Acta Astronautica 103 (2014) 193–203

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Acta Astronautica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

A space-to-space microwave wireless power transmission

experiential mission using small satellites
Corey Bergsrud a,n, Jeremy Straub b,1
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of North Dakota, Upson Hall, IIRoom 160 243 Centennial Drive, Stop 7165 Grand Forks,
ND 58202-7165, USA
b
Department of Computer Science, University of North Dakota, Streibel Hall, Room 201 3950 Campus Road, Stop 9015, Grand Forks,
ND 58202-9015, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: A space solar microwave power transfer system (SSMPTS) may represent a paradigm shift
Received 20 March 2014 to how space missions in Earth orbit are designed. A SSMPTS may allow a smaller
Received in revised form receiving surface to be utilized on the receiving craft due to the higher-density power
13 May 2014
transfer (compared to direct solar flux) from a SSMPTS supplier craft; the receiving system
Accepted 23 June 2014
Available online 2 July 2014
is also more efficient and requires less mass and volume. The SSMPTS approach also
increases mission lifetime, as antenna systems do not degrade nearly as quickly as solar
Keywords: panels. The SSMPTS supplier craft (instead) can be replaced as its solar panels degrade, a
Space solar power satellite mechanism for replacing panels can be utilized or the SSMPTS can be maneuvered closer
Space-to-space power transfer
to a subset of consumer spacecraft. SSMPTS can also be utilized to supply power to
Microwave power transmission
spacecraft in eclipse and to supply variable amounts of power, based on current mission
Wireless power transmission
Experimental mission design needs, to power the craft or augment other power systems.
A minimal level of orbital demonstrations of SSP technologies have occurred.
A mission is planned to demonstrate and characterize the efficacy of space-to-space
microwave wireless power transfer. This paper presents an overview of this prospective
mission. It then discusses the spacecraft system (comprised of an ESPA/SmallSat-class
spacecraft and a 1-U CubeSat), launch options, mission operations and the process
of evaluating mission outcomes.
Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of IAA.

1. Introduction capability. In both cases, the amount of power being

Conventional space missions operate either from an
onboard nuclear power source or using onboard solar
power generation panels. In the former case, the mission
launches with all of the power that it will ever have; in the
latter, power utilization is (similarly) limited by generation
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 (701) 777 4331;
fax: þ1 (701) 777 5253.
E-mail addresses: corey.bergsrud@my.und.edu (C. Bergsrud),
jeremy.straub@my.und.edu (J. Straub).
1
Tel.: þ1 (701) 777 4107; fax: þ 1 (701) 777 3330.
produced declines as the mission progresses. These space-
craft must, thus, be built to satisfy end-of-mission gene-
ration needs, possibly meaning that excessive power is
generated early in the mission which must be radiated
as heat (necessitating a more capable thermal system). The
additional generation capability (as well as, potentially, the
expanded thermal system) increases spacecraft volume,
mass, complexity and costs. The deterioration effectively
limits the spacecraft's lifespan.
A new approach has been proposed [1–4] which
utilizes space solar power (SSP) satellites to provide power
to other spacecraft under a utility-provider model, using

