Nanosatellite Communication and MEMS Technology

Nick Pohlman, Jeremy Opperer and Patrick Schubel

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Northwestern University
Evanston, IL 60208

Project Summary
This paper explores the growing
segments for potential use of
MEMS devices. In particular, we focus on improved performance over macro-sized
space-based applications in which MEMS devices.
have yet to play a significant role. If the Keywords: MEMS, RF Communication,
performance of particular MEMS devices can satellites, space-based communication
match those of macro-sized components, the systems, MEMS fabrication processes,
same system objectives can be achieved MEMS modeling
while significantly reducing the overall
weight – usually the driving factor in
spacecraft design. Of course, modifications
in spacecraft architecture will hopefully
evolve as MEMS components prove their Table of Contents
performance in the space environment. Project Summary 1
Examples are given for future
distributed satellite missions showing that a Introduction 2
greater quantity of smaller satellites with Satellite Missions and MEMS:
individualized capabilities can help reduce Past, Present and Future 2
production cost as well as add robustness to
the entire mission. Control of position and Satellite Systems 4
velocity are natural requirements of the Nanosatellite Communications
distributed architecture. In order to trade Systems and MEMS 4
sensor information effectively, remote Signal Filters 5
communication must play a key role. RF-MEMS Switches 5
Therefore, the remainder of this report Antennas 8
focuses on MEMS RF communication Phase Shifters 9
devices. Examples of phase shifters, signal HCFA 10
filters, switches and antennas are given. The
modeled performance of the switch and Picosatellite Experiment 12
antenna are derived as well as the processes Conclusions
used for fabrication. Finally, an example is and Recommendations 13
given of a MEMS RF-switch tested in orbit.
The results indicate that MEMS structures References 14
can be cheaper to place in orbit and achieve Biography 16

1
2
Introduction
When NASA Administrator Daniel
Goldin introduced the new catch phrase,
“Faster, Better, Cheaper” he may not have
envisioned where spacecraft technology
would head over the next decade. The
defining parameter in most spacecraft is
payload weight for launching from the earth’s
surface to outer space [1, 2]. As expected
there is a direct relationship between launch
cost and vehicle weight. If the overall system
weight can be lowered, or distributed, the
potential for reducing satellite launching
costs can be significantly improved.
Naturally, the development of Micro-
Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) has
expanded into the space sector. By cutting
the mass of components onboard the space
vehicle, the launch costs and hopefully the
overall budget for production can be reduced.
Furthermore, other features of MEMS
devices, aside from their small size, can
benefit system components, such as power.
By converting from solid-state electronics to
mechanical systems, the power consumption
of a device can be significantly lowered. This
increase in efficiency could help reduce the
battery power, size, and charge necessary to
operate the satellite. Similarly, solar panel
sizes could be smaller again bringing down
the overall mass and power consumption of
the satellite.
Two key advantages arise when
considering MEMS devices in space
applications. The first advantage is realized
by lowering launch cost. Currently, launching
a spacecraft into low Earth orbit (LEO) costs
about $10,000 per kilogram, and placing a
craft into a higher geosynchronous Earth orbit
(GEO) costs about $50,000 per kilogram [3].
Obviously, by reducing mass, designers stand
to gain in reducing total project cost. The
second advantage is the devices’ resistance to
radiation and vibration. Cosmic radiation can
upset the operation of solid state components,
but MEMS structures can withstand radiation.
In addition, because MEMS devices have
such a low mass, potentially damaging
inertial and vibration forces are minimized. A
rocket launch can induce very high
accelerations, but with a robust MEMS
design the possibility of damage is low [4].
Nanosatellites, roughly classified as satellites
weighing 1-10 kg, are some of the most
promising spacecraft being designed today.
Below 1 kg, satellites are classified as
picosatellites. MEMS can revolutionize their
design when applied to the communications,
data processing, navigation, and propulsion
systems.
Satellite Missions and MEMS: Past,
Present and Future
One must consider what scientific
objectives could be accomplished on such a
small platform. One of the driving factors of
programs such as NASA’s New Millennium
Program (NMP) is distributing satellite
capability and costs across separate vehicles
rather than placing all focus on a single,
monolithic device. In shrinking the size, the
cost of replacing a damaged or failed
component can be drastically altered.
