SSC01-VI-5

A Systems Engineering Tool for Small Satellite Design

Allan I. McInnes, Daniel M. Harps, Jeffrey A. Lang
Vehicle Concepts Department
The Aerospace Corporation
M4/922, P.O. Box 92957
Los Angeles, CA 90009-92957
Phone: (310) 336-1871
Email: [email protected]

Dr. Charles M. Swenson

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Utah State University
4120 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322
Phone: (435) 797-2958
Email: [email protected]

Abstract. The growing popularity of small satellites for applications of all kinds has lead to a marked increase in
the number of requests from customers of The Aerospace Corporation for studies involving small satellites. The
existing design tools used by the Corporation for concept evaluation of large spacecraft have, in many cases, proven
inadequate for these small spacecraft studies. As a result, Aerospace is developing a systems engineering tool to
support the conceptual design of small satellites.

The Aerospace Corporation’s small satellite systems engineering tool utilizes a spreadsheet-based approach to
efficiently track information regarding the mass, power, and volume of the satellite subsystems. This subsystem
information is derived through a variety of means, including analytical relationships, iterative solvers, and databases
of components appropriate for small satellites. Physics based models for such factors as solar illumination and
external torques have been incorporated into the tool to aid in the analysis of the design.

In addition to data tracking, the spreadsheet approach used makes it easier for a concurrent engineering methodology
to be applied to the design process. This means the effects of a change in one subsystem are immediately
propagated to the other subsystems, and system-level effects are more easily identified. The end result is a tool that
facilitates rapid systems-level concept evaluation and trade-space exploration in support of the small satellite design
process.

This paper describes The Aerospace Corporation’s small satellite systems engineering tool. The approach
underlying the tool, as well as an overview of the implementation, relationships between the subsystems, and the
flow of information are presented.

Introduction spectrum. Both civil and military space programs have

A growing number of future space missions, for either launched research and development efforts focused on
programmatic or technical reasons, require small, low- small satellites. Examples include NASA’s Space
mass, low-cost satellites. Interest in these new mission Technology 5 Nanosat Constellation Trailblazer, and
concepts is encouraged by the perception that a small the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Technology
satellite can be both capable and low-cost. As a result, Satellite of the 21st Century (TechSat 21) and
more small satellites are being formally studied at the MightySat programs, which seek to test and prove
conceptual stage of many civil, commercial, and technologies and architectures. Further advances in
military programs than have been in the past. Figure 1 small satellite capabilities are being driven by research
clearly illustrates the impressive growth in the number into new technologies such as microelectromechanical
of small satellites launched over the last two decades, systems (MEMS)1. For example, The Aerospace
particularly at the smaller (<25kg) end of the size Corporation’s Center for Microtechnology is

1
Copyright  2001 The Aerospace Corporation
Allan I. McInnes 15th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites
investigating a concept for future satellites, in which the
Small satellites often have fixed solar arrays
entire spacecraft is fabricated on silicon, using a instead of sun-tracking solar arrays
combination of MEMS components2.

Small satellites often do not have deployables

USA Small Satellite Launches
Small mass leads to reduced thermal inertia
Civil, Commercial, Military
25
Small size leads to reduced power generation
and storage capabilities
20 0 to 25 kg
Satellites Launched

25 to 50 kg
50 to 100 kg

Volume can be tightly constrained
15
100 to 200 kg

Surface area can be at a premium
10

Little historical data is available at the lower
5 end of size spectrum (there have been
relatively few programs, and those are not
-
always well-documented), making parametric
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
resource estimates difficult

