·······

What Are Nano-Satellites and CubeSats?

August 9, 2025
by
What Are Nano-Satellites and CubeSats?
What Are Nano-Satellites and CubeSats

What Are Nano-Satellites and CubeSats?

Nano-satellites (nanosats) are small satellites defined by mass – typically between 1 kg and 10 kg nanosats.eu. They are part of the broader “small satellite” family, which includes microsatellites (10–100 kg) and even smaller classes like picosatellites and femtosatellites nanosats.eu. Nano-satellites are tiny compared to conventional satellites (which often weigh hundreds or thousands of kilograms), yet they can perform useful missions in orbit.

CubeSats are a specific type of nano-satellite defined not just by mass but by a standardized size and form factor. A CubeSat is built from one or more 10×10×10 cm cubic units (called “U” for Unit) mdpi.com. A 1U CubeSat is a cube roughly 10 cm on a side and weighs up to about 1.3–2 kg mdpi.com. Larger CubeSats are made by combining these units – for example, a 3U CubeSat is about the size of a loaf of bread (three cubes in a row, ~30 cm long) and a 6U is about the size of a large shoebox illdefined.space. Standard CubeSat sizes today range from tiny 0.25U versions up to 12U or even 16U, which might weigh tens of kilograms nanosats.eu. The key is that all adhere to the CubeSat Design Specification – an unofficial “CubeSat standard” – which fixes the dimensions and basic requirements for these satellites nanosats.eu. This standardization allows CubeSats to be built and tested in a modular way and to fit into common deployment pods.

In simple terms, a CubeSat is a nano-satellite that follows a specific cube-shaped standard. All CubeSats are nano-satellites (by mass), but not all nano-satellites are CubeSats (some may have non-standard shapes). The popularity of the CubeSat format is due to its simplicity and affordability: it leverages many off-the-shelf components from the electronics industry, and multiple CubeSats can be deployed using the same standardized deployer mechanisms en.wikipedia.org. CubeSats have made access to space far more reachable for universities, small companies, and even hobbyists than traditional large satellites.

History and Evolution of CubeSats

The CubeSat concept was born in 1999 as an educational project. Professors Jordi Puig-Suari of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and Bob Twiggs of Stanford University wanted their students to be able to “design, build, test and operate in space” a small, inexpensive satellite – essentially giving graduate students the experience of an entire space mission within the constraints of academia en.wikipedia.org. They developed the original CubeSat specification as a 10 cm cube “teaching tool”ceng.calpoly.edu. In Puig-Suari’s words, CubeSats became a “sandbox where the industry learned how to do space in a different way – faster, smaller, taking more risk and leveraging technological developments of non-space industries” ceng.calpoly.edu. In other words, the introduction of CubeSats in the early 2000s enabled trying new approaches that larger, more expensive satellites couldn’t risk.

The first CubeSats were launched in June 2003, when a Russian rocket (Eurockot) carried a cluster of six student-built CubeSats into orbit en.wikipedia.org. Throughout the 2000s, more universities followed suit. By 2012, around 75 CubeSats had made it to orbit en.wikipedia.org – mostly academic projects testing out this new paradigm. Initially, academia dominated CubeSat launches, but that began to change in the early 2010s. In 2013, for the first time, over half of CubeSat launches were for non-academic (commercial or amateur) missions, and by 2014 the majority were commercial or non-academic ventures en.wikipedia.org. This shift marked the start of CubeSats’ evolution from mere student experiments to serious tools for business and research.

Over the next decade, CubeSats proliferated rapidly. Thousands of students worldwide have now built and launched CubeSats, and what began as a college project has “turned into a billion-dollar industry” according to Ryan Nugent, director of the Cal Poly CubeSat Lab ceng.calpoly.edu. CubeSats “played a major part in bringing about a renewed enthusiasm about space that hasn’t been there since the Moon landing,” Nugent noted ceng.calpoly.edu. In 2022, the original CubeSat design was inducted into the Space Technology Hall of Fame for its game-changing impact on the space sector ceng.calpoly.edu. Even Jordi Puig-Suari admitted being “overwhelmed” at how much the space industry changed because of CubeSats – “when we started, we never expected to have such a significant effect… I am very proud… that I helped change the world for the better.” ceng.calpoly.edu

Key milestones and evolution points:

  • 2003: First CubeSats launched, proving the concept en.wikipedia.org.
  • 2006–2010s: Steady growth with mostly university missions. Establishment of deployment systems like the Poly-PicoSatellite Orbital Deployer (P-POD) by Cal Poly that became a standard way to eject CubeSats into space.
  • 2010: NASA launches its CubeSat Launch Initiative (CSLI), offering free launch opportunities for educational and non-profit CubeSats. (Since inception, NASA’s CSLI has launched over 150 CubeSats via its Educational Launch of Nanosatellites program public.ksc.nasa.gov.)
  • 2013: A tipping point – dozens of CubeSats deployed, and more than half no longer purely academic en.wikipedia.org. Private sector and government start using CubeSats.
  • Mid-2010s: Growth of commercial CubeSat companies and international adoption. CubeSats begin to carry more advanced payloads (cameras, scientific instruments). Many nations’ first-ever satellites were CubeSats launched in this period, often built by local universities en.wikipedia.org.
  • Late 2010s: CubeSats go beyond Earth orbit for the first time, demonstrating interplanetary capabilities. (In 2018 NASA sent two CubeSats to Mars – more on that below.) The number of launches per year accelerates dramatically.
  • 2020s: CubeSats are now a staple of space activity. They regularly hitch rides on big rockets and even on dedicated small launchers. By the end of 2023, over 2,300 CubeSats had been launched in total en.wikipedia.org, and they feature in high-profile missions (for example, ten CubeSats were even sent to the Moon on NASA’s Artemis I mission in 2022). CubeSats have evolved from simple beeping “Sputnik-like” picosats to platforms capable of complex Earth observation, communication networks, and scientific experiments.

CubeSats’ journey from a classroom idea to an industry standard showcases how innovation can democratize space. The standardized approach “made it relatively simple and affordable” for many organizations outside traditional big aerospace to participate in space research ceng.calpoly.edu. Today, virtually anyone – from a small startup to a high school – can aspire to build a satellite, thanks to CubeSats.

CubeSat Design and Components

One reason CubeSats succeeded is their straightforward, Lego-like design approach. The 1U blocks can be combined to make larger satellites, and the design specification imposes certain rules (e.g. the cube must have specific features for deployers, like rails or tabs on the edges nanosats.eu). This ensures any CubeSat will fit in a standardized deployer and can piggyback to space with minimal fuss.