Budgets for failed single satellite missions
have cost billions of dollars without any
capability for rectifying the problem.
Two missions that can be compared
and contrasted are the Hubble Space
Telescope, and the Chandra X-Ray
Observatory [5]. Hubble’s original failures
due to an out of focus lens have been well
documented. Fortunately, with a significant
investment in time and manpower, the
problem was fixed thereby allowing the space
telescope to operate with its original purpose.
It is interesting to note that the entire Chandra
X-Ray Observatory Satellite project was
nearly cancelled due to worries of similar
problems experienced with Hubble.
3
 With an orbital perigee of Future NASA missions like Space
approximately 6,000 statute miles, Chandra is Technology 5 & 6 (figure 2) hope to be one
well beyond the orbital range that can be of the first satellites to use actual MEMS
reached by the Space Shuttle. Conversely, devices in design and production [9]. The Air
Hubble, with a closer orbit of only 350 miles Force and DARPA are supporting expansion
could be reached and repaired by a human into miniaturization with their University
crew. Any component failure aboard Nanosatellite Program [10]. While some
Chandra, from mirror lenses having a speck microsatellites will use standard components,
of dust or a failed switch on the camera, with one component necessary for the entire
could have caused the $1.5 billion project to mission payload, the overall size of these
be a complete failure without any means to satellites will begin to decrease in size,
rectify. If either of these satellite systems making MEMS more important features for
could have been distributed over a network of spacecraft production.
smaller satellites, the potential repair (and
possibly production) costs could be more
reasonable for a successful space mission.
Hopefully with the added robustness of
distributed satellite systems, NASA and other
space agencies can avoid budget catastrophes
such as those experienced with the Mars
Surveyor in 1999.
One outcome from initial NMP
research has shown that Formation Flying of
multiple satellites can help distribute the
single satellite payload capability. Many
future NASA and military missions are
basing their design on such capabilities, for Figure 1. TechSat 21 Mission distributed
example the Terrestrial Planet Finder [6] and satellite radar system from AFRL [7]
TechSat 21 [7] shown in figure 1. By
expanding the number of satellites in a
formation to more than one, the total aperture
size can be increased allowing for improved
resolution without adding cost for connecting
the components with structural hardware.
Without a rigid connection, the relative
motions of payload components must be
maintained with tight navigation and control
tolerances. Previous missions such as Earth
Observing 1 have shown the capability to
maintain relative orbital motion or to conduct
autonomous maneuvers with standard solid Figure 2. Space Technology, part of New
state electronic hardware and macro-size Millennium Program to use MEMS
propulsion and control systems [8]. These technology for system devices [9]
types of proof of concept experiments are
even planned for microsatellite missions.

4
Satellite Systems
System components can roughly be
segregated into three major categories:
propulsion, navigation and communication.
Micro-thrusters have been explored to help
reduce the size of propulsion components on
the vehicle making attitude control cheaper
by using smaller devices and less fuel.
Furthermore, navigational aids such as GPS
receivers and gyroscopes are able to reduce
the overall size of the navigation payload
with MEMS technology. Another important
aspect that must be included in all motion
control is feedback from sensors. Naturally
on a monolithic satellite, each component
will be directly hardwired to an overall
communication bus allowing information to
be exchanged quickly. The new architecture
of distributing satellite capabilities across a
fleet of separated vehicles presents a new
problem for overall communication design.
With the new architecture, reliable
and adaptable communication systems are
going to need to be developed for remote
communication between devices. Algorithms
and communication standards are being
developed and shared to enhance capabilities
of remote satellites not only with the ground,
but also amongst their own fleet [11]. For
example, if only one satellite in a multi-
vehicle fleet has a star sensor to determine
orientation, it must communicate the
measurement to the other members of the
fleet in order for all pieces to move as a
cohesive unit. Autonomous capability to
reconfigure networks and remote
communication will be necessary for fleets to
maintain continuity for operation. Occlusions
to communication could happen as satellites
cross paths or distances become too large.
Potentially, some satellites’ primary purpose
would be simple relays of information
between vehicles separated over too great a
distance. If the remote communication
devices were based on MEMS technologies,
many different communication capabilities
could be carried on a single microsatellite
allowing for potential to overcome single-
point failure or allow the overall system to re-
configure relatively easily. The remainder of
this report will not explore the details of
specific communication protocol or
information, which are generally mission
specific, but rather indicate devices that have
potential in space applications for remote
communication between separated vehicles.