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.06.033
0094-5765/Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of IAA.
194 C. Bergsrud, J. Straub / Acta Astronautica 103 (2014) 193–203
small spacecraft. Utilizing this approach and an orbital
service model [5,6], consumers can procure power for
their spacecraft on an ongoing, augmentation contract or
ad hoc basis. This power is then transmitted to rectifying
antennas (rectennas) on their spacecraft for use. The use of
rectennas instead of solar panels increase spacecraft life-
span and can serve to reduce mass and volume due to the
greater energy density that can be transmitted in this way
the rectenna is also lighter, for a given amount of surface
area, than a solar array.
Before a system of this type can be developed commer-
cially, for government use or otherwise, the various technol-
ogies and their integrated operations must be tested and
space qualified. This paper provides an overview of a mission
which is designed to demonstrate the space-to-space micro-
wave wireless power transfer concept, test key assumptions
and components and begin the process of space qualifying
the individual components and system operations.
In the following section, background material is pre-
sented. After this, there is an overview of the mission.
Next, an overview of the spacecraft system is provided.
Then launch requirements and options are discussed,
followed by an overview of mission operations. Finally,
before concluding, a set of metrics for mission evaluation
are presented.
2. Background
Three areas of prior work inform the mission presented
herein. First, prior work related to space solar power is
discussed. Next, prospective uses of space solar power are
discussed. Finally, an overview of small satellites (both at
the ESPA/SmallSat and CubeSat sizes used in this mission)
is presented.
2.1. Space solar power satellite systems
A history of SSP is presented by Strassner and Chang [7],
McSpadden and Mankins [8] and Bergsrud and Noghanian
[9]. The concept of Space Solar Power Satellite (SSPS)
systems was conceived by Dr. Peter Glaser at the Arthur
D. Little company in 1973 [10]. Glaser's vision was to place
large satellites in geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) whose
sole purpose is to harvest large amounts of solar energy,
transform the solar energy in microwave energy and
transmit it to a rectifying antenna (rectenna) array located
on Earth's surface. The rectenna array would collect the
microwave energy and convert it into usable direct current
power that is injected into the terrestrial electric grid
system to supply humanity with a clean source of baseload
electrical power. SSPS systems may one day supply suffi-
cient amounts of electrical power to Earth and beyond to
aid humanity in its continued advancement.
The first major study of SSPS systems was conducted
between 1976 and 1980 through a joint collaboration
between the Department of Energy (DOE) and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) [11] as well
as many other entities. This period of study resulted in the
creation of the foundational architecture for SSPS systems.
Large-scale power infrastructure in space consisting of
about 60 SPSS, each delivering 5 GW of base load power
to the U.S. electrical grid [8] was crafted. In addition,
candidate locations for SSPS rectifying antennas on Earth
were investigated [12,13] along with rectenna-related
atmospheric effects [14] and ways to effect electrostatic
protection of the SSPS [15] and lightning protection for the
rectenna [16]. This extremely productive period of the
Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evalua-
tion Program [8] determined that SSPS systems was a
feasible technology and should be pursued in the future
[7], and the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) recom-
mended that the concept be re-assessed in about ten years,
subsequent to additional technology development and
maturation [8].
During the 1980s and early 1990s, international interest
in the SSPS concept emerged in Japan, Europe, and Canada. In
particular, a Japanese research group from Kyoto University
conducted the first successful Microwave Wireless Power
(MWP) transmission experiment (in 1983) called the Micro-
wave Ionosphere Nonlinear Interaction eXperiment (MINIX)
[17]. Again, in 1993, another Japanese research group com-
pleted the International Space Year-Microwave Energy Trans-
mission in Space (ISY-METS) S-520-16 sounding rocket
experiment [18]. Both projects utilized a daughter-mother
rocket combination to demonstrate MWP transmission tech-
nologies and produced results characterizing the nonlinear
plasma effects of the high power microwave energy beam in
the space environment.
NASA recognized the accomplishments of the Japanese
teams and, in 1995 undertook a new study of the chal-
lenges of large-scale SSPS systems through the Fresh Look
Study [19,20]. The study highlighted recent technological
advancements which made SSPS systems more viable than
they were at the end of the 1980s [21,22]. In 1998, NASA
conducted the SSP Concept Definition Study, in which
experts outside the agency were also involved. The SSP
Concept Definition Study validated findings in the Fresh
Look Study, but it also invalidated some earlier ideas
which narrowed the SSP concepts. A key outcome of this
study was the definition of a family of strategic Research
and Technology (R&T) road maps for the possible devel-
opment of SSP technologies [8].
The next major advancement of SSPS occurred in 2000
when the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)
conducted the SSP Scientific Exploratory Research and
Technology (SERT) program. The SERT program broadened
the scientific community's involvement and resulted in
successful demonstrations of a variety of system level
components [7]. It included tightly focused exploratory
research targets and rapid analysis to identify promising
system concepts and establish their technical viability.
Small scale demonstrations of key SSPS concepts/compo-
nents using nearer-term technologies were initiated [8].
Finally, the SERT program addressed issues related to
economic and societal assessment, environmental effects,
resource requirements, and legal issues [7].
From the end of the SERT program to today, numerous
articles have been written about SSPS systems, but sup-
portive research has been sporadic (at best) due to funding
limitations [7]. One MWP transmission project of particu-
lar interest was performed in Hawaii. The Hawaii MWP
transmission experiment was carried out in 2008 by
 C. Bergsrud, J. Straub / Acta Astronautica 103 (2014) 193–203
Mankins of Managed Energy Technologies in collaboration
with researchers at Texas A&M University and the Uni-
versity of Kobe. The experiment transmitted power from
Maui to Hawaii's big island, a distance of over 148 km [23].
With a new distance record reached, the amount of power
received was less than 0.00001 W of the power trans-
mitted [24]. Strassner [7] points out that from a MWP
transmission standpoint this is considered a failure by
many. However, it goes on to clarify that the poor perfor-
mance was predicable since the transmitting and receiving
arrays were far too small to allow efficient transfer over
the 148 km, due to massive spillover loss levels. Further-
more, this experiment was conducted on a $1 million
budget, limiting to what could be accomplished.
2.2. Space to space Uses of space solar power
At least as early as 1985, researchers were considering
space-to-space power transfer missions [25]. In 1996
mission concept the space transportation system (shuttle)
would be utilized to beam power from an onboard phased
array to a rectenna receiver on a satellite [26]. This mission
sought to characterize system performance in much the
way as the mission described herein seeks to. The use of
space-to-space testing to facilitate space-to-Earth applica-
tions has also been proposed.
The utility of space-to-space microwave wireless power
transfer (S2S-MWPT) goes far beyond testing and demon-
stration, however. Previous work has considered the utility
of utilizing space-to-space power transfer for supporting
other spacecraft [27,28].Under this model [2], spacecraft
operators would contract with a space power utility
provider who would provide power on a constant, recur-
ring, pre-contracted on-demand or ad-hoc basis. This
power could serve as the primary power system of the
spacecraft (onboard solar generation capabilities and sto-
rage could serve as a backup for mission-critical craft),
as a constant augmentation power supply, or it could be
utilized to facilitate having sufficient power for certain
operations (e.g., orbit raising using and electronic propul-
sion system such as Keidar et al.[29] etc.). Details for this
type of system were presented in [1,27] and its control was
discussed in [30,31]. S2S-MWPT may potentially be useful
for deep-space applications as well.
2.3. Small spacecraft
Small spacecraft are as old as space travel itself. The
first spacecraft, Sputnik, was also the first small spacecraft;
the United States' first spacecraft, Explorer 1, was also a
small spacecraft (by a mass definition). Both had a mass of
less than 100 kg [32,33]. Swartwout [34], however, argues
that it is not the size, but instead the use that should
classify spacecraft. To-date, over 196 missions that fall into
what he terms the “university class” have been launched
from at least 98 different institutions [35]. University class
missions are characterized by the student learning benefits
they provide and the risk tolerance, which allows them to
try non-traditional solutions to problems [34].
One class of small satellite, the CubeSat, has received
particular attention. CubeSats are designed to be easy to
195
construct due to their well-defined specifications [36] and
small size and mass. Initially designed for student projects
[37], CubeSats are now used for commercial [38], military
[39,40], bona fide scientific experimentation [41–43] and
other uses. The CubeSat concept was initially invented by
Twiggs at Stanford [37] with Puig Suari at Cal Poly creating
the P-POD launcher [44] to facilitate their easy launch
vehicle integration and wide use. They have been used
extensively in Earth orbit [35] and proposed for use
for lunar [45] and deep space applications [46]. CubeSat
and SmallSat/ESPA-class growth has been facilitated
by the availability of free-to-qualified developer [47–49]
launches; low-cost commercial launches [50] appear to
also be on the horizon. Most small spacecraft are launched
as secondary payloads, making their launch date, target
orbit and other characteristics subject to the needs of the
primary payload.
3. Mission overview
The SSP test and demonstration mission seeks to
demonstrate the efficacy of SSPsystems as well as to
demonstrate and characterize S2S-MWPT. It also seeks to
provide some ancillary benefits for project participants
and the University of North Dakota related to university
perception and educational outcomes as small spacecraft
development programs have been shown, previously
[51–54], to be quite effective at generating these types of
learning outcomes. The primary, mission objectives is to
demonstrate the viability of in space microwave power
transfer and collect data that enables future innovation in
this area.
As a multi-spacecraft mission, the mission architecture
can be sub-divided into two sub-missions: one for the
transmitting spacecraft and one for the receiving space-
craft, which is ejected from the larger transmitting space-
craft. The mission architecture details for the transmitting
spacecraft are presented in Table 1. The details for the
receiving spacecraft are presented in Table 2.
The transmitting spacecraft will be the mission's pri-
mary spacecraft and the sub-spacecraft (the 1-U receiving
CubeSat) will be ejected from this craft. The two spacecraft
will be launched as a secondary payload into an orbit with
an altitude between 250 km and 800 km and an inclina-
tion of at least 47.911 (so as to overfly the University of
North Dakota's ground station). Several possibilities for
suitable orbits exist, including a sun-synchronous orbit
(which would allow constant generation to maximize the
power available for experimentation).
The primary spacecraft will fly as a secondary payload
on a launch with a larger satellite as its primary payload or,
potentially, it could fly on a peer-primary mission on a
smaller class launch vehicle. Shortly after being ejected
from the launch vehicle, it will deploy its solar panels and
antenna system. It will also eject the receiving sub-
satellite, a 1-U CubeSat, which will be allowed to move
away from the primary spacecraft. This 1-U CubeSat will
then deploy its rectenna array structure. The 1-U CubeSat
will continue to move away for a period of time before its
thrusters (powered via the transmitted power from the
primary craft which is collected using the rectenna array
196 C. Bergsrud, J. Straub / Acta Astronautica 103 (2014) 193–203

Table 1
Transmitting spacecraft mission architecture details.

