How many months has this mission been in development, testing, and in operations? If you have yet to fly, please enter your predicted/estimated time for each phase not yet accomplished. Question 7: Please indicate whether the response represents actual or predicted data.


Development = everything up to spacecraft flight integration Integration Spacecraft Functional Testing = any testing completed on integrated s/c at the organization level, including functional testing Environmental Testing = necessary testing to satisfy launch provider requirements (usually thermal vac, vib tables, mass properties testing) Awaiting launch = environmental testing has been completed, but the s/c is awaiting delivery to launch site or is waiting at the site for launch Operations = once launched and in orbit



Classification

Question 8

In your opinion, did this spacecraft achieve mission success (may be full, partial, minimum, none, etc.)?

Points of clarification: Every mission defines success differently. This question will be used to determine the impact that any observed failures had on the overall mission success.

Purpose of question: Reference, Classification


Classification

Question 9

Please provide any comments or rationales for the response to mission success in Question 8. The response need not be lengthy, could entail “met all mission requirements” or that a specific component malfunctioned

Points of clarification: Every mission defines success differently. This question will be used to determine the impact that any observed failures had on the overall mission success.



Classification

Question 10

Please provide your name so that we may contact you with further questions.


Purpose of question: Reference, Contact info


Reference, Contact info

Question 11

At what email address may we contact you with further questions?





Question 12

How long have you personally been participating in the spacecraft design process? Please enter a value in number of years to two decimals if necessary. (e.g. 1.25)

Points of clarification: You need not provide two decimals, it is simply an option. You could respond simply, 5.

Purpose of question: This question helps to identify the expertise of the respondent


Classification

Question 13

At what phone number may we contact you with further questions?





Question 14

What is/was your role on this project?




Classification

Question 15

If you were a subsystem lead or team member, please indicate with which subsystems you were involved.




Classification

Question 16

What institution is designing and integrating this spacecraft?

Points of clarification: May be industry, an academic institution, etc.



Classification

Question 17

Please indicate the approximate percentage of the team representing each of the following demographics: (e.g. Professionals – 1; Undergraduates – 74; Graduate – 25; Other – 0). Note: Total should equal 100%. If it does not, the values will be normalized.


Professionals are those who are paid a salary to design or build spacecraft or spacecraft components (may include faculty). Many student labs use professionals to assist in learning about the system, or to answer questions. “Other” may include special titles which do not fall into the three categories.



Classification

Question 18

What is the funding level of this spacecraft? If a question does not apply to your mission, please enter “N/A”


For organization providing funding - Do not need to provide specific office. Answering simply with sponsors like “NASA”, “AFRL”, “NSF”, etc. is helpful for classification of the data. Nature of funding, total funding level, and years of funding help to classify data



Classification

Level Technical Schedule Cost

5

Severe degradation in

technical performance; cannot

meet key technical/

supportability threshoold; will

jeopardize program success

Cannot meet key program

milestones.

Slip > 6 months

Exceeds budget threshold

> $100K (10 % of budget)

4

Significant degradation in

technical performance or

major shortfall in

supportability; may jeopardize

program success

Program critical path

affected.

Slip < 6 months.

Budget increase or unit

production increases

< $100K (10% budget)

3

Moderate reduction in


supportability with limited

impact on program objectives

Minor schedule slip. Able to

meet key milestones with

no schedule float.

Slip < 3 months.


production cost increases

< $50K (5% of budget)

2

Minor reduction in technical

performance or supportability,

can be tolerated with little or

no impact on program

Able to meet key dates.

Slip < 1 month




1Minimal or no consequence to

technical performanceMinimal or no impact Minimal or no impact

Notes:Technical slip amounts based

upon DoD standards

Schedule slip amounts

based upon a 2 year design

life cycle

Cost slip amounts based

on a $1 Million budget

(including all personnel

and hardware)

Consequence Criteria

Page 2 – Schedule Risks What type of schedule slip issues did you experience? The following risks are deemed to be the most common causes of schedule slip for CubeSat missions. If you find an event that occurred on your mission is not captured below, please use the comment box at the end of this section to provide a brief description. Rank each root cause by its severity (or, consequence) on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the most severe. If you did not experience this issue, please select the "Does not apply" option. Please refer to the guideline for the severity rankings, found here, and also shown in Figure 1. If the link does not work, please copy/paste the following into your browser: http://goo.gl/aHNxD

Figure 1 - Mission Risk Survey Consequence Criteria

http://goo.gl/aHNxD

Question 19 & 20

Question 19: What type of schedule slip did you experience? Question 20: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.