Small satellites use smaller components, new
Figure 1 Growth in small satellite launches technologies (e.g. MEMS), and non-traditional
vendors
It is well known that decisions made in the concept These differences mean that although the process used
phase of a program can determine approximately 70% to design small and large satellites is similar, the tools
of the cost of a program3. The increase in small required to support the process are different.
satellite launches, and the planned inclusion of small
satellites in so many future programs, indicate a need
for systems engineering tools to aid in the conceptual Small Satellite Large Satellite
trade studies for these programs. These tools must be
Sun-tracking
appropriate to small spacecraft and the new Reduced solar arrays Deployables
technologies from which they will be composed. The power Reduced
storage thermal
Aerospace Corporation (hereafter referred to as inertia
Aerospace) is presently working to develop such tools.
New
Small Satellite Systems Engineering Fixed technologies
Systems engineering is concerned with the overall solar arrays Low density
Large volume Surplus
performance of a system for multiple objectives (e.g. surface area
mass, cost, and power). The systems engineering
process is a methodical approach to balancing the needs Figure 2 Small Satellites vs. Large Satellites
and capabilities of the various subsystems in order to
improve the performance of the system. The size,
volume, and mass constraints often encountered in Concurrent Engineering Methodology
small satellite development programs, combined with Traditional design methodology is a sequential,
increasing pressure from customers to pack more multidisciplinary process, and as such, has several
capability into a given size, make systems engineering disadvantages. Often, one subsystem cannot be
methods particularly important for small satellites. designed until the results from another subsystem are
available. Communication of design data from one
Spacecraft systems engineering is an established and subsystem specialist to another can be complex and
well-understood discipline. However, many of the time-consuming. Thus, due to the time required to
standard tools and techniques used to perform complete a design iteration, the number of iterations
conceptual design of spacecraft contain implicit that can be performed is very limited4.
assumptions that are based on the characteristics of
large satellites. This is a problem, since the In an effort to improve upon the traditional sequential
characteristics of a small satellite can differ from those approach to design Aerospace has developed
of traditional large satellites (Figure 2) in a number of centralized design processes (Figure 3) based on a
ways: concurrent engineering methodology. Using this design
process a systems engineer works with subsystem
specialists to generate simplified subsystem design

Allan I. McInnes 15th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites

algorithms. The systems engineer compiles the
information into a single spreadsheet-based tool known
as a Concurrent Engineering Model (CEM). The
systems engineer then uses the spreadsheet model to
quickly design a spacecraft and examine possible
design trades. Because the models and information for
each subsystem are linked within the spreadsheet, the
effect of any change is instantly seen by all of the
subsystems. All of the subsystem requirements are
considered simultaneously. The trade space that can be
explored in a given amount of time is greatly expanded.
The design cycle can be shortened from months to days
or even hours.

The concurrent engineering approach to spacecraft Figure 4 Comparison of design processes

design can also be used in a distributed mode, in which
specialists operate individual subsystem spreadsheets
that are linked via a network (Figure 3). This kind of
distributed real-time design process has been Small Satellite Concurrent Engineering Model
successfully used in Aerospace’s Concept Design Spacecraft conceptual designs prepared by Aerospace
Center4 (CDC), as well as in other similar facilities such are used to support feasibility studies, program cost
as JPL’s Project Design Center (PDC). The distributed estimates, trade space explorations, and technology
process has the advantage that the subsystem specialists insertion studies. Aerospace has developed several
remain in the loop during design iteration, allowing systems engineering tools to support spacecraft
more complex subsystem design algorithms to be used. conceptual design tasks, including a number of CDC
As a result, a distributed process can achieve a higher teams, and a variety of CEMs. However, these tools
level of design fidelity than is typically available within are usually intended for designing large satellites, and
the framework of a centralized design process. thus incorporate assumptions that make the tools less
effective in the small satellite regime.

In an effort to improve Aerospace’s small satellite

design capabilities, development of the Small Satellite
Concurrent Engineering Model (SmallSatCEM) was
initiated. The SmallSatCEM project aims to produce a
tool that will aid systems engineers in performing
conceptual-level design studies of small satellites. The
SmallSatCEM is intended for use as a tool to generate
point designs in support of conceptual design studies.
Additionally, it is hoped that component and subsystem
designers will find the tool useful in estimating
performance requirements for new small satellite
components that are in the development phase.
Figure 3 Types of design process
SmallSatCEM Goals
Aerospace has a dual approach to conceptual spacecraft The primary goal of the SmallSatCEM project is to
design, with the choice of design process depending on develop a useful tool that will allow satellite systems
the needs of the customer (Figure 4). The CDC is used engineers to rapidly design and analyze a small satellite
when higher fidelity and direct interaction with the bus. A secondary goal is to develop the tool in such a
customer is desired. Specific trades are developed in way that it can be used widely within Aerospace. The
detail. A CEM is used when a rapid answer is needed, SmallSatCEM is aimed at designing single spacecraft,
a broad trade space is desired, and lower fidelity is and thus will not include capabilities such as
acceptable. CEMs are usually developed for a specific constellation design. However, the SmallSatCEM
type of mission (e.g. GEO communications spacecraft), could be used to derive a spacecraft design suitable for
and then modified and reused for later design studies. some pre-determined system architecture and
constellation geometry.