Element Description Explanation

Subject Onboard experiment This sub-mission will assess the capabilities and efficacy of the SSP transmitting spacecraft
as well as the efficacy of the entire transmitting/system
Payload Experiment hardware and data The payload is comprised of all elements required to perform the transmission and test of
gathering hardware transmission-receiving system missions. This includes: solar power collection (solar cell)
hardware, transmission hardware, a GPS and an IMU
Spacecraft bus Custom A bus will be created to facilitate efficient power collection and transfer. Key design
features will include: (A) maximization of generation capability, (B) maximization of
pointing, (C) reuse of structural elements for fuel storage
Launch system To be determined by launch provider
Orbit Inclination 447.911 and altitude The selected inclination facilitates overflight of Grand Forks, ND to allow communication
between 250 km and 800 km with our ground station hardware.
Altitude: the selection is based on communications (Earth-to-spacecraft) and orbital
lifetime considerations.
Ground system UND-developed A SDR-based ground station is under development at UND
Communications Direct communications between The communications will operate on the amateur frequency ranges, using an
architecture UND/satellite experimental-class license.

Table 2
Receiving Spacecraft Mission Architecture Details.

Element Description Explanation

Subject Onboard experiment A rectenna and associated power-receiver hardware will be included. An electric thruster
will be included to allow the demonstration of this operating from transmitted power.
Payload Experiment hardware and data Experiment hardware includes the power receiving hardware and the thruster which will be
gathering hardware tested using SSP-received power.
Spacecraft Bus Custom A bus will be created to facilitate efficient power collection and transfer. Key design features
will include: (A) maximization of receiving capability, (B) maximization of pointing, (C)
reuse of structural elements for fuel storage
Launch system To be determined by launch
provider
Orbit Minor difference from A slightly different orbit will be selected to facilitate a gradual separation to allow the
transmitting spacecraft characterization of system performance over a range of distances.
Ground System UND-developed A SDR-based ground station is under development at UND
Communications Direct communications between The communications will operate on the amateur frequency ranges, using an experimental-
Architecture UND/satellite class license.

on the receiving craft) are utilized to set and maintain the
distance between the two craft. The craft will be maneuv-
ered to multiple distances from the primary craft and the
orientation between the two will be varied to facilitate
characterization of the S2S-MWPT between the two. Each
distance will be maintained for a period of time (which
will vary based on the power cycle of the spacecraft) to
facilitate multiple tests of the transmission at that distance
and at each tested orientation at the distance.
4. Spacecraft systems overview
This section describes the power transmitting and receiv-
ing spacecraft, including their deployment mechanisms and
their power transmission and reception technologies.
4.1. Power transmitting and receiving spacecraft
The proposed mission utilizes two satellites: an EELV
Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA)/Small Satellite (Small-
Sat) class spacecraft and a 1U CubeSat for the S2S-MWPT
experimental mission. The 1U CubeSat is contained inside
the SmallSat during launch. Upon separation from the
launch vehicle the following sequence occurs: (1) the 1U
CubeSat is ejected from the SmallSat; (2) the 1U CubeSat
deploys its rectenna array as (3) the SmallSat deploys
its solar array. Fig. 1 depicts this sequence. Once this is
accomplished, the MWP transmission and reception experi-
ments can commence.
The ESPA/SmallSat class spacecraft's primary purpose is
to generate large amounts of electrical power from solar
energy, convert this electrical power into an electromag-
netic wave and transmit it into space towards the power
receiving 1U CubeSat, as shown in Fig. 2. The electromag-
netic wave travels to the targeted rectenna array on the
power receiving 1U CubeSat where it is intercepted and
converted into usable direct current power that is used to
run all onboard subsystems, including the thrusters which
thrusters ensure the 1U CubeSat maintains an appropriate
distance from the transmitting SmallSat. Maintaining
the spacecraft's position within minimum and maximum
distance range bounds is absolutely vital for the S2S-
MWPT experiment, in order to obtain the appropriate
power reception level needed to run all subsystems on
the receiving spacecraft. Quantitative distance bounds
between the satellites are determined using Eq. (8) and
 C. Bergsrud, J. Straub / Acta Astronautica 103 (2014) 193–203
Fig. 1. On-orbit launch of sub-satellite and deployment of solar panels (graphical elements from [55]).
Fig. 2. Transmission of Microwave Power Beam [55].
Fig. 4, as well as the power requirements of the power-
receiving craft. In addition, the efficiency of the power
reception and management/distribution units must be
accounted for. With all of these details, the maximum
separation that can support full power transfer efficiency
can be determined.
The required pointing accuracy is a function of the dis-
tance between the spacecraft and the minimum amount of
197
power that is acceptable to receive. For the purposes
of experimental data collection accuracy, a higher level
of pointing accuracy will be incorporated for this test
mission than may be required on an actual service provi-
der craft. Clark, et al. [56] have discussed the capability of
creating an attitude determination and control system
(ADCS) with a pointing accuracy of better than 0.11. This
should be more than sufficient for mission needs. The
selection of an actual ADCS unit will be made based upon a
more extensive price versus accuracy trade-study.
As the two satellites are in the sunlight portion of their
orbit the MWP transmission experiments will be imple-
mented. The power transmitting SmallSat will be generat-
ing electrical power from its solar array. Calculations for
this are provided in Table 3.
Using the process depicted in Table 1, the solar array
area and mass were calculated as follows [57]:
ððP e T e =X e Þ þðP d T d =X d ÞÞ
P sa ¼
Td
ððð30WÞð36 minÞ=0:6Þ þ ðð300WÞð64 minÞ=0:8ÞÞ
¼
64 min
¼ 403:125W ð1Þ
P BOL ¼ P o I d cos θ ð2Þ
Ld ¼ ð1  DÞL ð3Þ
P EOL ¼ P BOL Ld ð4Þ
These calculations serve to size the solar array on the
transmitting spacecraft and ensure that it is capable of
producing the requisite power for the experiments.
Fig. 3 shows solar array output power based on initial
assumptions as outlined in the Table 3. The gimbal design
[58] allows maximum sunlight to be collected for longer
lengths of time as the transmitting satellite goes around
the orbit.
198 C. Bergsrud, J. Straub / Acta Astronautica 103 (2014) 193–203

Table 3
Calculation Steps for Mass and Solar Array Area (based on [57]).

Step Reference Nano SSPS

Amount of power that must be produced by the solar [57], pg. 650 Pe ¼30 Wa, Pd ¼300 Wa
arrays, Psa (Orbit period  Te) Te ¼ 36 minb
Td ¼64 minb
A peak power tracking (PPTc) regulation scheme
is assumed
[57] Xe ¼ 0.6 and Xd ¼ 0.8
Eq. (1) Psa ¼403.125 W
d
Select type of solar cell and estimate power output Po, UTJ: Po ¼0.283  1368 W/ GaInP2/GaAs/Ge solar cells
with the Sun normal to the surface of the cells m2 ¼ 387.144 W/m2 Po ¼ 387.144 W/m2
e
Beginning-of-life (BOL) power production capability, PBOL, Table 21-14 from SMAD 4 Id ¼0.72 (Nominal value)
per unit area of the array θ  Sun Incident Anglef
Eq. (2) PBOL ¼ see Eq. (2)
End-of-life (EOL) power production capability, PEOL, for Performance degradation Performance degradation is 0.5%
the solar array UTJ: 0.5% per yrg per year
Eq. (3) Ld
Eq. (4) PEOL ¼see Eq. (4)
Estimate the solar array area, Asa, required to produce Eq. (5) (3 year mission) Asa E 1.7 m2
the necessary power, Psa, based on PEOL an alternate
approach Eq. (6) (28.3% efficiency) Asa E 2 m2
Estimate the mass of the solar array Eq. (7) Msa E16.125 kg

%
3 years is used for the demonstration test mission assumption in this calculation.
a
The 300 W is broken up into 200 W of transmitted power, 70 W of assumed efficiency losses and 30Whr of battery storage.
b
From [57], pg. 650: “LEO spacecraft encounter at most one eclipse period each orbit or about 15 eclipse periods per day, with maximum shadowing of
approximately 36 min.” Assuming a 100 min. orbit [8] this leaves 64 min daylight period. The batteries must charge and discharge about 5000 times each
year giving an average depth-of-discharge (DOD) of  30%. SMAD 4 pg. 652 the DOD for Li-Ion in LEO is 20–40%.
c
From [57], pg. 653, PPT, the solar array and bus can operate at different voltages, and the PPT is functionally between the solar array and the bus,
processing all the solar array power.
d
Spectrolab's Ultra Triple Junction (UTJ) GaInP2/GaAs/Ge solar cells with a bare-cell efficiency of 28.3%. The power input value for a planar solar array is
the 1368 W/m2 or the solar constant (the amount of energy received at the top of the Earth's atmosphere on a surface oriented perpendicular to the
Sun's rays).
e
From [57], pg. 645; Inherent Degradation, Id accounts for an assembled solar array being less efficient than the single cells due to design inefficiencies,
shadowing and temperature variations, collectively.
f
From [57], pg. 647, the Sun incidence angle, θ between the vector normal to the surface of the array and the Sun line.
g
According to [57], pg. 644, performance degradation of a Triple Junction is 0.5% per year.

Solar Array Output into free space as an electromagnetic wave towards

300 the power receiving craft. For this article the transmitted
power was assumed to be 200 W, however, the amount of
250
power density received at the center of the receiving
Power Output (W)

200 location can be defined from Brown and Eves' [60]

Eq. (3) as:
150
P d ¼ At P t =λ D2 ¼ π d P t =4λ D2
2 2 2
Power beginning of Life ð5Þ
100 3 Years
5 Years where Pd is the power density at the center of the
50 receiving location, Pt is the total radiated power from the
transmitter, At is the total area of the transmitting antenna,
0 λ is the wavelength, D is the separation between the
1
7
13
19
25
31
37
43
49
55
61
67
73
79
85
91
97
103
109
115
121
127
133
139
145
151
157

apertures, and d is the diameter of the parabolic reflector,

Sun Incident Angle (deg)
Fig. 3. Beginning of Life (BOL) Power and calculated solar panel degrada-
tion over 3 year and 5 years [59]. Calculations are made using a gimbal
with 70 degrees of freedom.
4.2. Antenna size and satellite distance for power transfer
optimization
The electrical energy coming from the solar array is
managed and distributed to the transmitting satellite
subsystems. Power is channeled to the MWPT hardware
and instantly converted from DC-to-RF and transmitted
if it is circular
Estimated sizes for the transmitting parabolic dish and
receiving aperture for this experimental mission are pro-
vided in Table 4. The transmitter uses the area of a circle
while the receiver uses a rectangular area. From these
estimated sizes and using Fig. 4 below the power density
seen at across the rectenna is also shown in Table 4.
From setting a desired value for the power density at
the interface of the receiving array and from knowing the
effective area (antenna aperture) of the receiver unit, the
received power (assuming a uniform field) per element
can be determined:
P r ¼ P d  Aef f ð6Þ
 C. Bergsrud, J. Straub / Acta Astronautica 103 (2014) 193–203 199

Table 4 Ar=0.09 Ar=0.12 Ar=0.15 Ar=0.2 Ar=0.25

16
Estimated diameter size of parabolic reflector and Aperture size of

Distance to receiver (m)

14
rectenna array.
12
10
Diameter of parabolic Aperture size of Power Density
8
reflector (m) receiver (m2) (mW/cm2)
6
4
0.1 0.09 347.22
2
0.2 0.12 260.41
0
0.4 0.15 208.33 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0.8 0.2 156.25 Transmitting Aperature Circular Area (m2)
1 0.25 125.00
1.2 Fig. 5. Shows the optimal distance required to achieve greatest power
density transfer between the aperture antennas. The operating frequency
is 10-GHz.

Ar=0.09 Ar=0.12 Ar=0.15 Ar=0.2 Ar=0.25

9
Ar=0.09 Ar=0.12 Ar=0.15 Ar=0.2 Ar=0.25
Distance to receiver (m)

8 350

Distance to receivier (m)

7
300
6
250
5
4 250
3 200
2 150
1 100
0 50
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0
Transmitting Aperature Circular Area (m2) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Transmitting Aperature Circular Area (m2)
Fig. 4. Shows the optimal distance required to achieve greatest power
density transfer between the aperture antennas. The operating frequency Fig. 6. Shows the optimal distance required to achieve greatest power
is 5.8-GHz. density transfer between the aperture antennas. The operating frequency
is 220-GHz.