(a) Inability to find desired spacecraft components

Given the mass, size, and many times, financial, constraints of CubeSats, were you unable to find components to satisfy your mission requirements which fit within the necessary ranges? If so, how big of an impact did this have on your schedule?

(b) Mechanical design delays (such as issues with the CAD or drawings)

At any point in your design – may be in preparation for EDU or flight build, did you experience mechanical design delays? How much did this affect your schedule?

(c) Software design delays (such as basic component functionality or embedded coding issues)

At any point in your design – did your delivery or mission progress depend on sufficient software progress, perhaps in the area of basic functionality or the more detailed embedded coding? If so, how much did this affect your schedule?

(d) Delay due to issues with payload provider (may be related to delivery of EDU or flight unit, documentation, or interface issues)

Is your payload out-of-house? If so, what kind of schedule delays did you experience when working with the payload provider? Were the delivery of the payload unit (EDU or flight) or deliverables late? Were there any issues with the software or hardware interfaces?

(e) Delay due to inadequate documentation

Were you unable to pass certain design gates because of lack of documentation? If so, how much did this impact your schedule?

Purpose of question:

To identify the issues related to schedule that CubeSat missions may experience, and the severity of these issues on getting the spacecraft to delivery. In Q.20, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.


Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1.

Question 21

Please describe any additional schedule root causes which were not listed above.

Points of clarification: An opportunity to share any experiences your mission experienced.

Purpose of question: Reference, Complete the data analysis


Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1. Additional respondent-entered responses will be grouped in sets as similar as possible. Follow-up emails will ask for clarification and severity rankings.


5



meet key technical/




milestones.

Slip > 6 months


> $100K (10 % of budget)

4



major shortfall in


program success


affected.

Slip < 6 months.



< $100K (10% budget)

3







no schedule float.

Slip < 3 months.




2






Slip < 1 month







upon DoD standards



life cycle




and hardware)


Page 3 – Payload Risks What type of payload issues did you experience? The following events are deemed to be the most common causes of issues with the CubeSat mission payloads. If you find an event that occurred on your mission is not captured below, please use the comment box at the end of this section to provide a brief description. Rank each root cause by its severity (or, consequence) on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the most severe. If you did not experience this issue, please select the "Does not apply" option. Please refer to the guideline for the severity rankings, found here, and also shown in Figure 1. If the link does not work, please copy/paste the following into your browser: http://goo.gl/aHNxD


http://goo.gl/aHNxD

Question 22 & 23

Question 22: What type of issues did your spacecraft experience with the payload during mission operations? Question 23: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.


(a) Software interface issues between payload and spacecraft bus

May be the result of things like interface control documents not specifying enough detail to ensure successful interfacing of payload and spacecraft bus from a software perspective.

(b) Hardware/electrical interface issues between payload and spacecraft bus

May be the result of things like interface control documents not specifying enough detail to ensure successful interfacing of payload and spacecraft bus from a mechanical and electrical perspective. This includes issues with current/power draw.

(c) Payload malfunction due to mechanical issues

Payload simply does not function, or the data is meaningless. This could be due to a variety of component failures or issues.

(d) Payload malfunction due to software issues

Payload simply does not function, or the data is meaningless. This could be due to a variety software failures or issues.


To identify the issues related specifically to the payload that CubeSat missions may experience, and the consequence these issues have on mission success. In Q.23, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.



Question 24

Please describe any additional payload issues which were not listed above.






5



meet key technical/




milestones.

Slip > 6 months


> $100K (10 % of budget)

4



major shortfall in


program success


affected.

Slip < 6 months.



< $100K (10% budget)

3







no schedule float.

Slip < 3 months.




2






Slip < 1 month







upon DoD standards



life cycle




and hardware)


Page 4 – Spacecraft Risks What type of spacecraft bus issues did you experience? The following risks are deemed to be the most common causes of issues with the CubeSat spacecraft bus (i.e. no payload). If you find an event that occurred on your mission is not captured below, please use the comment box at the end of this section to provide a brief description. Rank each root cause by its severity (or, consequence) on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the most severe. If you had the component on the spacecraft, but did not experience this issue, please select the zero (0) option. If you did not have the component on the spacecraft, select the N/A option. Please refer to the guideline for the severity rankings, found here, and also shown in Figure 1. If the link does not work, please copy/paste the following into your browser: http://goo.gl/aHNxD


http://goo.gl/aHNxD

Question 25 & 26

Question 25: Inability to communicate with spacecraft: What issues caused your ground station to be unable to communicate with the spacecraft once in orbit? Question 26: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.