Allan I. McInnes 15th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites

There are a number of characteristics that contribute to language so, in principle, any functionality of an
the usefulness of a systems engineering tool5, such as external program can be duplicated. This is being done,
although only to the level of fidelity that is needed for

Relevance to the study being performed
conceptual design. Another advantage of using Excel is

Credibility in the eye of the decision maker that it is widely known and flexible enough that the
SmallSatCEM can be expanded or customized by a user

Responsiveness of the model
as needed. Unlike compiled software, the use of Excel

Transparency with Visual Basic makes the internals of the tool easily
accessible, and thus checking equations or updating

User friendliness models is very easy.
The design of the SmallSatCEM addresses these
desirable characteristics in various ways. The SmallSatCEM is conceived as a single user tool,
and it is intended that the user be able to complete a
Since the tool is intended for use in small satellite design without the need for intervention by a subsystem
design studies, a conscious effort has been made to expert (although consultation with experts would
avoid the inclusion of modeling assumptions that are obviously be beneficial, and is encouraged). To help
relevant only to large satellites. The SmallSatCEM the user rapidly specify a new spacecraft design the
instead includes databases of components appropriate user interface layout of the spreadsheets is consistent
for small satellites, and physical models (such as solar throughout the Excel workbook. Diagrammatic
illumination of fixed solar cells) that support the types representations of subsystem models are included to aid
of analysis needed for small satellite design. the user in understanding how the tool functions and
Additionally, attributes that are important in designing how the required user inputs are used to specify the
small satellites, such as volume and surface area, are subsystem design.
tracked and reported. The development team is
implementing standard models and equations6,7 where Workbook Architecture
they are appropriate, and validating the models against There are two major processes in an iterative design
other tools wherever possible. cycle: the progression from requirements through
design to a design state, and the analysis of a specified
The subsystem models that are being implemented in design to determine its performance relative to
the SmallSatCEM are intended to be simple enough to requirements (Figure 5). This design, build, and test
describe a design at the conceptual level, and yet cycle can be applied both at the level of the whole
provide sufficient detail to isolate the major system spacecraft, and at the level of a single subsystem.
drivers within the spacecraft design. The Spacecraft studies at the conceptual level may involve
SmallSatCEM team has made an effort to keep the one or both of these processes, depending on the goals
models as general as possible in order to ensure that the of the study.
tool is reasonably flexible. As an example, the
astrodynamics model is not tied to a particular planet At the conceptual stage of a project the systems
(the tool presently supports Earth and Mars as central engineer is often faced with the task of designing a
bodies), and allows for elliptical orbits of arbitrary possible top-level architecture for a spacecraft to
inclination. determine project feasibility. A typical approach to this
task is to use the requirements of the payload to select
The SmallSatCEM is being implemented in Microsoft some known hardware components (i.e. make system
Excel∗ as a single workbook, and makes extensive use design decisions), thus leading to a spacecraft design.
of Visual Basic∗ to extend the capabilities of Excel. The arrow at the top of Figure 5 illustrates this process,
The decision to use Excel and Visual Basic was made in which the requirements lead, via design decisions, to
for several reasons. A primary driver is that the use of a design “state”. The state specifies the components of
Excel allows the SmallSatCEM team to rapidly develop each subsystem, as well as mission details for the
a reasonably uncomplicated, user friendly, self- spacecraft, as determined from the design process.
contained tool that can be easily distributed throughout
Aerospace. The temptation to link with external Rather than proceeding from requirements to a design,
programs has been expressly avoided because of the a different question is often posed at the conceptual
potentially limited availability of these programs to stage of small satellite projects: given a volume and
other users. Visual Basic is a full programming mass constraint, what can be done with a small
spacecraft of a given configuration, or what type of
∗ payload can be supported? A common variation on this
Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Visual Basic are trademarks of the
Microsoft Corporation.
question is: given a small satellite configuration, what
4

Allan I. McInnes 15th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites

 Design Visual Basic Analysis Tools
State Requirements
• Configuration:
size, shape, etc • Payload power
• Mass properties • Payload pointing
Model
• Solar cell & • Thermal
State
batteries constraints
• Surface thermal • Coverage
properties • Telemetry needs
• Orbit and attitude • Pointing accuracy
• Telemetry rates • etc
Subsystem Design Sheets
• etc