Nanosatellite Communication
Systems and MEMS
The communication system on any
satellite consists of two basic mechanisms: a
transmitter and a receiver. Satellites usually
deal with signals in the microwave range,
which are high frequency, short wavelength
signals that can carry a large amount of
information. Often, the signals are in the
gigahertz (109 Hz) radio frequency (RF)
range.
In order to effectively transmit and
receive RF signals, satellites must have
extremely sensitive signal processing
equipment. Also, the signal must be able to
transmit over a large distance with very high
fidelity and fast data rate. Currently, most
microwave signal handling is done with
solid-state electronic components. Electrical
performance of microwave components is
determined almost entirely by the mechanical
dimensions of the devices, and precision in
the manufacturing of these components is
extremely important [12]. MEMS devices
are very attractive to use in these applications
in this respect because of the ability to
accurately control their dimensions. The
design of conventional solid-state microwave
and RF devices is hindered by three
constraints, which are power consumption,
sensitivity, and size [13]. MEMS can improve
on conventional designs in all three of these
areas, as well as offering a lower production
cost. As frequencies are driven higher and
higher by increased data transmission
5
requirements, the shortcomings of
conventional designs are compounded by the
lethargic response of macro-sized
components [14]. Also, in an increasingly
crowded radio spectrum, high sensitivity is
crucial. By integrating a MEMS device
directly on a silicon chip and semiconductor
circuit, energy consumption and signal noise
are reduced even further.
MEMS devices in a nanosatellite can
be used as signal filters, micro-switches, and
antenna components such as phase shifters.
Some examples of each of these components
will be presented as well as some of the
fabrication and performance parameters.
Signal Filters
An RF circuit requires at least one
filter to pull out a desired signal from a
receiving antenna or to insert one to be
transmitted. Currently, surface acoustic wave
(SAW) filters are used to do this job.
However, these filters are relatively large and
do not work well at very high frequencies
[13]. Digital signal processing can be done on
the back-end of the process, but this
consumes valuable electrical power from
batteries or solar panels. MEMS designs are
well suited to perform front-end analog
frequency filtering, taking up less space and
using less power because the device is
passive. By increasing filter sensitivity,
potential exists to improve communications
systems. A filter could not only preselect a
communications band, but also perform
channel selection within that band, enabling
significant improvement over existing
technology.
In one such design, a passive
microwave filter is deposited on a GaAs
membrane and displays very low power loss
and good performance [15]. First, a 2.2 m
thick membrane is machined utilizing RIE
techniques on the GaAs wafer. To fabricate
the filter structure, a 0.7 m gold layer is
deposited on the membrane and conventional
contact lithography, e-gun evaporation, and
lift-off techniques are used (figure 3). This
device could easily be coupled with other
components such as antennas, capacitors, and
inductors on the same substrate.
Filter structure
Figure 3. MEMS signal filter deposited on
thin GaAs membrane [15]
RF-MEMS switches
Switches are vital to the successful
operation of an antenna array. They are used
for beam shaping and steering by individually
selecting elements in the array [16].
Conventional switches suffer from losses in
efficiency and have higher insertion losses,
due to parasitic effects of the system. MEMS
switches, on the other hand, do not suffer
from these problems. These switches have
properties that are ideal for MEMS space-
based applications, including the following:
low insertion losses, rapid response,
improved power handling, wide bandwidth,
good electromagnetic isolation, and high
open position isolation. Drawbacks are
minor, but include stiction and a
comparatively slower response time with
active components.
Several switch designs have been
explored. Cantilever and membrane (bridge)
types are the most popular, however there are
also seesaw bar, rotary, and derrick-type
switches that are available for specialized
applications [14]. Selection of the specific
design may include parameters such as
insertion loss and isolation criteria. For
6
membrane switches, both insertion loss and
isolation are a function of the change in
capacitance during the on and off states. To
decrease the insertion loss, contact should be
as close as possible. Conversely, improved
isolation requires the conductors be as far
from each other as they can in the off
position.