(a) No frequency on which to communicate with spacecraft due to delay in receiving frequency allocation

Sometimes the frequency allocation paperwork takes a long time to go through the system. Did you launch before receiving your allocation? If so, how much of an impact did this have on your mission?

(b) Failure of spacecraft radios (due to either hardware or software issues)

No additional clarifications

(c) Failure of spacecraft antennas due to improper deployment or activation

Could be due to improper restoring of deployable antennas, unexpected deployment of antennas, etc.

(d) Failure of ground station radios (due to either hardware or software issues)


(e) Failure of ground station antennas (due to either hardware or software issues)

May also be nature related (i.e. storm damage).


To identify the issues related specifically to the communication system that CubeSat missions may experience, and the consequence these issues have on mission success. In Q.26, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue, with a dependence on whether or not the question was considered in the spacecraft design, as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.



Question 27 & 28

Question 27: Inability to gather health data from spacecraft: What issues caused the spacecraft to be unresponsive or the data to be unhelpful? Question 28: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.


(a) Failure of flight computer (due to either hardware or software issues)


(b) Failure of sensors gathering health data (due to either hardware or software issues)


(c) Failure of actuators causing unstable spacecraft motion (due to either hardware or software issues)


(d) Failure of power regulation/battery system (due to either hardware or software issues)


(e) Failure of solar panels to generate power (due to either hardware or software issues)


(f) Unexpected thermal environment caused system issues


(f) Unexpected vibration environment caused system issues



To identify the issues related specifically to the spacecraft bus system that CubeSat missions may experience, and the consequence these issues have on mission success. In Q.28, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue, with a dependence on whether or not the question was considered in the spacecraft design, as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.



Question 29 & 30

Question 29: Inability to meet spacecraft standards: Many international standards exist for spacecraft design, development, launch, and operations. Please identify any issues related to these tasks which your mission experienced. Question 30: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.


(a) Spacecraft will not de-orbit within 25 years after end-of-life

The new international space standard calls for a spacecraft to de-orbit within 25 years of its end-of-life.

(b) Spacecraft bus does not meet in-house requirements (i.e. dimension, mass limits, structural/thermal analyses)

Specifically of interest are requirements imposed by the CubeSat standard or your launch provider. These include requirements like thermal or structural analyses, or dimensions and mass limits necessary for the release mechanism.

(c) Spacecraft does not meet on-orbit launch and release mechanism provider requirements (i.e. waiting to beacon and deploy antenna)

Certain launch providers and release mechanism providers impose operations-based requirements on CubeSats, such as waiting to deploy antennas, or waiting to start beaconing.

(d) Mission does not supply required documentation as requested by launch and release mechanism providers

Includes documentation such as integration procedures, testing and certification logs, structural and thermal analyses, etc.


To identify the issues related specifically to the spacecraft bus system that CubeSat missions may experience, and the consequence these issues have on mission success. In Q.30, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue, with a dependence on whether or not the question was considered in the spacecraft design, as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.



Question 31

Please describe any additional spacecraft bus issues which were not listed above.






5



meet key technical/




milestones.

Slip > 6 months


> $100K (10 % of budget)

4



major shortfall in


program success


affected.

Slip < 6 months.



< $100K (10% budget)

3







no schedule float.

Slip < 3 months.




2






Slip < 1 month







upon DoD standards



life cycle




and hardware)


Page 5 – Personnel and Management Risks What type of personnel and management issues did you experience? The following risks are deemed to be the most common personnel and management issues with the CubeSat missions. If you find an event that occurred on your mission is not captured below, please use the comment box at the end of this section to provide a brief description. Rank each root cause by its severity (or, consequence) on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the most severe. If you did not experience this issue, please select the "Does not apply" option. Please refer to the guideline for the severity rankings, found here, and also shown in Figure 1. If the link does not work, please copy/paste the following into your browser: http://goo.gl/aHNxD


http://goo.gl/aHNxD

Question 32 & 33

Question 32: What issues did the mission experience from a personnel and management perspective? Question 33: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.


(a) Loss of information (due to configuration management issues or computer malfunction)

Sometimes team members are not the best at remembering to save their files in locations which other team members may access the information. Other teams have experienced temporary loss of their information when the computer system is not accessible for various reasons.

(b) Loss of hardware (perhaps due to uncontrolled access to lab environment and hardware)

Especially in university labs, the ability for random strangers to walk into the lab is extremely likely. This could potentially lead to missing hardware, costing the team time and money to replace the lost components.

(c) Lack of sufficient training for team members completing flight qualification necessary tasks.

As missions near flight integration, the technician’s ability becomes more and more important. What damage could having an unqualified person working on difficult tasks harm mission success?

(d) Attrition or turnover of team members

Student teams experience this regularly with team members graduating, leaving the lab, or other reasons. Industry may experience this when personnel get other positions and move around within the company or to other companies.

(e) Sudden loss of crucial team members (due to either personal or work/school reasons)

Things happen, how much does a sudden loss of a crucial team member affect the mission? From a schedule and technical standpoint, this may cause a lot of damage if the proper precautions had not been implemented.


To identify the issues related specifically to the personnel and management of the mission, and the consequence these issues have on mission success. In Q.33, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.



Question 34

What requirements does your team place on its team members in order to work on the project? In other words, for student teams: does your lab enforce a GPA requirement? For industry teams: does your company enforce a certain amount of required experience?

Points of clarification: Some teams require students to work a certain number of hours per week, other labs require students to maintain a certain GPA. Every team is different!

Purpose of question: Reference, Complete the data analysis, Together with basic demographic information, this question will give a more complete picture of what it takes to achieve mission success on CubeSat projects.



Question 35

Please describe any additional personnel and management issues which were not listed above.






5



meet key technical/




milestones.

Slip > 6 months


> $100K (10 % of budget)

4



major shortfall in


program success


affected.

Slip < 6 months.



< $100K (10% budget)

3







no schedule float.

Slip < 3 months.




2






Slip < 1 month







upon DoD standards



life cycle




and hardware)


Page 5 – Cost Risks What type of cost issues did you experience? The following risks are deemed to be the most common cost issues with the CubeSat missions. If you find an event that occurred on your mission is not captured below, please use the comment box at the end of this section to provide a brief description. Rank each root cause by its severity (or, consequence) on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the most severe. If you did not experience this issue, please select the "Does not apply" option. Please refer to the guideline for the severity rankings, found here, and also shown in Figure 1. If the link does not work, please copy/paste the following into your browser: http://goo.gl/aHNxD


http://goo.gl/aHNxD

Question 36 & 37

Question 36: Building a spacecraft is expensive. Please identify which cost risks your mission experienced. Question 37: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.


(a) Incomplete understanding of the projected total mission cost

Many teams underestimate the total cost of the mission – which includes flight hardware as well as EDU/development hardware in addition to personnel costs (for student teams, how many graduate and undergraduate research assistants you may be able to support).

(b) COTS component prices increase

The economic climate is never certain and prices may increase suddenly. If this has not been accounted for with contingency funds it could seriously impact the mission.

(c) Inability to obtain new research grants or funding

Funding and grants are extremely competitive. It is entirely possible a mission may not be selected for funding on many levels.

(d) Delay of receiving promised funding

With budget battles becoming the norm, promised funding may take awhile to be transferred. This may cause a delay in ordering components or covering personnel costs and thusly impact the mission.


To identify the issues related specifically to the cost of the mission, and the consequence these issues have on mission success. In Q.37, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.



Question 38

Please describe any additional cost issues which were not listed above.





Final Submit

Question 39

Approximately how long did it take you to complete this survey? Please enter a value in minutes, may be up to two decimals. (e.g. 20.25 minutes)

Points of clarification: No additional clarifications

Purpose of question: Reference, follow-up opportunity regarding opinion of survey


Purely for reference

Question 40

Would you recommend other people fill out this survey? If so, please list their names and email addresses. (e.g. Katharine Brumbaugh; [email protected])

Points of clarification: An opportunity to suggest additional people take the survey.

Purpose of question: Reference, follow-up opportunity


Will follow-up with people named with contact information provided.

Question 41

Please provide any final comments, questions, or suggestions. Feel free to make suggestions for what you would like to see in the final risk analysis tool.

Points of clarification: An opportunity for the respondent to share anything they like.

Purpose of question: Reference, follow-up opportunity


If necessary, will follow-up with comment.

Would you like to receive updates on the progress made in this research? Send an email (need not have a subject or

message) to [email protected], or scan the QR code below on your

smartphone.

mailto:[email protected]

survey companion guide

Documents