Despite their tiny size, CubeSats contain all the fundamental subsystems of a regular satellite. A basic CubeSat typically includes:

  • Structure: A lightweight frame (often aluminum) that conforms to the 10×10 cm cross-section. This frame protects the satellite and provides mounting points for other components.
  • Power: Solar panels (sometimes body-mounted on the sides of the cube, or deployable panels on larger CubeSats) and rechargeable batteries. Even a 1U CubeSat can generate a few watts of power with its solar cells. An Electrical Power System (EPS) manages power distribution and battery charging.
  • On-board Computer (OBC): A small computer or microcontroller that controls the satellite’s functions. CubeSats often use COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) processors similar to those in smartphones or hobbyist boards, running simple real-time operating systems or even Arduino-like code. This computer handles tasks like collecting sensor data, managing the radio link, and keeping the satellite’s schedule.
  • Communication: A radio transceiver to communicate with ground stations. Many CubeSats use UHF/VHF amateur radio bands or S-band frequencies to send telemetry and receive commands. The antenna may be a deployable tape measure-like whip or a small patch antenna. Communication is typically low-bandwidth (a few kilobits per second), though newer CubeSats can use higher frequencies for better data rates.
  • Attitude Determination and Control (ADCS): Many CubeSats include basic attitude control – determining and adjusting their orientation in space. This might be as simple as a magnet that passively aligns with Earth’s magnetic field, or more complex systems using gyroscopes, magnetorquers (electromagnets), sun sensors, and even tiny reaction wheels. Fully 3-axis stabilized CubeSats exist (especially in 3U or larger formats) to point cameras or antennas.
  • Payload: The payload is the mission-specific part of a CubeSat. It can be a camera for Earth imaging, a scientific instrument (like a spectrometer, radiation detector, or even a tiny radar), a radio receiver (for example, to collect ship tracking data), or a technology demonstrator (such as a prototype solar sail or an experimental processor). In CubeSats, payloads often leverage miniaturized versions of sensors – e.g. a CubeSat Earth imager might use a camera not much different from a commercial compact camera or smartphone camera sensor.

Despite using simple components, some modern CubeSats are quite sophisticated. Engineers have to innovate to make subsystems very small and efficient. For instance, fitting a propulsion system in a CubeSat is challenging but now possible – there are tiny electric thrusters and cold-gas thrusters designed for 3U or larger CubeSats. The CubeSat standard typically limits each 1U module to ~2 kg and certain amounts of stored energy for safety nanosats.eu, so designers must carefully choose lightweight, low-power parts. Often, CubeSat builders will buy readily available “CubeSat kit” components (there’s a marketplace of companies selling CubeSat radios, solar panels, structures, etc.), which keeps costs down, but they may also custom-build parts to maximize performance.

Notably, CubeSats use a great deal of consumer technology – one of the revolutionary aspects is that they incorporate modern commercial chips and sensors that were originally mass-produced for consumer electronics. This approach was unheard of in early spacecraft (which used expensive space-rated components). By using smartphone-grade cameras or laptop-grade processors, CubeSats trade some reliability for dramatically lower cost and cutting-edge capability. As Puig-Suari said, CubeSats leverage “technological developments of non-space industries, such as the commercial electronics sector” ceng.calpoly.edu. It’s common to find CubeSat parts like an onboard computer running on an ARM Cortex processor, or flash memory similar to a USB stick, etc. Engineers mitigate risks (like radiation effects) through clever software and sometimes hardware redundancy, but accept that CubeSats may have shorter lifespans or higher failure rates – and that’s okay given their low cost.

Typical CubeSat sizes and their uses: A 1U CubeSat (10 cm cube) is the simplest but has very limited power and volume – often used for basic technology demos, educational projects, or simple science measurements. 3U CubeSats (30 cm long) are popular because they can host better antennas and larger payloads (many Earth-imaging cubes are 3U size illdefined.space). 6U (approximately 10×20×34 cm) and 12U (20×20×34 cm) CubeSats provide still more capability, even approaching the performance of small traditional satellites, and are being used for more advanced missions (some lunar CubeSats are 6U or 12U). The largest standardized format, 16U to 27U, blurs the line between “CubeSat” and “small satellite” – at that size (over 20–30 kg) they have substantial power and payload capacity, but these are less common so far.

In summary, the CubeSat design is minimalist but complete. By focusing on the essentials and using standard unit sizes, CubeSats can be built quickly and serve many different missions despite their size.

Building and Launching CubeSats

One of the greatest advantages of CubeSats is how quickly and cheaply they can be built and launched compared to traditional spacecraft. Traditional satellites often take many years (5–10 years) of development and testing and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. In contrast, a nanosatellite or CubeSat might have a development cycle of months to a year and cost in the tens of thousands to low millions range weforum.org.

Peter Platzer, CEO of smallsat company Spire, highlighted that “traditional satellites typically cost several hundred million dollars…and require a dedicated rocket. Nanosatellites, in comparison, cost less than a million dollars, have a 6-month development cycle (or less), and ‘ride along’ as a secondary payload” on rockets already going to space weforum.org. In fact, a basic 1U CubeSat built by a university team can cost on the order of $50,000 to construct using commercial parts en.wikipedia.org. Many student teams have managed to build CubeSats even cheaper by using donated components or off-the-shelf consumer devices – for example, in 2013 NASA demonstrated “PhoneSat”, a CubeSat built around an off-the-shelf smartphone as the onboard computer, which proved that a phone’s sensors and processors could run a satellite en.wikipedia.org.

Manufacturing a CubeSat has become easier due to a growing ecosystem of suppliers. Companies offer CubeSat component kits (structure frames, power systems, etc.) that can simply be assembled. There are also now specialized small satellite manufacturers who will build turnkey CubeSats for customers. However, interestingly, many of the companies that operate large CubeSat constellations (like Planet and Spire) design and build their satellites in-house to iterate quickly and control costs illdefined.space. Planet Labs, for instance, has manufactured hundreds of “Dove” CubeSats internally, sometimes building 30–40 satellites in a single year to refresh their Earth-imaging fleet illdefined.space.

Launch is another area where CubeSats broke new ground. Traditionally, getting a satellite to orbit is very expensive, but CubeSats don’t need a whole rocket to themselves. Instead, they rideshare: they hitch a ride as secondary payloads on launches of larger spacecraft. The CubeSats are packed into deployment boxes (like the Cal Poly P-POD or newer deployers from companies such as Nanoracks or ISISpace) which are attached to a rocket’s upper stage. When the primary mission has reached orbit, the CubeSat deployers eject the little satellites like spring-loaded jack-in-the-boxes into space. Because they are small and standardized, dozens of CubeSats can be released on a single launch without interfering with the main satellite’s mission en.wikipedia.org.

This rideshare approach dramatically lowers the cost. For example, SpaceX’s Smallsat Rideshare program (started in 2021) offers slots for up to 50 kg of small satellites for a flat price – originally about $5,000 per kg, now about $6,500 per kg in 2025 payloadspace.com. In practical terms, a CubeSat the size of a loaf of bread (3U, ~4–5 kg) can get a ride to orbit for on the order of ~$100,000. SpaceX advertises a 50 kg slot to a popular sun-synchronous orbit for $275,000 satcatalog.com, which multiple CubeSats can share. Never before has access to orbit been this affordable on a per-satellite basis. As a result, universities, companies, even high school teams can sometimes fund a launch. (In some cases, educational CubeSats fly free: NASA’s CSLI or similar programs in other countries will cover the launch cost for selected student-built satellites.)

CubeSats can be launched on virtually any rocket with spare capacity. They’ve flown on large rockets (like Atlas V, Falcon 9, PSLV, Soyuz), medium rockets, and even dedicated small launchers. In the mid-2010s a wave of new small launch vehicles were developed to cater to the smallsat market – such as Rocket Lab’s Electron (first launched in 2017), which frequently carries CubeSats. Other small launchers like Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne (air-launched rocket), Firefly Alpha, and Astra’s rockets were aimed at giving CubeSats dedicated rides to custom orbits. However, the booming rideshare options on big rockets (especially SpaceX’s regular Transporter missions) have made it easy to get to space without waiting too long. In 2023, for example, nearly 75% of all nano-satellites flew on SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets via rideshares nanosats.eu – a testament to how routine smallsat launches have become.