Analysis Requirements

Figure 5 Iterative Design Cycle Figure 6 Information flow within the

SmallSatCEM
subsystem miniaturization or new technologies need to
be developed to make this system possible? Both of The SmallSatCEM is being implemented such that it
these questions are examples of a situation in which the represents the spacecraft subsystems in terms of a
state of a spacecraft is specified or hypothesized, and limited set of pre-defined units (components or
the requirements that can be supported by the spacecraft functional blocks), the parameters of which can be
must be determined. The arrow at the bottom of Figure specified by the designer. Once state of the spacecraft
5 represents this process of analysis, in which some design is defined in terms of these parameters a variety
aspect of the spacecraft or subsystems is simulated to of analysis tools can be applied to simulate the
determine performance. performance of the design during mission operations.
These analysis tools are largely implemented in Visual
A systems engineering tool for conceptual design must Basic, and answer specific questions about issues such
facilitate both the design and analysis processes in order as power production, disturbance torques, or telemetry
to be flexible enough to deal with a large variety of access times.
design problems. With this in mind the Excel
workbook that comprises the SmallSatCEM has been
developed to explicitly reflect the cycle portrayed in
Figure 5, and, as a result, incorporates a worksheet
within the workbook dedicated to tracking the design
state of the spacecraft. Orbit and payload requirements
are captured on a separate worksheet, and flow from
there to the worksheets used to describe each
subsystem. The information flow within the workbook
is depicted in Figure 6, which helps to illustrate the way
in which the workbook structure maps to the iterative
design cycle.
Figure 7 Component selection from a
The workbook uses separate worksheets to describe, drop-down menu
design, and analyze each subsystem. The worksheets
each contain a specific section intended for use as a The worksheets being implemented as part of the
design tool, the outputs of which contribute to SmallSatCEM are: Payload & Mission, Configuration,
specifying the state of the spacecraft. The design tools Propulsion, Command & Data Handling,
consist of menu selections from databases of Communications (including telemetry, tracking &
components (Figure 7), historical models built up from control), Attitude Determination & Control, Power,
experience, and computation chains of physical models. Mass Distribution and Properties, Thermal, Model
State, Database, and Cost. A brief description of each
worksheet will follow.
5

Allan I. McInnes 15th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites

Payload & Mission
The payload is the purpose of the mission; this makes
the payload requirements the driver for the entire
design. Up to five generic payloads may be specified
by providing system requirements such as mass, power,
volume, slew requirements, stability, data rates, and so
on. The payload requirements are passed on to each
subsystem sheet, where they are used as a guide for
subsystem design decisions. Also specified on the
Payload & Mission sheet are the orbital elements for
the initial, operational, and disposal orbits, and the
desired operational attitude.

Configuration
The size and geometry of the spacecraft bus is specified
on the Configuration sheet (Figure 8). Spacecraft
geometry is limited to a right cylindrical polyhedron,
for which the designer specifies a height, diameter, and
number of sides. Up to 8 deployable “panels” can be
specified in terms of size, location, and tracking mode.
These panels can be used to simulate deployable solar
arrays, antennas, thermal radiators, or gradient booms,
depending on the specified panel shape.

Propulsion
The Propulsion sheet is divided into transfer propulsion
and on-orbit propulsion sections. These systems are
designed independently, using drop-down menus to
select the thruster type and quantity for each system.
Figure 8 Specifying a configuration
The change in velocity (∆v) requirements are calculated
from the orbit parameters defined on the Payload & Communications
Mission sheet. The propellant mass and tank size is The Communications subsystem is divided into
then determined using an iterative solver. telemetry, tracking & control up and downlinks, a data
downlink, and crosslinks. The hardware that comprises
Command & Data Handling each link is designed independently via database
The Command & Data Handling subsystem sheet selection of components. A link analysis tool calculates
allows required data rates, compression ratios, and losses, gains, power, antenna sizing, efficiencies, and so
ground station contact duration information to be on.
entered. From this information, storage, processing,
and memory requirements are derived. Database
Attitude Determination & Control
selections can then be made for the Processor, Memory, The attitude determination and control system
Data Storage, and Input/Output interface needed to (ADACS) is designed by selecting sensors and
meet the derived requirements. actuators from drop-down menus. Visual Basic code is
used to simulate the disturbance torques acting on the
spacecraft over one orbit (Figure 9). Using spreadsheet
calculations the maximum values of the disturbance
torques and the accumulated angular momentum are
computed, and compared to the capability of the
selected components. Control torque and/or thrust level
requirements are also computed, based on the slew
requirements of the selected payloads.