An electrostatically actuated MEMS
coplanar waveguide (CPW) shunt switch is
shown in figure 4. It is comprised of a
metallic bridge between two off-center pull-
down electrodes. A supplied bias voltage
moves the bridge into contact with the
ground. The in-line configuration of the
switch results in a compact design with high
isolation at 0.1-18 GHz and specifically, with
regard to inductance to ground, the isolation
at mm-wavelengths is –20 dB at 18GHz [17].
This can be compared with capacitive contact
shunt switches with high isolation ranging
between 10 and 120 GHz.
Figure 4. RF-MEMS CPW shunt switch
schematic [16]
Force balance is used to calculate the
electrostatic force as follows,
  0 AV 2
FE  (1)
2(d  x) 2
where , A, V, d, and x are the permittivity of
the free space, projected area of the
electrodes, applied voltage, gap between the
line and bridge, and the deflection of the
bridge respectively. A restoring force, Fs, is
given as
Fs  kx (2)
where the spring constant, k, can be found
with the following equation,
32 Et 3 w 81    tw
k  (3)
L3 L
where E, t, w, L, and  are the effective
Young’s modulus of the bridge material,
thickness, width, and length of the bridge,
residual stress, and Poisson’s ratio
respectively [16].
If the deflection is greater than 1/3 d,
the system becomes unstable and pull-in
occurs. The voltage required for this may be
calculated by
8d 3 k
Vp 
27 0 A
(4)
The resonant frequency of the
cantilevered beam is another important
design consideration. It controls the
maximum speed under which the switch can
reliably perform. Attenuation also varies as
√f. This frequency can be determined by
considering the beam to be supported at both
ends, where
1 k
f  (5)
2 m
with a given system mass, m. For the
aforementioned shunt switch, an attenuation
of 0.4 dB/cm occurs at 10 GHz[17].
Given the two states of the MEMS
switch, isolation and insertion loss, the
following values may be calculated from
impedance and capacitance. When in the
down-state position, the switch can be
modeled as an RsL circuit. Switch resistance,
Rs, is defined by half the sum for the
resistance at the contact points and at the
short transmission line, Rc and Rl
respectively. With impedance given as Z0,
the isolation can be found with the following
equation,
  2 Rs Z 0  ,  L  Rs 
2
S 21
2
(6)
  2L Z 0  ,  L  Rs 
2
7
 The insertion loss for the up-state The capacitance ratio for the switch in
position can be calculated by modeling the its off and on states can be used as a measure
switch with two sections of transmission of its performance. These are given by the
lines, with two capacitors, to represent switch following two equations:
and electrode coupling, and two bias  A
Con  d (8)
resistors. Therefore, by using an RC model, hd
the loss can be found by
A
2 4 Rb2  1 /  2Cb2   Coff 
hd d (9)
S 21  
2R  Z 0   4 /  2Cb2 
2 (7)
2
b
 d 0
where Cb and Rb are the capacitors and where d and hd are the dielectric constant and
resistors respectively. Trends for the height respectively. The isolation ratio can
insertion losses for this switch design can be therefore be solved by
found in figure 5. Here, the strong Z off Con  d
  1 d (10)
dependence on bias resistance is shown, Z on Coff hd  0
while the bias capacitance has a variable By examining this equation, one finds the
effect on the loss [17]. advantages to using a highly dielectric thin
film deposition. The addition of a dielectric
layer does not affect the pull-down voltage
[16].
The manufacturing process for RF
MEMS switches (figure 6) is similar to that
of many other MEMS devices fabricated by
batch lithographic processes. An example of
the micromachining process steps can be
found in figure 7. The 40 m  20 m
dimple reduces contact resistance at each of
the contact areas. A 1.7 m PECVD SiO2
layer is grown as a sacrificial layer, as seen in
the figure step (c). The dimples are created
by partially etching the PECVD layer by
about 5500 Å. 0.8 m sputtered Au is used to
create the 300 m  100 m bridge. A
buffered HF solution is then used to remove
the SiO2.

Figuer 5. Calculated insertion loss of the dc-

contact shunt switch: (a) variation of loss
with Rb for Cb=88fF and (b) variation of loss Figure 6. Final cross section of switch [17]
with Cb for Rb=2400 and 600 [17]

8

Fig 7. (a)-(f) Process steps of the dc-contact
shunt switch with dimple and bias resistor
procedures and (g) switch in the down state
position. Cross section shown in figure 6
[17]
Even with the advantages gained from
a MEMS switch, before it can be used in a
nanosatellite, the lifetime of the switch will
have to be lengthened. In a long-term
application such as a deep-space satellite, a
lifetime of 100 billion cycles is required.