Many CubeSats also reach orbit via the International Space Station (ISS). NASA and JAXA have facilities on the ISS to deploy CubeSats (astronauts load them into a small airlock and a robotic arm pushes them into space). These deployments are at a relatively low altitude (~400 km), which is great for short-duration experiments. It’s been a popular route for academic CubeSats because you can piggyback on cargo resupply missions to the ISS. Planet Labs used the ISS deployment for many of its early Earth-imaging CubeSats, because at that low orbit the satellites would naturally decay after a year or so – a form of self-cleaning orbit that mitigates debris (Planet explicitly chose this to be responsible – more on that later) spaceflightnow.com.

In summary, launching a CubeSat is no longer the hardest part of a space mission – a revolutionary change. The standardized nature means if you can build a compliant CubeSat, there’s likely a launch opportunity somewhere to get it up. And with modern rideshare pricing, the launch might be within the budget of a small company or university department. This accessibility of launch is a key factor in the CubeSat boom.

Cost and Accessibility

The low cost of CubeSat development and launch has truly democratized access to space. A traditional space mission often costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, effectively limiting space to national agencies and large corporations. CubeSats, on the other hand, brought the price of a satellite mission down to the realm of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. While still not cheap in everyday terms, this is affordable to many universities and startups. As of the mid-2020s, industry analyses valued the CubeSat market around $500 million per year and forecast growth to over $1.5 billion by the early 2030s stellarmr.com – indicating how many more players are jumping in.

Some concrete cost figures: building a simple 1U CubeSat from a kit might be ~$50k en.wikipedia.org. More complex 3U or 6U CubeSats with scientific instruments could run into the few hundred thousand (once you account for testing, labor, etc.), and the most advanced CubeSats (with propulsion, deployable arrays, or high-end sensors) can cost in the low millions. For example, the LightSail-2 CubeSat (a 3U spacecraft that demonstrated solar sailing) cost a few million dollars to build and operate – largely due to its innovative payload – whereas a “typical” 3U CubeSat can be done for a fraction of that en.wikipedia.org. By comparison, even a cheap traditional satellite mission (like a micro-satellite) would likely cost at least $10–$20 million. The cost reduction is one or two orders of magnitude.

On the launch side, as discussed, a CubeSat launch can be as low as ~$100k via a rideshare, especially if sharing the slot with others. Some academic CubeSat teams have reported total mission budgets on the order of $100k–$200k including both satellite and launch, especially if launch was subsidized. To put this in perspective, 10 CubeSats at $50k each could be built for the cost of one traditional satellite in the $500 million range – a startling difference. In fact, a market report noted that even at the upper end, “CubeSats are typically much cheaper to create” than regular satellites, sometimes cited in the range of $5,000 to $50,000 per unit for production (not including launch) when mass-produced stellarmr.com. Even if some figures are optimistic, there is no doubt CubeSats are the economy cars of the space industry.

Who can access space via CubeSats? The answer: a much wider community than ever before. Universities were the pioneers – students built the first CubeSats and continue to build them as educational projects. Now, high schools have built CubeSats (with help from mentors) that have flown in space. Small countries have leveraged CubeSat programs to get a foothold in space research; as mentioned, in many cases a CubeSat was the first satellite of a country – for example, Estonia’s first satellite (ESTCube-1 in 2013) was a CubeSat built by students spaceflightnow.com, and similar stories apply to countries from Ghana to Nepal to the Philippines in the 2010s. The United Nations and agencies like JAXA have programs (e.g. KiboCUBE with the UN) to provide developing nations with opportunities to deploy a CubeSat from the ISS, lowering the entry barrier for countries that never had a space program before.

Private companies, even very small startups, can afford to build a prototype CubeSat to test a business idea in orbit. In the 2020s we’ve seen a surge of space startups thanks to this – entrepreneurs can raise a few hundred thousand dollars from investors or crowdfunding, and actually get a satellite in orbit to demonstrate a service, something impossible in the old paradigm. This has been called the “democratization” of space. As Peter Platzer wrote, “in the same way that the personal computer brought computing power to the masses… nanosatellites bring space to the world by bringing down cost and increasing availability by orders of magnitude.” weforum.org Space is no longer the exclusive realm of superpowers or billion-dollar programs; a motivated group of people in a lab (or even a garage) can participate.

None of this is to say CubeSats are easy – they still require specialized knowledge to build and operate, and many things can go wrong. But the opportunity to try and to learn from failures is much greater when the price tag is low. A university can tolerate a $50k student-built satellite failing in orbit; they could never have attempted a $50 million satellite. This tolerance for risk is actually built into the CubeSat philosophy: fail fast, learn, and try again. And indeed, many early CubeSats did fail or had short lifetimes, but each taught valuable lessons that improved the next generation. Now, with more mature technology, even high school teams have managed to build CubeSats that work.

In short, CubeSats slashed the cost barrier to space by a huge factor. That has enabled innovation, hands-on education, and the entry of new space actors worldwide. The result is a more vibrant and inclusive space sector than ever before.

Applications Across Sectors

Though small in size, CubeSats have proven capable in a wide range of applications. Initially used mostly for technology experiments, they are now performing real missions in science, communications, Earth observation and more. A recent comprehensive review of CubeSat missions noted that they have expanded from “basic technology demonstrations to complex mission capabilities, including Earth observation, telecommunications, astronomical research, biological experimentation, and deep-space exploration.” mdpi.com Below are some of the major application areas for CubeSats, with examples:

  • Earth Observation and Remote Sensing: This is one of the most successful CubeSat applications. A constellation of CubeSats can provide frequent, low-cost imagery of the Earth. Planet Labs pioneered this by launching a fleet of 3U “Dove” CubeSats equipped with cameras. They operate the largest Earth-imaging constellation in history, with dozens of CubeSats imaging the entire planet daily at ~3–5 meter resolution. By 2023, Planet had launched over 450 imaging CubeSats (72 of them in the single year 2023) nanosats.eu, enabling researchers, companies, and governments to get daily photos of any location – useful for agriculture, environmental monitoring, disaster response, and more. Other companies use similar small satellites for monitoring greenhouse gases (e.g. GHGSat’s emission-tracking nanosatellites) and weather phenomena. Even weather forecasting can benefit: NASA and NOAA have deployed CubeSat constellations to collect temperature and humidity profiles by measuring GPS signal distortions (e.g. the TROPICS mission of 3U CubeSats in 2023 to monitor tropical storms). CubeSats’ ability to carry multispectral cameras, radiometers, or even synthetic aperture radar (with unfolding antennas) means they can increasingly do tasks once reserved for large Earth observation satellites, albeit at lower cost and resolution.
  • Communications and IoT: Communications is another sector embracing small sats. While a single CubeSat has limited bandwidth and power, large numbers can form networks. Spire Global operates a constellation of over 100 CubeSats (primarily 3U) that collect global data and also serve certain communication roles illdefined.space. Their Lemur CubeSats, for instance, gather Automatic Identification System (AIS) signals from ships and ADS-B signals from aircraft globally, which is both a form of remote sensing and communication relay. Swarm Technologies (acquired by SpaceX) deploys tiny 1/4U SpaceBEE satellites to form an Internet-of-Things (IoT) network, essentially an orbital text-messaging service for very low-rate data from connected devices anywhere on Earth. A Swarm satellite is as small as 11×11×2.8 cm (truly “bite-sized”), yet with a fleet of them, they provide global coverage for asset tracking or sensor data relay. These examples show CubeSats enabling “space-based internet” services on a shoestring budget. In addition, some CubeSats serve as amateur radio satellites, acting as repeaters or transmitting images and telemetry that ham radio operators can receive – continuing a long tradition of educational and amateur communications experiments.
  • Science and Exploration: Scientists have started to use CubeSats as mini space probes and research instruments. In low Earth orbit, many CubeSats study Earth’s atmosphere, space weather, and magnetic field. For example, a group of CubeSats might study how plasma interacts with Earth’s magnetosphere, or measure cosmic radiation at low cost. Some carry tiny telescopes or detectors for astronomical observations (though modest aperture limits their capability). Notably, bio-medical research has flown on CubeSats – for instance, one CubeSat contained colonies of yeast to study DNA damage from space radiation (the BioSentinel mission). CubeSats also shine as technology demonstrators for exploration: NASA’s MarCO mission in 2018 sent two CubeSats (each 6U in size) on a journey to Mars. These became the first CubeSats to operate in deep space, relaying live data from the InSight Mars lander’s descent back to Earth en.wikipedia.org. MarCO demonstrated that even mini-satellites could handle the rigors of interplanetary travel and perform critical communication relay functions at 150 million kilometers away. Following that, NASA has launched CubeSats towards the Moon – in 2022, the CAPSTONE CubeSat (12U size) was sent to the Moon to survey a novel orbit and became the first CubeSat to orbit the Moon nasa.gov. CubeSats were also part of the Artemis I mission: NASA and partners packed 10 CubeSats into the Artemis I launch to perform various lunar and deep-space experiments en.wikipedia.org. While not all were successful, this underscores that even flagship exploration programs now include CubeSats as ancillary missions to gather additional science. We can expect future Mars or asteroid missions to bring along CubeSat companions to scout or collect data in parallel with larger craft.
  • Education and Training: This was the original purpose of CubeSats and remains a cornerstone application. Universities worldwide include CubeSat projects in their aerospace engineering or science curricula, giving students hands-on experience. Many CubeSats carry simple science experiments or technology tests devised by students. The educational impact is immense – an entire generation of young engineers has now built hardware that flew in space, which is incredibly inspiring. Programs like ESA’s “Fly Your Satellite!” and NASA’s educational launch initiatives explicitly support these student-built missions. Even when the primary goal is education, these CubeSats often contribute useful data to scientific studies (e.g. measuring lower thermosphere properties or testing novel sensors). Some CubeSats are built by international collaborations of students, fostering global cooperation. The accessibility of CubeSats means even schools with limited resources or countries new to space can participate, building local human capital in STEM fields.
  • Military and Defense Applications: Defense organizations are also exploring CubeSats for their needs. Their low cost and quick development are attractive for testing new tactical space capabilities. For example, militaries have launched CubeSats carrying experimental communication payloads, sensors for Earth observation/reconnaissance on a budget, or to serve as calibration targets and training for space surveillance. The U.S. Army and Air Force have sponsored CubeSat programs (like the Kestrel Eye imaging CubeSat for tactical ground image support, or DARPA’s various smallsat challenges). CubeSats won’t replace large spy satellites for high-resolution imaging or secure communications, but they can complement them and provide redundancy. A cluster of cheap imagery CubeSats, for instance, could be deployed quickly to get “good enough” pictures over an area of interest, or a swarm of CubeSats could potentially detect missile launches or jam enemy radars in the future. This area is still developing, but defense is a growing slice of the CubeSat user base. Notably, intelligence agencies and the military initially were wary of CubeSats, but as the technology matured, they recognized the value; now even the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) regularly launches CubeSat payloads for technology development.
  • Technology Development and Commercial Services: Lastly, CubeSats themselves are often the application – meaning, companies use CubeSats to test and prove new space technologies (like new miniaturized sensors, propulsion, or AI on a chip in space) which can later be scaled up. They are also increasingly offering direct services: commercial ventures use CubeSats to provide daily imaging (Planet), weather data (Spire), ship and airplane tracking data (Spire, HawkEye 360), two-way messaging for IoT (Swarm), global AIS ship tracking (exactEarth via Orbcomm’s small sats), and even potentially space-based cloud computing or advertisement (some startups have proposed using small satellites to flash billboards or process data above the atmosphere). One could say we’re in a “smallsat services” era, much of it built on CubeSat-class hardware. These services are often sold to enterprises or government agencies, who appreciate the lower cost and the ability to refresh the satellite network frequently with new technology (since CubeSats have shorter lifespans, the constellations can be continually updated with improved models).

It’s important to note that CubeSats do have limitations: their small size constrains power and aperture, so they can’t do everything a big satellite can. But part of the innovation has been tailoring missions to what CubeSats can do well. By flying many of them, one can overcome individual limitations (this idea of distributing tasks across a constellation). As the technology in small packages improves (better cameras, better radios, deployable structures, etc.), the line of what is possible with CubeSats keeps moving. In 2025, we’ve already seen CubeSats discover exoplanets (the ASTERIA CubeSat used a tiny telescope to successfully detect exoplanet transits), measure ice clouds (NASA’s IceCube 3U measured atmospheric ice), test solar sails (LightSail-2), and even attempt asteroid encounters (Japan’s OMOTENASHI and ArgoMoon CubeSats were launched towards the Moon on Artemis I). The breadth of applications is only growing.

To quote Spire’s Peter Platzer, “Small, cheap satellites have the power to change businesses and save lives.” weforum.org From tracking illegal fishing to improving weather forecasts in remote regions, CubeSats are directly contributing to solving real-world problems in a way that was impractical before. And by making space more accessible, they have unleashed creativity across sectors – from agriculture to logistics to climate science – spawning new applications that leverage timely, global data from orbit.

Major Players and Organizations Involved

Given the diverse applications above, it’s no surprise that a wide array of players are involved in the CubeSat arena. Here we outline the major categories and examples of key organizations:

  • Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.): Government space agencies were early supporters and users of CubeSats. NASA in particular embraced CubeSats through programs like the CubeSat Launch Initiative (which, as noted, has launched 150+ educational CubeSats) and has integrated CubeSats into science missions (e.g., MarCO at Mars, Lunar Flashlight, BioSentinel, etc.). NASA uses CubeSats to “bridge strategic knowledge gaps” and as low-cost testbeds for new technologies sciencedirect.com. ESA (European Space Agency) likewise runs CubeSat programs, often through its Education Office (the “Fly Your Satellite!” program for university teams) and as part of technology demonstration missions. Both NASA and ESA fund the development of advanced CubeSat technologies (like mini propulsion, inter-satellite communications, etc.) to expand what these minisats can do. Other national agencies – e.g. JAXA (Japan), ISRO (India), Roscosmos (Russia), CNSA (China) – have all launched CubeSats or supported their universities/companies to do so. In fact, virtually every spacefaring nation now has some CubeSat activity. Even smaller national agencies in countries like South Korea, Australia, Canada, and many in South America and Africa are investing in CubeSat projects as a way to bolster their space capabilities at low cost. For space agencies, CubeSats are a fantastic way to engage the next generation, fill niche data needs, and try out cutting-edge tech quickly. However, agencies typically don’t rely on CubeSats for critical operational needs (e.g., you wouldn’t replace NOAA’s big weather satellites entirely with CubeSats – but you might augment them or test new sensors on CubeSats first).
  • Universities and Research Institutions: The role of academia is central. The university CubeSat is practically a genre in itself. Dozens of universities around the world have CubeSat development labs or clubs. Cal Poly and Stanford started it, but many others took up the torch: MIT, University of Michigan, Georgia Tech, UT Austin, Cornell, among many in the U.S., as well as international players like TU Delft (Netherlands), University of Tokyo (Japan), Surrey (UK), UPC Barcelona (Spain), etc. These institutions have collectively launched hundreds of CubeSats. They often partner with agencies (for launch or funding) and sometimes with industry. University CubeSats usually aim to publish scientific results or demonstrate a new idea (because the “currency” of academia is research output and student training). A special mention is that some high schools and educational nonprofits have also entered the fray, inspiring pre-college students. The prominence of universities means CubeSats have been a tool for workforce development in aerospace – many graduates who cut their teeth on CubeSats go on to join space companies or start their own.
  • Private Companies – CubeSat Operators: A number of private companies specialize in operating CubeSat constellations to provide services. We’ve mentioned some: Planet Labs (imagery), Spire Global (weather, ship/aircraft data, Earth data analytics), Swarm (IoT messaging). These companies are essentially space data providers powered by CubeSat hardware. Another one is GeoOptics (collecting weather data via GPS radio occultation, similar to Spire), and HawkEye 360 which uses slightly larger smallsats to monitor radio frequency emissions (for spectrum mapping, signal intelligence etc.). There are also companies like AST SpaceMobile and OneWeb that are deploying small satellites for broadband – though those are microsats, not CubeSat form factor, it shows how the mindset of many-satellites-in-constellation influenced by CubeSats has permeated the industry. According to industry analyses, just a few commercial players account for a large share of all CubeSats deployed in recent years. In 2019–2024, nearly half of all CubeSats launched were from just four companies: Planet, Spire, Swarm (now part of SpaceX), and a company called Sitronics (which operates CubeSats for Earth observation) illdefined.space. Planet alone launched roughly 270 CubeSats in that period (averaging ~45 per year) to maintain and expand its fleet illdefined.space. These companies typically manufacture the satellites themselves (Planet and Spire both do, as noted) because it’s integral to their business to rapidly iterate on design and replace satellites as they re-enter or become obsolete illdefined.space. Their success has proven the viability of CubeSat-based businesses and attracted investment into the sector.
  • Private Companies – Manufacturers and Suppliers: Apart from those who operate the sats, there is a whole ecosystem of companies that build CubeSats or supply components as a service to others. Examples include AAC Clyde Space (formed from Clyde Space in Scotland and ÅAC Microtec in Sweden), GomSpace (Denmark), NanoAvionics (Lithuania/U.S.), Blue Canyon Technologies (U.S.), Tyvak (U.S.), ISISpace (Netherlands), Pumpkin Inc. (one of the early providers of CubeSat kits), Sinclair Interplanetary (now part of Rocket Lab, known for reaction wheels and magnetorquers for CubeSats), and many more. These companies will sell you off-the-shelf CubeSat buses or custom-build one for your mission. They serve both commercial operators who don’t want to build everything in-house and government/academic customers who have a mission idea but need industry help to realize it. As noted in one analysis, however, they face competition from the in-house manufacturing of big constellations illdefined.space. Still, the “CubeSat supply chain” is well-established. Even launch providers like SpaceX and Rocket Lab have subsidiaries or programs to integrate CubeSat deployments (e.g., Rocket Lab acquired Sinclair and offers a full “satellite as a service” to customers).
  • Space Launch Providers: While not CubeSat builders per se, they are key stakeholders. Companies like SpaceX (with its rideshare program) and Rocket Lab (small dedicated launches) have largely enabled the CubeSat proliferation by offering affordable launch slots. There are also brokers like Spaceflight Industries and NanoRacks that aggregate CubeSat launches. These players sometimes appear in CubeSat discussions as “major players” because without them, none of these small satellites reach orbit. The synergy between cheap reusable rockets (SpaceX) and lots of CubeSats is an important part of the ecosystem. In 2023, SpaceX’s frequent Transporter missions set records for number of satellites deployed – a single Falcon 9 can release over 100 small satellites, many of them CubeSats. This has made SpaceX something of a dominant launch provider for CubeSats recently nanosats.eu. Meanwhile, Rocket Lab’s dedicated smaller rocket can place CubeSats into orbits that big rockets might not reach (like specific inclinations). New launchers (Firefly, Virgin Orbit’s now-defunct LauncherOne, Astra, and upcoming ones like Relativity’s Terran or ISRO’s SSLV) all target this smallsat launch market. It’s a competitive area driven by the demand that CubeSats helped create.
  • Organizations and Consortia: It’s also worth noting various organizations that maintain resources for CubeSat developers. For instance, the CubeSat Project at Cal Poly keeps the CubeSat Design Specification updated and hosts developer workshops. The Nanosatellite & CubeSat Database (by Erik Kulu) is a well-known public resource tracking all CubeSat launches nanosats.eu. Professional conferences like the annual SmallSat Conference in Utah and the CubeSat Developers Workshop in California are gathering points for all these players. And space industry groups including the Space Foundation (which honored CubeSats) and various national space societies promote what CubeSats are doing.

In summary, the CubeSat revolution is a multi-player effort: NASA and ESA gave early boosts and use them for science; companies like Planet and Spire turned them into viable businesses; universities worldwide treat them as training grounds and innovation testbeds; and a supporting industry of manufacturers and launch providers has arisen to feed the demand. This interconnected network keeps pushing the boundaries of what CubeSats can do.

Notable CubeSat Missions

To appreciate the impact of CubeSats, let’s look at a selection of notable missions (past and present) that exemplify their achievements:

  • First CubeSats (2003): The inaugural launch in June 2003 included CubeSat XI-IV (built by Tokyo University) and several others from universities like Cal Poly and Stanford’s partners en.wikipedia.org. These 1U CubeSats were primitive by today’s standards – their goals were often just to send a simple beacon signal, take a single picture, or demonstrate that student-built electronics could survive launch. Yet this mission proved the viability of the concept and kicked off the global CubeSat movement.
  • GeneSat-1 (2006): One of NASA Ames Research Center’s early CubeSats (a 3U) that carried living bacteria to study how they respond to space environment. GeneSat-1 was one of the first biological experiments in a CubeSat and it operated successfully, showing that even life science research could be done on this small platform.
  • PhoneSat (2013): A series of tiny 1U CubeSats built by NASA Ames that literally used an Android smartphone as the central avionics. PhoneSat 1.0 and 2.0 were launched in 2013 to see if a phone’s sensors/cameras could function in space and control the satellite en.wikipedia.org. They transmitted photos and proved that a $300 phone can be the brain of a satellite – a striking demonstration of the COTS philosophy. (One of the PhoneSats, amusingly, was named “Alexander” after Alexander Graham Bell, and it sent back the message “Hello, world” in Morse code from orbit.)
  • Flock Constellation (2014–Present): This is Planet Labs’ ongoing mission. The “Flock-1” was first deployed from the ISS in early 2014: a batch of 28 CubeSats, each a 3U Dove imaging satellite, released into orbit to begin imaging Earth. It was the largest single deployment of CubeSats at that time. Since then, Planet has continuously launched Flocks of upgraded Doves (including “SuperDoves” with better imagers). Their notable achievements: first private company to image the whole Earth daily, first to operate 100+ satellites at once in orbit, and demonstrating how to rapidly iterate satellite design (they use an agile development approach, launching new versions every few months). As of the mid-2020s Planet’s constellation is the poster child of commercial CubeSat success, with high reliability and vast data collected. By 2015 they already had 30+ active CubeSats with plans for 100+ spaceflightnow.com, and they reached that goal within a couple years.
  • ESTCube-1 (2013): I single this out as representative of “first national CubeSats.” ESTCube-1 was Estonia’s first satellite (1U), built by students, which launched in 2013 spaceflightnow.com. It carried a novel experiment: an electric solar sail tether deployment in space. Though the tether deployment partly failed, the satellite sent back valuable data and put Estonia on the space map. Similarly, Lithuania’s first sat LitSat-1 and Latvia’s Venta satellite, Peru’s Chasqui, Ghana’s GhanaSat-1, and many others around 2014–2017 were CubeSats. Each is notable for their countries and for demonstrating that space is accessible to new entrants via CubeSats.
  • MarCO – Mars Cube One (2018): Perhaps one of the most dramatic CubeSat missions. MarCO consisted of two 6U CubeSats (nicknamed WALL-E and EVE) built by NASA JPL science.nasa.gov. They launched in May 2018 along with the InSight lander headed to Mars. When InSight was landing on Mars in November 2018, the MarCO CubeSats flew by the planet and received the lander’s telemetry in real time, relaying it back to Earth – essentially acting as miniature Mars orbiting communications satellites. This allowed NASA to get immediate confirmation of InSight’s landing success. It was a risky demo (never before had CubeSats operated outside Earth orbit), but it succeeded brilliantly. They even snapped photos of Mars with tiny cameras science.nasa.gov. MarCO showed that CubeSats could have roles in deep space missions, adding capabilities at relatively low cost ($18.5M total for the MarCO project) science.nasa.gov. As JPL chief engineer Andy Klesh put it, “This mission was always about pushing the limits of miniaturized technology and seeing just how far it could take us… We’ve put a stake in the ground. Future CubeSats might go even farther.” science.nasa.gov
  • LightSail-2 (2019): A 3U CubeSat developed by The Planetary Society (a space advocacy non-profit) to demonstrate solar sail technology. It launched in mid-2019 and successfully deployed a large reflective mylar sail (~32 square meters area) from a small CubeSat frame. LightSail-2 managed to raise its orbit using sunlight pressure – the first time a CubeSat (or any satellite) used solar sailing for propulsion in Earth orbit. This mission fulfilled a long-held vision of using CubeSats to try bold new spaceflight techniques. It also engaged the public (crowdfunded by donations) and proved that even propulsion by light is feasible in a tiny satellite. LightSail-2 operated for over 2 years before reentering, far exceeding its planned mission, which showcased the robustness possible in a well-engineered CubeSat.
  • Artemis I CubeSat Missions (2022): When NASA’s Artemis I mission (the first flight of the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft) launched to the Moon in November 2022, it carried 10 CubeSats as secondary payloads en.wikipedia.org. This was unprecedented – sending ten CubeSats into cislunar space. The missions included: CAPSTONE (which successfully achieved lunar orbit to scout the intended orbit for the future Gateway station) nasa.gov; LunaH-Map (a 6U mapping lunar hydrogen – unfortunately its thruster failed); NEA Scout (a solar sail CubeSat to visit an asteroid – but it never contacted after deployment); BioSentinel (biology experiment with yeast – currently operating beyond the Moon); ArgoMoon (an Italian CubeSat that took images of the mission’s upper stage and Moon); OMOTENASHI (a tiny Japanese lunar lander attempt – it failed to stabilize and crashed); and a few more aimed at various science tasks. Not all succeeded, highlighting that CubeSats in deep space are still challenging. But the mere presence of CubeSats on a Moon mission signaled they are now part of NASA’s exploration toolkit, included even in the most high-profile missions.
  • Planet’s SuperDove & Pelican (2020s): Upgrades to Planet’s constellation – the SuperDove CubeSats (3U) have improved imagers with more spectral bands for environmental monitoring. And Planet is now evolving some satellites to slightly larger “Pelican” smallsats for higher resolution, showing a trend of CubeSat companies graduating to bigger platforms for greater capability once their initial constellation proved the market. It’s notable as a mission trend: start with CubeSats, then perhaps scale up once established.
  • Spire’s Constellation (2010s–2020s): Spire’s 3U CubeSats, called LEMUR, form a multi-purpose constellation. Each LEMUR CubeSat carries an AIS receiver (for ship tracking), an ADS-B receiver (for aircraft tracking), and a GPS radio occultation instrument (for weather data). They have launched over 100 of these, making Spire the second-largest CubeSat operator after Planet illdefined.space. A notable mission within this is Weather forecasting improvement: Spire provides data to meteorological agencies from CubeSat measurements that complement traditional weather satellites by filling gaps, especially over the ocean. This shows a CubeSat constellation directly contributing to something as everyday important as weather prediction.
  • Academic Science Missions: A few examples: QB50 (2017) – a coordinated launch of 36 CubeSats from 23 countries, all studying the lower thermosphere and re-entry phenomena. This was a big international project (EU-sponsored) to get many universities involved in one science campaign. MinXSS – a Colorado University CubeSat that observed the Sun’s soft X-ray spectrum to study solar flares. It produced valuable solar science data. ASTERIA (2017) – a JPL/MIT 6U CubeSat that successfully achieved precision light measurements to find exoplanet transits (it even got a small exoplanet detection, winning a small NASA award for its science). These demonstrate that beyond corporate and exploration missions, CubeSats are contributing to frontline scientific research.

There are many more that could be listed (each CubeSat tends to have a clever acronym and mission patch!), but the above gives a taste of the breadth: from the first tiny beep-only cubes to planetary explorers and operational constellations. And with each year, new “firsts” are achieved: first CubeSat around Mars (MarCO), first at the Moon (CAPSTONE), first solar sail, first to measure this or that phenomenon, etc. CubeSats have become a regular feature of space news ceng.calpoly.edu – something happening almost every week, whether it’s a university announcing their satellite is ready, a rocket deploying 50 of them at once, or a new startup promising a service based on dozens of cubes.

Trends in CubeSat Launches and Market Growth

The growth in CubeSat activity over the past decade has been exponential, and all indications suggest this trend will continue (albeit with some shifts in how CubeSats are used). Some key statistics and trends up to 2025:

  • Rapid Increase in Numbers: “Since the first CubeSat was launched in 2003, their numbers have grown exponentially.” mdpi.com By the end of 2014, around 75 CubeSats had been launched en.wikipedia.org; fast forward to the end of 2023, and over 2,300 CubeSats have been launched in total en.wikipedia.org. This acceleration is striking: the 1,000th CubeSat was launched sometime around 2018 – it took ~15 years to get to 1,000 – but the 2,000th was reached by early 2023, less than 5 years later nanosats.eu. In fact, “it took almost 16 years for the first thousand, and only ~4 years for the second thousand,” as one analysis pointed out nanosats.eu. The pace in 2020s is on the order of several hundred CubeSats per year. 2023 set a new record with 359 CubeSats launched that year (out of 390 total nano-satellites) nanosats.eu. This means CubeSats constituted a significant fraction of all satellites launched worldwide. Part of this surge is due to the mega-rideshare launches and the growth of commercial constellations.
  • Constellation Growth vs Single Missions: Earlier, most CubeSats were one-off missions. Now, we see large constellations accounting for a big chunk of launches. Planet’s continuous deployment and Spire’s constellation replenishment mean dozens every year from just those two companies. However, an emerging trend is that some of these companies are starting to build or use slightly larger satellites as their services mature (for instance, Planet’s next-gen Pelican satellites are larger than CubeSat-class, and some IoT companies moved from 1U to 6U designs for more capability). There is a note in recent data that “most commercial constellations are moving to larger satellites, [but] nanosatellites are not going anywhere.” nanosats.eu This suggests that while some high-volume CubeSat programs may taper as they upsize, new applications for CubeSats will fill in. The CubeSat form factor likely will remain popular for technology demos, academic missions, and new startups, even if mature constellations evolve.
  • Market Projections: The small satellite market (including CubeSats) is one of the fastest growing segments in aerospace. Forecasts vary, but one report pegged the CubeSat market size at $516 million in 2024, with an expected annual growth of ~15% reaching about $1.55 billion by 2032 stellarmr.com. Another way to look at it: by 2024, over 2,500 CubeSats had been launched, and projections indicate over 10,000 CubeSats could be launched within the next decade (by mid-2030s) if current trends continue mdpi.com. This would mean an even more crowded low Earth orbit but also a much larger industry. Growth drivers include increasing demand for Earth observation data, the push for global IoT connectivity, and uses in scientific and defense domains. Growth could further accelerate if breakthroughs occur (for example, if CubeSats become capable of novel deep space missions or new commercial services).
  • Technological Trends: CubeSats are also trending towards more capability. Standard 3U and 6U are giving way to 12U+ for some missions, as mentioned. There’s also a trend toward modularity and plug-and-play components, making it easier for new players to build functional satellites. Another trend is combining CubeSats into coordinated swarms or formations – instead of one satellite trying to do everything, you fly several that communicate with each other (e.g., for making 3D measurements of Earth’s atmosphere or as a distributed antenna array). This concept is gaining traction in scientific proposals. We also see a trend of CubeSats going beyond Earth orbit: after MarCO and Artemis cubes, there are planned CubeSats for asteroid exploration, lunar surface landers (a tiny lander is incredibly hard, but teams are trying), and even concepts for swarms of CubeSats at Mars or in asteroid belts. By the late 2020s, the first interplanetary CubeSat network might be attempted, if ambitious plans by NASA or ESA materialize (for instance, ESA has considered CubeSats accompanying a comet interceptor mission).
  • Reliability and Lifespan: Early CubeSats had a high failure rate (many never contacted or died quickly). As the industry has learned, reliability is improving. Still, academic CubeSats have a reputation for limited lifespans – often 6 months to a year of operation. Commercial ones, built with more resources, last longer (Planet’s newest SuperDoves have design lifetimes of 3-4 years in orbit, limited mostly by orbital decay altitude). A paper in 2024 gathered data on lifetimes and noted a question: are failures increasing with more academic CubeSats? The conclusion was that metrics differ – a partially operational complicated CubeSat might still be more scientifically valuable than a simple one that works perfectly nanosats.eu. In any case, we see slow improvement in quality control as CubeSat projects mature. Many universities now test their CubeSats in thermal-vacuum chambers and do rigorous checks, something not common a decade ago.
  • Economics: The cost per unit of capability keeps dropping. It’s now routine to talk about cost per satellite rather than cost per mission. Some companies manufacture satellites in assembly-line fashion (Planet famously used techniques akin to electronics manufacturing). As manufacturing scales, costs may drop further. However, one new factor is the mega-constellation phenomenon (like SpaceX Starlink with thousands of ~260 kg satellites). While those aren’t CubeSats, they affect the smallsat industry by hogging launch capacity and spectrum. Some smallsat companies have had to adjust plans in the face of Starlink or OneWeb. On the flip side, the huge demand for launch by megaconstellations drove down launch cost for everyone – benefiting CubeSats.

Overall, the trajectory for CubeSats is growth and more growth, but also evolution. We might not always call them “CubeSats” if they outgrow the cube shape, but the principle of small, affordable satellites deployed in large numbers isn’t going away. In the near future, expect to see more integration of small satellites with technologies like AI (onboard data processing to reduce downlink needs), inter-satellite links (CubeSats talking to each other via laser comms, for example, to create networks in space), and hybrid constellations (combining large and small satellites).

Industry watchers will also be keeping an eye on how the market shakes out – will there be consolidation (mergers) among the many smallsat companies? Will the data from these constellations create new industries in analytics (already happening in geospatial analytics startups)? And how will the big players respond – e.g. will traditional satellite manufacturers start mass-producing microsats or CubeSats themselves? In 2020, for instance, Airbus (known for large satellites) announced plans to build small sats assembly-line style, indicating the model popularized by CubeSats is influencing the whole industry.

One must note: not all rosy, some earlier optimistic forecasts (from mid-2010s) overshot reality – there were predictions of tens of thousands of CubeSats by early 2020s which did not fully happen, partly because some planned constellations didn’t materialize or moved to larger satellites nanosats.eu. However, by mid-2020s we are indeed seeing thousands, so it was perhaps just a matter of being off by a few years. The current consensus is that the smallsat market will continue expanding strongly through at least the next decade, with CubeSats as a substantial portion of that.

Regulatory and Orbital Debris Concerns

The flip side of putting up so many small satellites is the question: Are we cluttering space and creating hazards? Orbital debris and satellite traffic management have become hot-button issues as CubeSats (and satellites in general) multiply. There are a few specific concerns and responses:

  • Orbital Lifetime and Debris: Small satellites, especially those without propulsion, can remain in orbit for many years, potentially becoming “space junk” once they die. A common guideline (set by NASA and adopted internationally) was that any satellite in low Earth orbit should deorbit within 25 years of end-of-mission, to prevent long-term clutter. Many CubeSats being launched up to about 500 km altitude naturally fall back well within 25 years due to atmospheric drag. However, in the early days, some CubeSats were sent to higher orbits (600–800 km) where they could stay for decades or centuries. A 2015 NASA study found that out of 231 CubeSats launched from 2000–2014, 46 (about 1 in 5) would stay in orbit more than 25 years, thus not meeting debris mitigation guidelines spaceflightnow.com. This raised alarms in the space community: if hundreds of new CubeSats launch annually and many live for decades, the collision risk grows.

CubeSats are physically small (10–30 cm), but they can still destroy or cripple another satellite in a collision due to orbital velocities. They are also harder to track than big satellites (though as of mid-2010s, the U.S. tracking network demonstrated they can track basically all CubeSats down to 1U size spaceflightnow.com). So knowing where they are is less of an issue than how long they stay up and pose a risk.

  • Responsible Orbit Choices: One simple mitigation is launching CubeSats into lower orbits. Many operators started doing this voluntarily. As mentioned, Planet Labs chose a low orbit via ISS for early deployments explicitly so their cubes would “self-clean” within months spaceflightnow.com. Chris Boshuizen, co-founder of Planet, said in 2015: “We have very strict debris mitigation policies… our principal response is to launch into very low orbits that self-clean.” spaceflightnow.com. They set an example by ensuring any failed satellite would re-enter quickly. Boshuizen also emphasized a culture of transparency: Planet shares its satellite tracking data openly with others so that everyone knows their positions, believing that “the commons of space must be respected, and everyone is a responsible actor… we don’t want to be the company to mess it up for everybody.” spaceflightnow.com. This ethos is now widely accepted among CubeSat operators: nobody wants to be known as the source of a space debris problem.
  • New Regulations (5-Year Rule): Recognizing the increasing congestion, regulators have started tightening rules. In September 2022, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a much stricter requirement: any satellite in low Earth orbit that is done with its mission must deorbit within 5 years, not 25 nature.com. This “5-year rule” applies to satellites that need FCC licenses (essentially all U.S. or U.S.-launched satellites that use radios, which includes most CubeSats). It’s a significant change aimed directly at reducing future debris. The European Space Agency (ESA) similarly updated its policy to require post-mission disposal within 5 years for ESA projects nature.com. These moves signal a global trend toward tougher debris mitigation standards. A Nature article in 2025 hailed these steps but noted global adherence to even the old 25-year rule was “lax” so far nature.com – meaning enforcement will be key. In 2023, the FCC actually issued its first fine for space debris non-compliance, penalizing a company (Dish Network) for failing to properly deorbit a satellite (that was a big geostationary satellite, not a CubeSat, but it set a precedent that regulators are getting serious) nature.com.