The above equation can be used to estimate the power

received per antenna element in a planar array assuming a
uniform field distribution. Knowing the received power power density and transmission efficiency based on a Gaus-
per antenna element and its impedance, the voltage can be sian profile scenario. Using their figure, τ was selected as 2.5
determined: which indicates a 100% power density transfer efficiency. Then
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi solving the equation above for D and using preliminary
V ¼ P r Rin ð7Þ
aperture size estimations from the Table 4, theoretical dis-
Knowing the voltage input is important as the remaining tance between the apertures to acquire 100% is determined
portion of the circuit (as seen in Fig. 7) sees this as an AC and is shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 fixes five cases of the receive
voltage source thus the rectifying circuitry can be designed apertures and varies the size of the transmitter area to provide
around an expected range of values. By knowing the the optimal distance required to achieve greatest power
power requirements at the rectenna array the RF-to-DC density transfer between the two apertures. This data helps
components and rectenna array architecture can be in setting the distance limits between the two spacecraft in
designed in order to accommodate this expected range order to supply enough power to the receiver to run its
of values. This procedure allows calibration of the power various subsystems. Similarly, Figs. 5 and 6 show results for
density at the receiving craft so that the components are 10-GHz and 220-GHz frequencies all other values and
capable to handle the power received. The receiver archi- procedures are the same. Notice that the higher the frequency
tecture and components are designed to the best of their the greater the distance can be achieved for power
ability to be able to handle a certain power level. This may density transfer as well as the option for smaller apertures.
require the power transmitted to be reduced or the However, the disadvantage for higher frequencies is a
distance between the satellites to increase which ulti- decrease in component efficiency as well as increased atmo-
mately decrease tau in Eq. (8) to less than 100%. A balance spheric losses.
must be reached to achieve greatest efficiency.
Brown and Eves' [60] Eq. (1), and Fig. 2 provide a 4.3. Transmitting and reception systems
general equation for the aperture-to-aperture transmis-
sion efficiency in order to achieve optimum power density The aperture area of the power receiving spacecraft
transfer based on a Gaussian profile scenario forms from the unfolding of panels that contain the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rectenna array architecture. The transmitting craft will
τ ¼ At Ar =λD ð8Þ
use the bottom and partial sides of its body to deploy into
where At is the transmitter aperture area, Ar is the receiver a main reflector dish. The arm holding the sub-reflector
aperture area, λ is the wavelength of the microwave power will ever so gracefully position itself in the appropriate
being transmitted, and D is the separation distance position and lock in place. A corrugated conical horn
between the two apertures antenna will be used as a feed mechanism. The transmit-
Fig. 2 of Brown and Eves is used to get a sense of the ting antenna system is equipped with duel reflector
distance between the two spacecraft with the associated Cassegrain architecture. Furthermore, as the arm that
200 C. Bergsrud, J. Straub / Acta Astronautica 103 (2014) 193–203
Fig. 7. Power flow diagram (revised from [55]).
holds the sub-reflector is extending into position the
power receiving craft will be guided out of the transmit-
ting craft into the space environment. The receiving craft
will have an array of circularly polarized patch antenna
elements.
The Electrical Power System (EPS) is the major subsys-
tem for both the power transmitting and power receiving
satellites. Fig. 7 shows a flow chart for the MWP transmis-
sion and reception systems. As the Satellites enter daylight,
the transmitting craft generates electrical power from its
solar array, converts it into radio frequency (RF) energy (by
means of a solid state power amplifier). The RF energy is
transmitted via a corrugated horn antenna to a sub-reflector
to the main reflector and then propagates to the rectenna
array target on the power receiving craft located a distance
away. The rectenna intercepts and converts the RF energy
into usable dc power to run all subsystems.
The end-to-end efficiency of the proposed system can
be found in Table 5. Antenna misalignments between the
two spacecraft were not included in the table. There are
three scenarios to consider here (1) the two antennas
maintain normal to the traveling wave but they vary in
distance, (2) the antennas can misalign through rotation of
either one of the satellite, and (3) either satellite can move
out of point to point transmission exchange path. By
incorporating a retrodirective beam mechanism on the
two satellites will correct for most of these problems.
The first problem can be viewed as a decrease in
efficiency from the tau value mentioned above. In order
to maintain 100% aperture to aperture efficiency three
design options include: (a) increase or decrease the power
level transmitted, (b) use thrusters to maintain the range
of distance, and (c) use the buck-boost converter to
regulate the voltage to the load. Part (a) is adjusted so
that the received power to the components is not beyond
their limit as it would destroy them. Part (b) uses the
thrusters to balance and maintain the proper distance
between the satellites. The second problem can be solved
by equipping the receiving spacecraft with an active
gimbal type system incorporated with a retrodirective
array as well as using the thrusters to maintain balance.
Table 5
End-to-end efficiency estimations similar to figure in [67].
Segment Efficiency Notes
DC-to-RF 85% SSPA [8]
Antenna 70% Dual reflector with corrugated
conical horn
RF Collection Area 90% Function of rectenna array size
Rectenna Elements 80% [8,26,68]
Total 43%
The third problem can be solved by incorporating a retro-
directive array system to ensure the satellites remain in
efficient power transfer exchange path. The design goal is
to maintain the electromagnetic wave incident normal to
the power receiving system.
The proposed system is pursuing a hybrid antenna (HA)
structure [61,62] with a Cassegrain reflector system (con-
ventional offset structure) with a conical corrugated
feed. The sub-reflector will have mechanically steerable
capability for horizontal and vertical movement. Patch
antennas for a retrodirective array system will be inte-
grated on the back side of the subreflector that receive the
pilot signal from the receiving spacecraft. That signal is
then transferred to the motor controls of the subreflector
for beam steering (self-phasing). The large aperture
of the main reflector provides high-gain performance,
the rotating subreflector provides beam-steering capabil-
ity, and the retrodirective array system provides autono-
mous beam steering (self-phasing) and position sensing.
Some papers have already began to explore the retro-
directive array system [63–66]. The proposed work looks
at advancing the HA structure and further expanding upon
the ISY-METS experiment by incorporating a retrodirective
array technology for a S2S-MWPT Experimental Mission.
A limited backup power system will be incorporated on
the receiving spacecraft in the form of placing solar panels
below the storage location of the rectenna panels. This will
result in the CubeSat having limited power generation
 C. Bergsrud, J. Straub / Acta Astronautica 103 (2014) 193–203 201

