Abstract :
In April 2008 the one-hundredth "university-class" spacecraft was launched; 50 were launched in the past four years. A "university-class" spacecraft is defined as one whose mission includes the training of university students in spacecraft engineering. The success of these 100 missions has varied widely; one-fifth were lost to launch failures, one-fifth were deployed but failed almost immediately, while one-quarter of these student-built satellites were operational for at least three years. While none can deny the established fact of student-built spacecraft, there is little discussion in either the education or engineering literature about the merits of this fact. Should universities be in the practice of building and launching their own spacecraft? Given the tremendous costs of building and operating student-built spacecraft as measured in student/faculty hours, dollars, donations, and, especially, the 5-7 year process from concept to launch - are such spacecraft worth the cost? If so, what kinds of missions are best suited for university-class satellites? To answer these questions, this survey draws upon launch records, published reports, and project communications to create a statistical examination of these hundred student-built spacecraft, identifying correlations between reliability, size, and the types of schools building space hardware. In particular, there is a strong distinction between government-sponsored "flagship" universities and "independent" schools lacking strong external support - both in terms of mission relevance and on-orbit performance. Given that distinction, we offer suggestions for independent schools to improve their missions and their orbital success. This information was compiled from online sources, past conference proceedings, and author interviews with students and faculty at many universities, as noted in the references. The opinions expressed herein reflect this author\´s experience as both student project manager and faculty advis- or to university-class projects. This author accepts sole responsibility for any factual (or interpretative) errors found in this paper.