Allan I. McInnes 15th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites

 Atmospheric Torques
modeling and sizing of the attitude control system. The
bus structural material can also be specified on this
2.0E-03
sheet, via a database-driven drop-down menu. Given
1.0E-03 the mass distribution information, the centers of mass
0.0E+00 and mass-moments of inertia are calculated for each
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0
-1.0E-03 panel and for the entire spacecraft.
-2.0E-03
Torque (N m)

-3.0E-03
X
Y
Thermal
Z The Thermal sheet treats each panel, body surface, and
-4.0E-03
interior zone as a node. Conduction coupling factors
-5.0E-03
are assigned between nodes. A thermal analysis can
-6.0E-03 then be performed to determine the temperature of the
-7.0E-03 different nodes. This analysis is compared to the
-8.0E-03 minimum and maximum temperature requirements for
True Anom aly (deg) the electronics and other components. Based on these
analyses, additional surface area for radiating heat, or
deployed radiators, can be assigned. The
Figure 9 Atmospheric disturbance torques
SmallSatCEM team is considering implementing
several “pre-designed” thermal subsystem
Power configurations to accommodate studies that are not yet
The Power sheet allows the designer to select the type
at the level of detail required by the present thermal
of solar cells to be used for body-mounted or
model.
deployable arrays, as well as the battery type and bus
voltage. Based on the types of solar cells and batteries
Model State
selected, the solar array area and the battery mass
All entered and calculated information from each
needed to meet the power requirements of the
worksheet is linked to the Model State sheet. As
spacecraft are computed. Since it cannot always be
mentioned previously, this sheet contains the state of
assumed that all of the solar arrays will be directly
the spacecraft design. The Model State is the source of
facing the sun, the Power sheet includes an analysis tool
data for all of the analysis tools, as well as any
that simulates the solar illumination for each of the
subsystem sheets that require information on the
spacecraft body surfaces and deployable panels (Figure
present spacecraft design. This arrangement ensures
10).
that design data is consistent throughout the model.
Top
Surface Illum ination (One Orbit)
Bottom
Database
1 Side 1 The Database sheet is a collection of tables of
0.9 Side 2 component data for a variety of different components.
0.8 Side 3 These tables act as the source of data for the drop-down
0.7 Side 4
menus used on the subsystem design worksheets. The
Direction Cosine

0.6 Panel 1
0.5 databases contain three categories of components:
0.4 traditional, research, and future or non-existing. At
0.3
present, the data contained in these databases,
0.2
0.1
particularly data on “traditional” components, requires
0 modernization and population by components that are
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 appropriate for small satellites. The ability to
True Anom aly (deg)
incorporate fictional components into the databases
allows technology insertion scenarios to be studied,
Figure 10 Solar illumination for each spacecraft while still retaining a clear delineation between real and
surface projected data.

Mass Properties & Distribution Cost

The Mass Properties & Distribution sheet provides the The Cost model makes use of various parametric cost
designer with a way to distribute the component masses relationships that are derived from Aerospace’s Small
on the different surfaces and panels of the spacecraft, as Satellite Cost Model8,9. However, many future small
well as within several internal “zones”. This mass satellites may use non-traditional space components
distribution information can then be used for thermal that cost relationships based on historical data are ill
equipped to model. The lack of testing, handling, and
7