Currently MEMS switches do not have this
lifespan [18]. Obviously, the long-term
solution to this problem is to improve the
material strength or structure design of the
switch for increased lifespan. One rapid
solution method could be to have additional
redundant switches that only operate after
failure of a predecessor switch. With the
additional space and mass freed by using
MEMS components, added redundancies can
be included to make entire satellite system
more robust.
Antennas
This section will now shift focus from
individual switch design to another
communication component, the RF antenna.
General considerations will be introduced
followed by specific examples, including a
Hilbert Curve Fractal Antenna (HCFA).
Planar antennas are important in both
the transmission and reception of signals in
nanosatellites. With a MEMS-based design,
an antenna can be integrated with other
passive or active components. Also, many
antennas can be arranged on the same
substrate, allowing a phased array
configuration [19].
In a specific design by IMT-
Bucharest, an antenna is fabricated on a 1.5
m thick silicon oxide/silicon nitride
dielectric membrane micro-machined from a
silicon substrate, called a double-folded slot
antenna. Gold is then electrochemically
deposited on the wafer to form the antenna of
thickness 2.5 m, shown in figure 8. The two
cross members of the antenna are placed one
half wavelength apart for good radiation
performance [19]. The device operates at 77
9
GHz and could be easily be included in a
nanosatellite design.
Another design of a MEMS antenna,
called a V-antenna (figure 9), has moving
parts and can be reconfigured for adaptation
in new environments. The arms of the V-
shaped antenna can be moved independently
with comb drive micro-actuators and a
forward- or backward-moving bias. When
both arms are moved in the same direction
with a fixed angle, the antenna can be used to
steer the radiation beam and focus its
reception or transmission of data [14]. The
shape of the beam can also be adjusted by
changing the angle. This technology has been
demonstrated for a 17.5 GHz MEMS V-
antenna.
1600 m
1600 m
Figure 8. Photo of 77 GHz MEMS antenna
on dielectric substrate [19]
Figure 9. Top view and details of a
reconfigurable 17.5 GHz V-antenna [14]
Phase Shifters
Another application where MEMS
devices can improve upon current solid-state
design is in phase shifters. A phase shifter is a
type of phased-array antenna that can be
configured to transmit or receive signals in
different directions without being physically
reoriented. Already extensively used in
microwave satellite communication tasks
with FET or diode technology, a MEMS
design could drastically reduce power loss. A
phase shifter works by altering the
transmission path of the antenna with an
array of switches, providing different
amounts of phase modulation of the signal.
By using a MEMS switch design, which was
covered in detail in a previous section, the
existing design could be improved upon
while reducing the cost [13]. Because a large
amount of research has been done on the
design and placement of switches in a phase
shifter, a MEMS phase shifter would differ
from an existing one only in the fact that the
solid state switch is replaced by a MEMS
switch [18]. A schematic of a MEMS phase
shifter is shown in figure 10.
Figure 10. Phase shifter composed of an array
of RF-MEMS switches [18]
10
HCFA Figure 11 provides a more detailed
Fractal antennas are also employed look at the individual segments of the fractal.
for MEMS space-based communication. The total inductance of the system can be
Similar to V-antennas with regard to their calculated by determining the inductance of
incorporation of MEMS devices, fractal the turns of the meander line. The inductance
systems are capable of adjusting their of a regular half-wavelength dipole can then
characteristics to suit specific needs for be compared to this total inductance.
reconfiguration in changing environments
[16]. Hilbert curve fractal antennas (HCFAs)
are well suited to satellite broadcasting.
These can maximize the amount of space
available for RF communication.
MEMS technology eliminates the
need for the more expensive, bulkier, and less
efficient conventional phase shifters.
Furthermore, high frequency array batch
fabrication can be carried out on a single
chip.