For CubeSat makers, the 5-year rule means if you launch to an orbit where natural decay will take longer than 5 years, you must have a plan to deorbit actively (e.g., via a drag sail or propulsion) at end of life. Otherwise, you won’t get a license to operate. This effectively discourages putting CubeSats above ~600 km altitude, because above that, 5-year decay isn’t assured without special measures spaceflightnow.com. We can expect future CubeSats at higher orbits will include systems like deployable drag devices or small thrusters to meet this requirement. Already some companies sell dragsails sized for CubeSats that can dramatically speed up reentry when deployed.

  • Collision Avoidance: Most CubeSats historically had no propulsion, so if a collision threat was detected, they couldn’t move. This put the onus on other satellite operators (usually larger satellites with maneuvering capability) to dodge if a close approach (conjunction) was predicted. This is still the case for many. However, more CubeSats now are being built with propulsion (even if just tiny thrusters for small adjustments). As that trend continues, we might see CubeSats that actively avoid collisions by themselves, which would be a big positive for space traffic management. But currently, propulsion on CubeSats is not universal – it tends to be on the larger ones (6U/12U) or those with specific mission need.
  • Space Traffic Management & Tracking: The sheer number of small satellites has accelerated efforts to improve tracking and coordination. The U.S. military’s space surveillance network is tracking over 45,000 objects >10 cm (and millions of smaller fragments) nature.com. CubeSats contribute to the count of trackable items, though still a small fraction compared to debris like old rocket fragments. The concern is not just existing debris but the potential creation of more if collisions happen. A “nightmare scenario” often discussed is the Kessler Syndrome – a cascade of collisions making space unusable nature.com. While CubeSats alone are unlikely to trigger that (the bigger risk is large satellites or spent rocket bodies colliding), every piece of junk adds to the density, and a CubeSat could certainly be involved in a collision that generates debris. Thus, integrating CubeSats into future Space Traffic Management systems is crucial. Bodies like the FCC, NASA, and international partners are working on better data-sharing and possibly mandated technologies like active transponders on satellites for easier identification.
  • Design for Demise and Re-entry: Another interesting aspect is making sure when a CubeSat re-enters the atmosphere, it burns up completely (to avoid ground casualty risk). Generally, anything under about 100 kg will mostly vaporize, and CubeSats are tiny, so that’s usually fine. But if a CubeSat has particularly tough components (e.g., titanium or stainless steel pieces, or dense battery packs), there’s a slim chance bits could survive reentry. So there is guidance now for satellite designers to use materials that demise on reentry, especially for larger smallsats or those with big chunks. CubeSats mostly comply by virtue of being small and built of thin aluminum, but as they get larger (12U+), this might be looked at. ESA’s “Clean Space” initiative and others encourage such practices nature.com.
  • Zero Debris Initiatives: Some organizations have called for a future norm of “zero debris creation” – meaning every satellite should have a reliable disposal plan and perhaps even design satellites to actively deorbit others or capture debris. While that’s a tall order, it’s notable that some CubeSat missions have even been proposed to address debris – for example, a CubeSat that could deploy a net or tether on a piece of junk (these were tested on a small scale by a mission called RemoveDEBRIS, which wasn’t a CubeSat but a smallsat). It’s conceivable future CubeSat swarms might even help clean up debris if equipped properly.
  • Legal Responsibility: CubeSat operators are subject to the same international space law as others – the launching state is liable for any damage. So if a CubeSat caused a collision, the country that launched it could be on the hook. This hasn’t been tested in courts (we haven’t had a known collision caused by a CubeSat yet), but it motivates governments to ensure CubeSats they launch are compliant with safety norms. There was an incident in 2019 where a startup, Swarm Tech, launched four tiny satellites without FCC approval (via an Indian rocket) – causing the FCC to issue a strong rebuke and subsequently tighten its processes. Those satellites were below trackable size, raising alarms. The company faced consequences and since then no one has tried an unlicensed launch like that again, highlighting that regulatory oversight has caught up to the CubeSat era.

In summary, the community is actively addressing orbital debris concerns associated with CubeSats. The emerging 5-year rule and similar measures are game-changers that should drastically reduce future long-lived debris from small satellites nature.com. As of 2025, nearly everyone launching CubeSats is aware of these responsibilities and usually either goes to low orbit or includes a deorbit plan. The phrase used by Chris Boshuizen sums it up: setting “firm codes of conduct to ensure that the commons of space is respected” spaceflightnow.com. Internationally, there are calls to harmonize these stricter rules so that all countries adhere, preventing any one “flag of convenience” from becoming a loophole nature.com.

Another important step is the rise of Space Situational Awareness (SSA) services – even for CubeSats, operators can subscribe to tracking data from the U.S. Space Force or companies like LeoLabs (which uses ground radars to track debris) to know if a conjunction is coming. Many CubeSat teams now actively monitor their satellite’s orbit and will plan end-of-life deorbit burns if they have propulsion.

It’s a learning curve: the CubeSat revolution happened so fast that regulations lagged for a while, but by mid-2020s, we see the regulatory environment catching up to ensure sustainability. Future CubeSat missions will likely be required to be even more careful – e.g., perhaps having automated deorbit systems or proving a <5-year life. In a hopeful sign, even with thousands of small sats launched, no major debris incidents have been attributed to CubeSats so far, and operators are keen to keep it that way to avoid any backlash that could restrict the entire industry.

In conclusion, nano-satellites and CubeSats have transformed how we approach space. In a bit over two decades, we went from a single CubeSat idea in a university lab to thousands of these spacecraft orbiting Earth and venturing beyond. They exemplify “doing more with less” – harnessing modern tech in tiny packages to achieve objectives that once required multi-ton satellites. CubeSats have made space more accessible, more frequent, and more innovative. As co-creator Jordi Puig-Suari reflected, CubeSats introduced new ways of doing business in space that now underpin many missions across the industry ceng.calpoly.edu.

The journey isn’t over – in many ways, it’s just beginning. Capabilities of CubeSats continue to grow, and their presence in orbit will become as common as large satellites. They will play complementary roles: not replacing big satellites outright, but filling niches and enabling new paradigms (like distributed sensor networks or rapid tech iteration in orbit). The public is also now part of the space enterprise as never before – through educational CubeSat projects, citizen science using CubeSat data, and crowdfunding of missions like LightSail.

CubeSats do bring challenges (managing orbital crowding, radio frequency coordination, etc.), but the global space community is addressing these through better regulations and technical solutions. The net result is widely seen as positive: a more democratized and dynamic use of outer space.

To quote Andy Klesh of JPL after the Mars Cube One success: “We’ve put a stake in the ground… Future CubeSats might go even farther.” science.nasa.gov Indeed, from low Earth orbit to Mars and beyond, we can expect these miniature satellites (or their descendants) to continue expanding the frontiers of space exploration and utilization, proving that sometimes big impacts come from small packages.

Sources:

Mateusz Brzeziński

Don't Miss

AI Stock Frenzy: Record Highs, Bold Bets, and Backlash in Late July 2025

AI Stock Frenzy: Record Highs, Bold Bets, and Backlash in Late July 2025

Chipmakers Surge on AI Demand (and Face Export Drama) Nvidia
How to Create Your Own AI Bot: Full Guide with Current Trends, Tools, and Expert Advice

How to Create Your Own AI Bot: Full Guide with Current Trends, Tools, and Expert Advice

AI bots have exploded into the mainstream, evolving from simple