Allan I. McInnes 15th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites

government oversight make non-space-qualified project was also supported by the United States Air
hardware less expensive to purchase and assemble. A Force Space Test Program.
survey of non-space industry electronic components
may be beneficial to assist in understanding how to References
better provide accurate cost relationships for non- 1. Helvajian, H., Microengineering Aerospace
traditional components. Systems, The Aerospace Press, El Segundo CA,
1999.
Conclusions 2. Janson, S.W., “Mass-producible Silicon Spacecraft
Small satellites are becoming a popular choice for low- for 21st Century Missions”, AIAA Space
cost, rapidly developed space systems. The application Technology Conference & Expo, Albuquerque,
of systems engineering methodologies to small satellite NM, Sept 1999.
development will help to ensure that small satellites are 3. Hammond, W.E., Space Transportation: A Systems
not only low-cost, but fulfill their mission objectives. Approach to Design and Analysis, AIAA, Reston
Existing tools for satellite systems engineering tend to VA, 1999.
be biased toward large spacecraft, and lack capabilities 4. Aguilar, J.A., Dawdy, A. and G. W. Law, “The
that are necessary for small satellite design. As a result, Aerospace Corporation’s Concept Design Center.”
The Aerospace Corporation is developing a systems Proceedings of the 8th Annual International
engineering tool, known as the SmallSatCEM, intended Symposium of the International Council on Systems
to support small satellite design studies. Engineering, July 26-30 1998.
5. Shishko, R. and R.G. Chamberlain, NASA Systems
The SmallSatCEM is implemented as a self-contained Engineering Handbook, SP-6105, June 1995.
Microsoft Excel workbook, with a Visual Basic 6. Wertz, J.R. and W. J. Larson, Space Mission
backend to handle complex tasks. The tool is intended Analysis and Design, Microcosm Press, Torrance
to support the classical iterative design cycle, without CA, 1999.
the need to consult subsystem experts or gather data 7. Griffin, M.D., and J.R. French, Space Vehicle
from external software. To this end, the workbook Design, AIAA, Reston VA, 1991.
includes small satellite component databases, as well as 8. Burgess, E.L., N.Y. Lao, and D.A. Bearden,
physical models and analysis tools selected for their “Small-Satellite Cost Estimating Relationships.”
relevance to small satellite design tasks. Proceedings of the 9th Annual AIAA/USU
Conference on Small Satellites, Logan UT,
Development of the SmallSatCEM is ongoing. The September 1995.
SmallSatCEM team is working to complete and 9. Small Satellite Cost Model
validate the existing SmallSatCEM design. Once the http://www.aero.org/software/sscm/
SmallSatCEM is fully implemented and in operation
the development team will begin planning for the
extensions or improvements that will invariably arise
from actual real-world experience with the tool.
Additionally, portions of the SmallSatCEM are being
transitioned to the CDC, further enhancing the CDC’s
small satellite design capabilities.

As the development of the SmallSatCEM proceeds, the

structure of the tool is becoming much more complex.
This has caused concerns about the maintainability and
robustness of the workbook. The Visual Basic
backend, in particular, takes some effort to understand.
It is hoped that an aggressive code cleanup and
documentation effort will help to mitigate these
problems.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of The
Aerospace Corporation’s Corporate Research Initiative
and Engineering Methods programs, and the Center for
Microtechnology, in making this work possible. This

Allan I. McInnes 15th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites

Biography for Allan I. McInnes
Allan I. McInnes is a member of the Vehicle Concepts
Department at The Aerospace Corporation. He is
primarily concerned with the conceptual design of
space vehicles, and the development of systems
engineering tools such as the SmallSatCEM. He has
been involved in several studies examining future small
satellite concepts, as well as studies supporting the
MILSATCOM, SBR and GMSP programs. In addition
to his work on the SmallSatCEM, Mr. McInnes is
presently supporting a review of the design tools used
in the PDC, as well as being involved in the JPL MER
fault protection effort. Prior to joining The Aerospace
Corporation, Mr. McInnes developed avionics test
software for RJO Inc. He holds an MS in Engineering
from Purdue University.

Biography for Daniel M. Harps

Daniel M. Harps is a member of the Vehicle Concepts
Department at The Aerospace Corporation. His primary
focus is the conceptual design of space vehicles. This
includes the development and use of concurrent system
design tools such as CEMs and the tools used in the
CDC. Mr. Harps is currently a full-time graduate
student at UCLA studying Micro-Electro-Mechanical
Systems (MEMS), working part time at The Aerospace
Corporation during the school year. He received his
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Brigham Young
University in 1999.

Biography for Jeffrey A. Lang

Jeffrey A. Lang is a member of the Vehicle Concepts
Department at The Aerospace Corporation. He has
been involved in several studies examining future small
satellite concepts, as well as providing CAD support for
programs such as SBIRS, C/NOFS, and NPOESS. Mr.
Lang is currently a full-time student at California State
University Long Beach studying Aerospace
Engineering, working part time at The Aerospace
Corporation during the school year.

Biography for Dr. Charles M. Swenson

Dr. Charles M. Swenson is an Assistant Professor in the
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at
Utah State University. He graduated with his Ph.D. in
Electrical Engineering from Cornell University in 1992,
and joined the faculty at Utah State University that
same year. His research expertise is in experimental
space science and space systems engineering, and his
teaching responsibilities include the space systems
engineering curriculum at Utah State. Currently Dr.
Swenson is a principle investigator on USUSAT, and
part of the ION-F team within the AFOSR/DARPA
University Nanosatellite Program. He has been an
architect for the SmallSatCEM while on sabbatical at
The Aerospace Corporation.
9

Allan I. McInnes 15th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites