Variable Emittance Coating Systems Thermal Modeling for a 3U CubeSat
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Green Propulsion Dual Method (GPDM) is a collaboration between NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and Georgia Tech to create a 6U CubeSat demonstrating the use of the green propellant Advanced Spacecraft Energetic Non-Toxic (ASCENT) in two propulsion systems: using a traditional chemical thruster and an electrospray thruster system. The driving thermal considerations includes a planned orbit always in Sun view without any time in Earth’s eclipse, and a chemical thruster reaching 1300°C during firing. Thermal design and analysis on CubeSats are not always emphasized, particularly in experimental or academic environments. This paper will describe the thermal design and analysis performed on GPDM and the mitigations implemented for this mission, which will highlight some of the thermal challenges unique to experimental small satellites.
Green Propulsion Dual Mode (GPDM) is a collaboration between NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and Georgia Tech to create a 6U CubeSat demonstrating the use of the green propellant Advanced Spacecraft Energetic Non-Toxic (ASCENT) in two propulsion systems: using a traditional chemical thruster and an electrospray thruster system. The driving thermal considerations includes a planned orbit always in Sun view without any time in Earth’s eclipse, and a chemical thruster reaching 1300°C during firing. Thermal design and analysis on CubeSats are not always emphasized, particularly in experimental or academic environments. This paper will describe the thermal design and analysis performed on GPDM and the mitigations implemented for this mission, which will highlight some of the thermal challenges unique to experimental small satellites.
On April 1, NASA launched the Artemis II mission – the first crewed mission of the Artemis campaign. The nine-day lunar flyby launched on the agency’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and had four astronauts test the Orion spacecraft in high Earth orbit and in deep space. Four 12U CubeSats also launched on the mission, housed within the SLS’s Orion stage adapter (OSA). The spacecraft were deployed approximately five-and-a-half hours into the flight, following Orion separation and departure from SLS, as the SLS interim cryogenic propulsion stage (ICPS) and the attached OSA were in a high Earth orbit on an atmospheric disposal trajectory. All four CubeSats were successfully deployed from the launch vehicle. Deployment statuses of the spacecraft, along with updates about the SLS rocket and Artemis missions, are reported in this paper. The paper will also discuss opportunities for CubeSat payloads on future Artemis missions.
On April 1, NASA launched the Artemis II mission – the first crewed mission of the Artemis campaign. The nine-day lunar flyby launched on the agency’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and had four astronauts test the Orion spacecraft in high Earth orbit and in deep space. Four 12U CubeSats also launched on the mission, housed within the SLS’s Orion stage adapter (OSA). The spacecraft were deployed approximately five-and-a-half hours into the flight, following Orion separation and departure from SLS, as the SLS interim cryogenic propulsion stage (ICPS) and the attached OSA were in a high Earth orbit on an atmospheric disposal trajectory. All four CubeSats were successfully deployed from the launch vehicle. Deployment statuses of the spacecraft, along with updates about the SLS rocket and Artemis missions, are reported in this paper. The paper will also discuss opportunities for CubeSat payloads on future Artemis missions.
In early 2026, NASA will launch the Artemis II mission, an approximately 10-day long lunar mission that will fly three NASA astronauts and one CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut on a free-return trajectory around the Moon, following a one-day checkout of their Orion spacecraft in Earth orbit. The mission will be the first to launch astronauts aboard NASA’s Orion spacecraft and on top of the agency’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket. The mission will also deploy four 12U CubeSats as secondary payloads from the Orion stage adapter, following Orion separation and departure. The payloads, developed by four of NASA’s international partners, will perform a variety of science and technology investigations. The SLS and Orion for the mission are currently stacked in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida and are undergoing final preparations to rollout to Launch Pad 39B for a tanking test before launch. In addition to preparations for the Artemis II mission, significant progress is being made on the SLS for the Artemis III mission, which is targeted to return astronauts to the lunar surface no later than 2029. Major components of the core stage and solid rocket boosters are already at NASA Kennedy undergoing build-up for the mission. Data from the Artemis II launch and mission, as well as progress to subsequent missions, as available, will be presented.
In early 2026, NASA will launch the Artemis II mission, an approximately 10-day long lunar mission that will fly three NASA astronauts and one CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut on a free-return trajectory around the Moon, following a one-day checkout of their Orion spacecraft in Earth orbit. The mission will be the first to launch astronauts aboard NASA’s Orion spacecraft and on top of the agency’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket. The mission will also deploy four 12U CubeSats as secondary payloads from the Orion stage adapter, following Orion separation and departure. The payloads, developed by four of NASA’s international partners, will perform a variety of science and technology investigations. The SLS and Orion for the mission are currently stacked in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida and are undergoing final preparations to rollout to Launch Pad 39B for a tanking test before launch. In addition to preparations for the Artemis II mission, significant progress is being made on the SLS for the Artemis III mission, which is targeted to return astronauts to the lunar surface no later than 2029. Major components of the core stage and solid rocket boosters are already at NASA Kennedy undergoing build-up for the mission. Data from the Artemis II launch and mission, as well as progress to subsequent missions, as available, will be presented.
Regenerative fuel cells (RFCs) are an attractive energy storage solution for lunar missions as a technology capable of providing a higher specific energy (i.e., W∙h/kg) than state-of-the-art packaged Li-ion battery systems. An RFC consists of the (1 & 2) electrochemical stacks (chemical to electrical energy conversion to supply electricity to an external load, i.e. the fuel cell reaction, and electrical to chemical energy conversion of supplied electrical power to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen gases, i.e. water electrolysis), (3) fluidic conditioning, (4) reactant storage, (5) avionics, (6) power management and distribution (PMAD), and (7) thermal management. NASA’s Glenn Research Center has designed, assembled, and tested a breadboard RFC sys-tem capable of operating autonomously for multiple simulated lunar day/night cycles in a laboratory environment. The system is comprised of a non-flow through proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell stack and a liquid-anode feed PEM electrolyzer (EZ) stack designed to electrochemically compress the reactants at balanced pressures up to 12.4 MPa (1800 psia). The fluidic conditioning, avionics, PMAD, and thermal management sub-systems are largely comprised of commercial-off-the-shelf components for this system-level development effort. The hardware is controlled by a CubeSat space processor running an operational program based on core flight architecture that can control the RFC hardware autonomously through a state machine with fault monitoring. The testing results highlighted here were completed with the system in an open-loop configuration such that reactants generated through water electrolysis were vented while gas cylinders supplied fuel cell operation. The breadboard operated autonomously, but there were five unplanned transitions to a safe state that required a manual restart after reviewing the data, determining a root cause, and implementing a solution. Four of the transitions were caused by the thermal management subsystem and the fifth was caused by a water management control issue in the EZ sub-system. The RFC system operated for over 550 hours with the final cycle being slightly abbreviated due to reasons unrelated to system performance.
Regenerative fuel cells (RFCs) are an attractive energy storage solution for lunar missions as a technology capable of providing a higher specific energy (i.e., W∙h/kg) than state-of-the-art packaged Li-ion battery systems. An RFC consists of the (1 & 2) electrochemical stacks (chemical to electrical energy conversion to supply electricity to an external load, i.e. the fuel cell reaction, and electrical to chemical energy conversion of supplied electrical power to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen gases, i.e. water electrolysis), (3) fluidic conditioning, (4) reactant storage, (5) avionics, (6) power management and distribution (PMAD), and (7) thermal management. NASA’s Glenn Research Center has designed, assembled, and tested a breadboard RFC sys-tem capable of operating autonomously for multiple simulated lunar day/night cycles in a laboratory environment. The system is comprised of a non-flow through proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell stack and a liquid-anode feed PEM electrolyzer (EZ) stack designed to electrochemically compress the reactants at balanced pressures up to 12.4 MPa (1800 psia). The fluidic conditioning, avionics, PMAD, and thermal management sub-systems are largely comprised of commercial-off-the-shelf components for this system-level development effort. The hardware is controlled by a CubeSat space processor running an operational program based on core flight architecture that can control the RFC hardware autonomously through a state machine with fault monitoring. The testing results highlighted here were completed with the system in an open-loop configuration such that reactants generated through water electrolysis were vented while gas cylinders supplied fuel cell operation. The breadboard operated autonomously, but there were five unplanned transitions to a safe state that required a manual restart after reviewing the data, determining a root cause, and implementing a solution. Four of the transitions were caused by the thermal management subsystem and the fifth was caused by a water management control issue in the EZ sub-system. The RFC system operated for over 550 hours with the final cycle being slightly abbreviated due to reasons unrelated to system performance.