capabilities in most orientations. This system will support

troubleshooting and data retrieval from the CubeSat in the
event of a transmission, catastrophic alignment or receiv-
ing system failure. A hybrid gimbaled rectenna and solar Human Primary Secondary
panel system may be able to be efficiently created; the Controller Spacecraft Spacecraft
design and development of this system will serve as
Commence
a subject for future work. This type of hybrid receiver
Test
would potentially form an excellent backup solution for
SSP utility consumer craft. for each test
Set
Distance
5. Launch Position Spacecraft
Confirm
Notify
The proposed mission will fly as a secondary payload Commence
onboard a commercial or government launch. As an ESPA/ Acknowledge
SmallSat-class payload, it can be easily integrated onto
for each transfer
rockets from several providers and into several locations
Power
on the rocket (at least eight [69], for example, on ULA Transfer
vehicles like the Atlas IV). Several emerging launch provi-
ders may also be able to provide a dedicated or peer- Mission
shared launch capability for this type of mission at a more Data
affordable rate [50,70]. A launch adapter plate is being
utilized to facilitate delaying launch integration decisions
until later in the mission planning process (once the
Test
specific rocket type is known). The satellite will connect Results
to this plate and this plate will interface with the launch
Analyze
vehicle. Results
Typically, the primary payload is launched first and,
after the rocket has moved some distance from the
primary payload, the secondary payloads are launched. Fig. 8. Mission Operations.
The exact launch order amongst the secondary payloads or
the order on a peer-shared mission would be negotiated performance of the thrusters and their control system to
with the launch provider. be characterized. The performance of both (microwave
power transfer and thrusters) will be characterized at
6. Mission operations different altitudes as the two spacecraft's orbits degrade
towards atmospheric reentry.
Mission operations commence with the ejection of the Two key variables will serve to define mission life.
primary spacecraft from the launch vehicle. Once ejected, Orbital decay will place a maximum cap on the mission,
the spacecraft will wait a period of time (as specified by which is a function of the altitude that the spacecraft are
the launch provider) to allow it to move away from the launched at, each spacecraft's ballistic coefficient and the
launch vehicle. At this point, the sub-satellite will be current level of solar activity. Depending on the orbit
ejected from the primary satellite and the primary satel- utilized (as a secondary payload, the orbital options avail-
lite's solar panels will be deployed. able to the mission will be limited), the onboard fuel may
With the two spacecraft in their operating configura- also serve to limit the mission. A number of factors will
tion, the primary mission will commence. This will consist lead to fuel consumption which cannot be predicted a
of transmitting power from the primary spacecraft to the priori. The establishment of the initial configuration
secondary spacecraft. The secondary spacecraft will track between the two craft (particularly if spinning must be
the amount of power received and transmit this data arrested) will consume an unknown amount of fuel. The
back to the primary spacecraft. This experiment will be level of fuel required for the primary mission operations
conducted at a variety of distances to characterize the (i.e., moving from distance to distance to perform data
performance at these distances. It will also be conducted at collection) can be predicted. However, the level of fuel that
a variety of incident angles to characterize performance at will be required for orbital maintenance is unknown,
both normal and non-normal angles of incidence. Fig. 8 in the absence of a target orbit. With a high enough
summarizes the mission operations plan for the micro- altitude, this may not be required at all during the primary
wave power transfer portion of the mission. mission's duration.
The power received by the sub-satellite will be utilized
to operate its internal systems. It will also serve to power a 7. Mission evaluation
set of onboard micro-cathode arc thrusters [29]. This will
allow the performance of these thrusters to be character- The main objective of mission evaluation is to complete
ized. These thrusters will be utilized to maneuver the successful demonstrations that could mitigate risks, buy
secondary spacecraft to different distances. This will facil- down costs and advance technology relevant to future SSPS
itate the power transfer experiment as well as allowing the systems. There are several key experiments to consider.
202 C. Bergsrud, J. Straub / Acta Astronautica 103 (2014) 193–203
Demonstrating and validating key SSPS hardware elements
and transmission characteristics. System performances for
conversion and transmission efficiencies will be monitored.
This will include a thermal analysis of the overall transmitter
system onboard the bus platform. In addition characteriza-
tion of thruster performance will be monitored. Ultimately,
the thrusters are responsible to ensure the two spacecraft
maintain a range of distance as described above and possible
alignment/orientation during power beaming (i.e. beam
riding). Other important data comes from analyzing system
reliability, performances of components under severe ther-
mal shocks, effects on component degradation over time in
space, comparisons between land and space experiments. All
these measurements will provide information for simulating
the space environment on Earth for future component and
system testing.
8. Conclusions and future work
This paper has presented an overview of a near-term
test mission to demonstrate and evaluate the efficacy of
microwave power transmission as a mechanism to supply
the power needs of other orbital spacecraft. It has provided
an overview of the mission objectives and architecture.
Multiple aspects of the mission have been analyzed to
demonstrate its prospective feasibility and determine
critical parameters for sizing the two mission spacecraft.
Work on the design and development of the two
spacecraft is ongoing. Structural and high-level thermal
analysis has been largely completed. The electrical design
of the power transmission and receiving system is a topic
of ongoing work. Future work includes the completion of
these designs, spacecraft construction, launch and mission
operations.
Acknowledgments
Work on the development of the Space Solar Power
Small Satellite Test Mission at the University of North
(Grant No. EPS-0814442) Dakota has been supported by
numerous individuals including Robert Bernaciak, James
Casler, Ben Kading, Michael Mann, John McClure, Sima
Noghanian, David Poppke, Hossein Salehfar, Subin Shahu-
khal, David Whalen and Karl Williams. Facilities and
equipment used in this project have been provided by
the Department of Electrical Engineering, the Department
of Mechanical Engineering, the Department of Space
Studies, the Department of Computer Science and the
College of Engineering and Mines. Limited financial sup-
port has been provided by the SunSat Design Competition.
Thanks are also given to Paul Jaffe at the Naval Research
Laboratory, Samudra Haque at George Washington
University and Gerald Szatkowski at United Launch Alli-
ance for providing information. We also thank Dr. Yen Lee
Loh in the University of North Dakota Physics Department
for his assistance regarding the physics behind Gaussian
beams.
References
[1] C. Bergsrud, J. Straub, M. Clausing, J. McClure, S. Noghanian,
Constructing a constellation of 6U solar power cube satellites, in:
Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, Beijing,
China, 2013.
[2] C. Bergsrud, J. Straub, M. Clausing, J. McClure, J. Casler, S. Noghanian,
Business case for A constellation of 6U solar powered CubeSats in
LEO, in: Proceedings of the 64th International Astronautical Con-
gress, Beijing, China, 2013.
[3] C. Bergsrud, J. Straub, Space solar power as an enabler for a human
mission to mars, in Proceedings of the AIAA Space 2013 Conference,
San Diego, CA, 2013.
[4] C. Bergsrud, J. Straub, J. Casler, S. Noghanian, Space solar power
satellite systems as a service provider of electrical power to lunar
industries, in: Proceedings of the AIAA Space 2013 Conference,
San Diego, CA, USA, 2013.
[5] J. Straub, A. Mohammad, J. Berk, A. Nervold. Above the cloud
computing: Creating an orbital service model using cloud comput-
ing techniques, Presented at Proceedings of the SPIE Defense,
Security Sensing Conference, 2013.
[6] J. Straub. Extending the orbital services model beyond computing,
communications and sensing, Presented at Proceedings of the 2014
IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2014.
[7] B. Strassner, K. Chang. Microwave Power Transmission: Historical
milestones and system components, 2013.
[8] J.O. McSpadden, J.C. Mankins, Space solar power programs and
microwave wireless power transmission technology, Microw. Mag.
IEEE 3 (4) (2002) 46–57.
[9] C. Bergsrud, S. Noghanian, Survey of ground antenna systems for
solar power satellite application, Presented at Aerospace Conference,
2013 IEEE. 2013.
[10] Method and Apparatus for Converting Solar Radiation to Electrical
Power, in: P.E. Glaser, 1973, 3,781,647.
[11] G. Woodcock, Solar Power Satellite System Definition Study, Phase II
Final Report II. Report D180-25461-2, Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA,
1979.
[12] A. Eberhardt. Candidate Locations for SPS Rectifying Antennas, NASA
STI/Recon Technical Report N, 13553, 1977, 78pp.
[13] J. Freeman. Solar Power Satellite Offshore Rectenna Study, NASA
Contractor Report 33481980.
[14] J. Lee. Rectenna related atmospheric effects. Presented at The
Final Proceedings of the Solar Power Satellite Program Review,
1980.
[15] Rice University, Electrostatic Protection of the Solar Power Satellite
and Rectenna-Part I: Protection of the Solar Power Satellite, Rice
University, Houston, TX, Technical Report NASA CR-3344, November
1980.
[16] Rice University, Electrostatic Protection of the Solar Power Satellite
and Rectenna-Part II: Lightning Protection of the Rectenna, Rice
University, Houston, TX, Techical Report NASA CR-3345, November
1980.
[17] N. Kaya, H. Matsumoto, S. Miyatake, I. Kimura, M. Nagatomo,
T. Obayashi, Nonlinear interaction of strong microwave beam with
the ionosphere MINIX rocket experiment, Space Sol.Power Rev. (US)
6 (3) (1986).
[18] N. Kaya, H. Kojima, H. Matsumoto, M. Hinada, R. Akiba, ISY-METS
rocket experiment for microwave energy transmission, Acta Astro-
naut. 34 (1994) 43–46.
[19] J.C. Mankins, Space solar power: a fresh look, Space 3653 (1995) 95.
[20] Advanced concepts office, NASA headquarters and advanced space
analysis office, NASA LeRC, space solar power, an advanced concepts
study project, in: Proceedings of the SSP Technical Interchange
Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 1995, pp. 10–27.
[21] J. McSpadden, J. C. Mankins ,J. T. Howell. Summary of Recent Results
from NASA's Space Solar Power (SSP) Programs and the Current
Capabilities of Microwave WPT Technology, 2002.
[22] H. Feingold, M. Stancoti, A. Friedlander, M. Jacobs, D. Comstock,
C. Christenson, G. Maryniak, S. Rix, J.C. Mankins, Space Solar Power—
A Fresh Look at the Feasibility Off Generating Solar Power in Space
for Use on Earth, Science Applications International Corporation,
Schaumburg, Illinois, 1997.
[23] A Step Forward for Space Solar Power. Available: 〈http://www.
thespacereview.com/article/1210/1〉, (September 15, 2008).
[24] Solar Power Beamed From Space Within a Decade? Available: 〈http://
www.gizmag.com/solar-power-space-satellite/11064/〉(22-Feb-2009), .
[25] N. Kaya, H. Matsumoto, S. Miyatake, I. Kimura, M. Nagatomo,
Microwave energy transmission test toward the SPS using the space
station, Space Sol. Power Rev. 5pp (1985) 163–169.
 C. Bergsrud, J. Straub / Acta Astronautica 103 (2014) 193–203
[26] J. O. McSpadden, F. E. Little, M. B. Duke, A. Ignatiev. An in-space
wireless energy transmission experiment, Presented at Energy
Conversion Engineering Conference 1996, IECEC 96, in: Proceedings
of the 31st Intersociety, 1996.
[27] C. Bergsrud, J. Straub. A 6-U commercial constellation for space solar
power supply to other spacecraft, Presented at Spring 2013 CubeSat
Workshop, 2013.
[28] M.K. Macauley, J.F. Davis, An economic assessment of space solar
power as a source of electricity for space-based activities, Space
Policy 18 (1) (2002) 45–55.
[29] M. Keidar, S. Haque, T. Zhuang, A. Shashurin, D. Chiu, G. Teel,
E. Agasid, O. Tintore, Micro-cathode arc thruster for PhoneSat
propulsion, in: Proceedings of the 27th Annual AIAA/USU Confer-
ence on Small Satellites, Logan, UT, 2013.
[30] J. Straub, C. Bergsrud, Orbital position, transmission path and
spacecraft attitude determination for a solar power spacecraft.
Presented at Proceedings of the 64th International Astronautical
Congress, 2013.
[31] J. Straub, A control system for space solar power. Presented at Space
Solar Power Workshop at IEEE WiSEE, 2013.
[32] (). obr / 4Explorer-I and Jupiter-C. Available: 〈http://history.nasa.
gov/sputnik/expinfo.html〉.
[33] (). obr / 4Sputnik and the Dawn of the Space Age, Available:
〈http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html〉.
[34] M. Swartwout, University-class satellites: from marginal utility to
‘disruptive’ research platforms, Presented at Proceedings of the 18th
Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, 2004.
[35] M. Swartwout. The long-threatened flood of university-class space-
craft (and CubeSats) has come: analyzing the numbers. Presented at
Proceedings of the 27th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small
Satellites, 2013.
[36] California Polytechnic State University, CubeSat design specification,
revision 12, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo,
California, August 1, 2009.
[37] R.A. Deepak, R.J. Twiggs, Thinking out of the box: space science
beyond the CubeSat, J. Small Satell. 1 (1) (2012) 3–7.
[38] M. Taraba, C. Rayburn, A. Tsuda, C. MacGillivray. Boeing's CubeSat
TestBed 1 Attitude Determination Design and On-Orbit Experience,
2009.
[39] D. Weeks, A. B. Marley, J. London III. SMDC-ONE: An army Nano-
satellite Technology Demonstration, 2009.
[40] J. London, M. Ray, D. Weeks, B. Marley. The First US Army Satellite in
Fifty Years: SMDC-ONE First Flight Results, 2011.
[41] J. Muylaert, R. Reinhard, C. Asma, J. Buchlin, P. Rambaud, M. Vetrano.
QB50: an international network of 50 cubesats for multi-point, in-
situ measurements in the lower thermosphere and for re-entry
research, Presented at ESA Atmospheric Science Conference,
Barcelona, Spain, 2009.
[42] M. Long, A. Lorenz, G. Rodgers, E. Tapio, G. Tran, K. Jackson,
R. Twiggs, T. Bleier. A cubesat derived design for a unique academic
research mission in earthquake signature detection. Presented at
Proceedings of AIAA Small Satellite Conference, 2002.
[43] J. Bailey, S. Tsitas, D. Bayliss, T. Bedding. A CubeSat Mission for
Exoplanet Transit Detection and Astroseismology, 2012.
[44] J. Puig-Suari, J. Schoos, C. Turner, T. Wagner, R. Connolly, R. P. Block,
CubeSat developments at cal poly: the standard deployer and
PolySat, Presented at International Symposium on Optical Science
and Technology, 2000.
[45] R. Walker, M. Cross, The European Student Moon Orbiter (ESMO): a
lunar mission for education, outreach and science, Acta Astronaut.
66 (7) (2010) 1177–1188.
[46] R. Staehle, D. Blaney, H. Hemmati, M. Lo, P. Mouroulis, P. Pingree, T.
Wilson, J. Puig-Suari, A. Williams, B. Betts, Interplanetary CubeSats:
opening the solar system to a broad community at lower cost.
Presented at CubeSat Developers' Workshop, Logan, UT, 2011.
[47] Call for Proposals: Fly Your Satellite!. Available:, (13 February 2013).
203
[48] G. Skrobot, R. Coelho, ELaNa–educational launch of nanosatellite:
providing routine rideShare opportunities, Presented at Proceedings
SmallSat Conference, 2012.
[49] G. Hunyadi, J. Ganley, A. Peffer, M. Kumashiro. The university
nanosat program: an adaptable, responsive and realistic capability
demonstration vehicle, Presented at Aerospace Conference 2004,
Proceedings IEEE, 2004.
[50] R. Milliron, Interorbital's NEPTUNE dedicated SmallSat launcher:
2013 test milestones and launch manifest update, 2013 Spring
CubeSat Developers' Workshop, San Luis Obispo, CA, 2013.
[51] J. Straub, D. Whalen, Student expectations from participating in a
small spacecraft development program, Aerospace 1 (1) (2013)
18–30.
[52] J. Straub, D. Whalen, An assessment of educational benefits from the
OpenOrbiter space program, Educ. Sci. 3 (3) (2013) 259–278.
[53] D.D. Bhanderi, M. Bisgaard, L. Alminde, J.D. Nielsen, A danish
perspective on problem based learning in space education, Aerosp.
Electron. Syst. Mag. IEEE 21 (7) (2006) S_19–S_22.
[54] J.A. Larsen, J.F. D. Nielsen, C. Zhou, Motivating students to develop
satellites in problem and project-based learning (PBL) environment,
Int. J. Eng. Pedagog. (iJEP) 3 (3) (2013) 11–17.
[55] C. Bergsrud, J. Straub, R. Bernaciak, S. Shahukhal, B. Kading,
K. Williams, H. Salehfar, J. McClure, J. Casler, D. Whalen. The
development of a nanosatellite-class SunSat at the university of
north Dakota, Presented at University of North Dakota Graduate
School Scholarly Forum, 2014.
[56] C. Clark, K. Viergever, A. Vick, I. Bryson. Achieving Global Awareness
Via Advanced Remote Sensing Techniques on 3U CubeSats, 2012.
[57] J.R. Wertz, D.F. Everett, J.J. Puschell, Space Mission Engineering: The
New SMAD, Microcosm Press, Hawthorne, CA, 2011.
[58] E. Bashevkin, J. Kenahan, B. Manning, B. Mahlstedt, A. Kalman. A
novel hemispherical anti-twist tracking system (HATTS) for Cube-
Sats, in:Proceedings of the 26th AIAA/USU Conference on Small
Satellites, 2012.
[59] C. Bergsrud, J. Straub, J. McClure, S. Noghanian, Microwave wireless
power transmission system for a small spacecraft, in: Presented at
the 2014 North Dakota EPSCoR Conference, Grand Forks, ND, 2014.
[60] W.C. Brown, E.E. Eves, Beamed microwave power transmission and
its application to space, Microw. Theory Techn. IEEE Trans. 40 (6)
(1992) 1239–1250.
[61] Y. Jung, A.V. Shishlov, S. Park, Cassegrain antenna with hybrid beam
steering scheme for mobile satellite communications, Antennas
Propag. IEEE Trans. 57 (5) (2009) 1367–1372.
[62] Y. Jung, S. Eom, S. Jeon, Novel antenna system design for satellite
mobile multimedia service, Veh. Technol. IEEE Trans. 59 (9) (2010)
4237–4247.
[63] B. Murakami, A. Ohta, M. Tamamoto, G. Shiroma, R. Miyamoto,
W. Shiroma. Self-steering antenna arrays for distributed picosatellite
networks, 17th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites,
Logan, Utah, 2003, p. 1–5.
[64] P. Chan, V. Fusco, Co-operating retrodirective system, IET Microw.
Antennas Propag. 7 (3) (2013) 187–194.
[65] Y. Ren, K. Chang, New 5.8-GHz circularly polarized retrodirective
rectenna arrays for wireless power transmission, Microw. Theory
Techn. IEEE Trans. 54 (7) (2006) 2970–2976.
[66] Y. Guo, X. Shi, L. Chen, Retrodirective array technology, Prog.
Electromagn. Res. B (2008) 153–167. (5pp).
[67] P. Jaffe, A Sunlight to Microwave Power Transmission Module
Prototype for Space Solar Power. Business Development and
Advanced Programs, 2013.
[68] Y. Ren, K. Chang, 5.8-GHz circularly polarized dual-diode rectenna
and rectenna array for microwave power transmission, Microw.
Theory Techn. IEEE Trans. 54 (4) (2006) 1495–1502.
[69] ULA Rideshare Capabilities. Available: 〈http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/
bst/LaunchOpps/ULARideshareCapabilities_July2011.pdf〉, (July 28,
2011).
[70] J. Garvey, E. Besnard, Development status of a nanosat launch
vehicle, AIAA Pap. (2004) 2004–4065.