Good, broad coverage in November’s issue of Acta Astronautica (vol. 224):
Shcheglov, G. A. Modovskii, A. V. Design optimization of cubic-shaped pressurant tank for CubeSat pr…
p. 48 .07.037
Freeman, A. Fesq, L. Matousek, S. IAA-PDC-23-09-20 low-cost mission architectures to small bodies
p.122 .08.014
Ershkov, S. V. Shamin, R. V. On metallic-type asteroid rotation moving in magnetic field (introducing …
p. 195 .08.007
CubeSats are enabling, by allowing cheap, flexible, frequent launch… so long as you meet all the CubeSat specifications, which enable such launches. These specs include minimal, defined shapes, and trajectories defined by the primary payload (i. e., hitchhikers can’t complain). And most types of fuel can’t be flown on most CubeSat launches, since that’s a risk to the primary. Propulsion for secondary payloads (other than for simple exposure experiments, or other LEO missions) then becomes an issue for targeted, deep-space projects, or even Earth orbiters with inflexible operating modes. Time to get more decimal places out of those prop systems.
Freeman et al. don’t fool around with titles: they want asteroid/comet missions, soon, on budget, and in quantity. Their specific angle is the reuse of flown designs: based on the missions and hardware already launched (or built and awaiting launch), what can we continue for another flight, not another tech dev cycle (which means another test cycle, and risk cycle, and… therefore, funding cycle)?
Here’s one that’s not straightforward: Ershkov et al. ponder new properties and processes at metal asteroids. With the Psyche mission launched and in cruise, is there some unexpected behavior of metal bodies and their surfaces that we might actually have expected, if we really applied ourselves? Remember, a few scientists had predicted that Europa would be an icy billiard ball, and Io a volcano world, before Voyager. Ershkov et al. now ask the question: does a spinning metal asteroid act like, maybe, a generator, a brake, or… ?