HCFAs utilize switches and phase
shifter as integral parts of their design. Their
multiband nature, useful for multiplexing,
and size to weight ratios make them much
more attractive than their conventional
macro-sized counterparts. Design of and
experimental results for HCFAs will now be
addressed. Figure 11. Generation of four iterations of
HCFA take advantage of the relatively Hilbert curves [16]
self-similar pattern of the fractal, as seen in
figure 11. This figure shows 4 iterations of Assuming a constant dipole
Hilbert curves. The additional line segments configuration capacitance, the induction of
used between each iteration are small the system can be calculated with the
compared to the overall geometry, and can be following equations. First, line segment
considered negligible. For each iteration length, d, can be defined as
order, the line length of the segments l
dramatically grows while the area covered by d n (11)
2 1
the antenna footprint increases only
where l and n are the outer dimension and
moderately. This shows how the curve
iteration order of the fractal. The number of
almost fills the plane. Resonant frequency
short-circuited parallel segments of length d
can be significantly reduced for a given area
can then be defined by
by increasing the number of iterations,
m  4 n 1 (12)
thereby averting a problem many small-scale
The total length of wire not forming parallel
antennas encounter. This approach is similar
sections can also be defined as
to that of Euclidian based geometrical
systems; however, the use of fractals can help s   2 2 n 1  1 d (13)
achieve higher degrees of freedom. Now, the characteristic impedance of the
transmission line can be calculated by the
following equation,

11
  2d
Z0  log
 b
(14)
where the diameter, b, and spacing, d, are
obtained from the fractal geometry. is the
intrinsic impedance of the free space. Input
impedance at the end of the line can then be
found,
Z
Lin  0 tan d (15)

The impedance for the straight-line segments
Figure 12. Input impedance of 7x7 cm 2
is therefore,
HCFA of third iteration [16]
0  8s 
Ls  s log  1
  b  Reconfigurability of the HCFA is
 2d achieved by incorporating RF-MEMS
m log tan  d
 b switches in series with the length of the
(16) antenna, thereby facilitating frequency
where there are m sections of input tuning. Such agility would be required if
impedance, is the permeability of free ambient operating conditions were to change,
space and  is a function of the system. altering frequency characteristics. The
Resonant frequency can be found by equating frequency tuning characteristics of the
the total inductance with that of a half-wave antenna are shown in figure 13 by the voltage
dipole, where l=/2 [16]. Since regular standing wave ratio (VSWR) as a function of
dipole antennas have resonance at quarter the various switching configurations and
wavelength multiples, the equation for the frequency, when two switches are located at
first several HCFA resonant frequencies is adjacent nodes. Furthermore, radiation
given as patterns are also presented in figure 14.
0  8s  Activating switches to enable additional line
s  log  1 segments have generated these patterns.
  b 
Changes in the xy-plane are provided due to
 2d
m log tan d their dominance in the system. Table 1 shows
 b parameters from the beam reconfiguration.
 k  8 k  Table 2 shows how phase shifters can be used
 0  log  1
 4  b 4  to change beam direction. Since the array
(17) elements are /2 apart, the MEMS phase
where k is an odd integer. This equation only shifters can effectively change the gap
considers low order effects and is not between adjacent elements.
recommended for high order modes. Figure
12 shows the measured input impedance Table 1. HFCA radiation characteristics [16]
compared with calculated values for a third Case Peak Gain Peak Gain 3 dB
iteration fractal antenna at various dir 1 dir 2 width
frequencies. For the corresponding radiation 0 0 1.56 177 1.81 83
1 18 1.28 193 0.95 107
patterns, there are fewer nulls present than
2 19 1.55 195 1.33 100
would be expected for a dipole antenna due to 3 63 1.74 254 2.35 92
the smaller overall size of the radiator.

12
 Picosatellite Experiment
Initial experiments for MEMS
components have been conducted with low
earth orbit (LEO) satellite payloads. As
previously mentioned, cost savings achieved
though reducing payload weight can be
realized through the use of such technology.
A Stanford University designed satellite, the
Figure 13. Frequency tuning of HCFA: case Orbiting Picosatellite Automated Launcher
1, both switches closed; case 2, one switch (OPAL), has released multiple picosatellites
opened; case 3, both switches open [16] for testing individual MEMS devices [20].
The Aerospace Corporation with funding
from DARPA engineered one of the
picosatellites with an array of RF-MEMS
switches onboard developed at Rockwell
Science Center (RSC) [21]. Specifications of
the switches are as follows: low insertion
losses at 40GHz of 0.2 dB, isolation >60 dB
at dc and ~25 dB at 40 GHz, actuation
voltage ~80 V, on/off response within ~10 s,
mechanical response reliability (no modulus
reduction) after 60 billion cycles, and hot-
switched lifetimes 7 orders of magnitude at
~1mA.
The RSC microrelay is approximately
250 m  250 m. The microrelay is
fabricated in a similar manner as shown in
figure 7. The surface micromachining is
Figure 14. Radiation patterns for HCFA with performed under 250 C. High conductivity
additional segments, shown in the xy-plane evaporated Au is used for all RF signal and
[16] dc lines. The sacrificial layer is removed, in
this instance, by dry release etching in an
Table 2. Phase shift in each arm and resulting oxygen plasma. This small system consumes
peak direction of the beam [16] very little power as a result of its electrostatic
Case Elem. Elem. 2 Elem. 3 Elem. 4 Beam actuation. Shifts in the elastic constant
1 phase phase phase phase dir resulting from plasma enhances chemical
1 0 0 0 0 0˚ vapor deposition (PECVD) SiO2 are
2 0 20 40 60 6˚ negligible.
3 0 40 80 120 13˚
4 0 60 120 180 19˚
The switch experiments conducted in
5 0 90 180 270 29˚ the picosats employed four MEMS switches
6 0 120 240 360 38˚ in series with resistances of 3, 10, 30, and 300
k. Batteries rated at 3 V were used to
power the satellites, and inductive charge
pump circuits were used to generate the 100

13
V (25% over
voltage) for
switch
activation.
On
February 6th,
2000, two
picosatellites
were
released
from OPAL
and began
orbiting the
earth in a
sun- Figure 15. Picosatellite system architecture [21]
synchronous “transmitting” state attempting to form a link
750 km polar orbit. A 30.5 m tether was used to the ground station. The continuous
to maintain a constant separation distance operation of the radio module drained the
between satellites because they did not have limited battery supply during the initial stages
any control thrusters to adjust their relative of the mission. If for future missions, the
positions. Each satellite had dimensions of module is replaced by a MEM system, the
10.16  7.62  2.54 cm3. The RF MEMS power drained from initialization can be
switches were switched on and off repeatedly reduced allowing longer life for fixed power
as requested by programming uploaded from storage devices.
a base station on earth. A standard radio
communication and networking module was Conclusions and Recommendations
used to as the means for remote
There are many opportunities for
communication. Photographs of the system
MEMS communication devices in the space
can be found in figure 15.
industry. With an increasing emphasis on
The picosatellites were only in visible
designing spacecraft with lower mass and
communication range of the base station two
cost, MEMS structures are ideally suited for a
times each day for approximately 300-600
nanosatellite platform. While these devices
seconds during each pass. During such
can be incorporated in the satellite propulsion
contact, information regarding switching
and navigation systems, some of the most
status and temperature would be transmitted.
practical and beneficial applications of
While this picosatellite experiment did not
MEMS devices exist in the satellite
test a complete MEMS communication
communication system.
system, it has shown how individual MEMS
The primary obstacles that must still
devices can be launched and tested in
be overcome are proof of operation in space
space without significant experimental costs.
environments and extending the overall
Indirectly, the mission showed how MEMS
lifetime of the equipment. However, MEMS
communication components would help
structures have proven to be quite robust
improve mission robustness in the future.
under harsh conditions. Due to lack of
Unfortunately, the picosatellite mission was
experience, suggestions for improvements of
shortened by nearly 75% while the standard
particular fabrication procedures would be
radio modem was broadcasting in the
fruitless. Time and future experiments will

14
help determine which fabrication tools are
best equipped to withstand environments and
requirements for space hardware.
One suggestion for overall MEMS
space communication would be to form a
standard set-up such that all future
communication could follow a pattern and
devices would be easily interchangeable. This
could benefit the space industry as a whole by
forming a network of MEMS satellites in a
higher orbit. Currently satellites are not
capable of continuous communication with a
single ground station. Often remote locations
must be linked to the main control center
through standard landlines such as fiber
optics. With a network of MEMS satellites
(similar to GPS), one would always have
visibility to a single unit thereby allowing a
single station to tap into information being
shared amongst all of the satellites in the
network. Essentially, satellites on the
“backside” of the planet could communicate
to the sole ground station through the MEMS
communication network (i.e. a plethora of
information on the world-wide-web, but one
computer only taps into one site/satellite of
interest).
Scientists at the beginning of the 20th
century never imagined that their discoveries
would facilitate the perpetuation of human
space exploration. In much the same, we
stand at the cusp of the 21st century with an
expanding technology from MEMS devices.
Like their gargantuan predecessors, hopefully
MEMS will be used to extend humankind’s
outreach beyond our planetary bounds
thereby extending NASA’s simple credo to
“Faster, Better, Cheaper and Smaller!”
References
1. Judy, J.W., Microelectromechanical
systems (MEMS): fabrication, design
and applications. Smart Materials &
Structures, 2001. 10(6): p. 1115-1134.
2. Cass, S., MEMS in Space, in IEEE
Spectrum. 2001. p. 56-61.
3. Huang, A., et al. A Microengineered
Cold Gas Thruster System for a Co-
Orbiting Satellite. in MEMS
Components and Applications for
Industry, Automobiles, Aerospace,
and Communication. 2001. San
Francisco, USA: SPIE.
4. Martin, M. and S. Kilberg,
TECHSAT21 and Revolutionizing
Space Missions Using Micro-
Satellites. 200, USAF
http://www.interfacecontrol.com/pape
rs/TechSat21MicroSats.pdf.
5. Roy, S., Exploring the Invisible
Universe: The Chandra X-ray
Observatory. 1999, NASA
http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSR
OOM/background/facts/axaf.html.
6. Laboratory, N.J.P., Terrestrial Planet
Finder. 2002, Nasa
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/TPF/tpf
_index.html.
7. Directorate, S.V., TechSat 21 Space
Missions Using Satellite Clusters.
1998, Air Force Research Laboratory
http://www.vs.afrl.af.mil/factsheets/Te
chSat21.html.
8. Young, J., Earth Observing-1. 2002,
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
http://eo1.gsfc.nasa.gov/.
9. Beck, S., Space Technology 5. 2002,
NASA New Millennium Program
http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/st5/.
10. Janni, J.F., Nanosatellites Preparing
for Launch. 2000, Air Force Office of
Scientific Research
http://www.afosr.af.mil/pages/january
00.htm.
11. Flournoy, D., Online Journal of Space
Communication
http://satjournal.tcom.ohiou.edu/.
2002, SSPI.
12. Fiedziuszko, S.J. Applications of
MEMS in Communication Satellites.
15
 in Microwaves, Radar and Wireless 21. Yao, J.J., et al.,
Communications MIKON-2000. 13th Microelectromechanical system radio
International Conference on,. 2000: frequency switches in a picosatellite
IEEE. mission. Smart Materials &
13. Cass, S., Large Jobs for Little Structures, 2001. 10(6): p. 1196-1203.
Devices, in IEEE Spectrum. 2001. p.
72-73.
14. Lubecke, V.M. and J.-C. Chiao.
MEMS Technologies for Enabling
High Frequency Communications
Circuits. in Telecommunications in
Modern Satellite, Cable and
Broadcasting Services, 1999. 4th
International Conference on. 1999.
Nis, Yugoslavia: IEEE.
15. Konstantinidis, G., et al. GaAs
Membrane Supported Millimeter
Wave Filters. in MEMS Components
and Applications for Industry,
Automobiles, Aerospace, and
Communication. 2001. San Francisco,
USA: SPIE.
16. Vinoy, K.J. and V.K. Varadan, Design
of reconfigurable fractal antennas
and RF-MEMS for space-based
systems. Smart Materials &
Structures, 2001. 10(6): p. 1211-1223.
17. Tan, G.-L., A DC-Contact MEMS
Shunt Switch. IEEE Microwave and
Wireless Components Letters, 2002.
12(6): p. 212-214.
18. Rebeiz, G.M., G.-L. Tan, and J.S.
Hayden, RF MEMS Phase Shifters:
Design and Applications, in IEEE
Microwave Magazine. 2002. p. 72-76.
19. Neculoiu, D., et al. MEMS Antennas
for Millimeterwave Applications. in
MEMS Components and Applications
for Industry, Automobiles, Aerospace,
and Communication. 2001. San
Francisco, Ca: SPIE.
20. Twiggs, R., Orbiting Picosatellite
Automatic Launcher. 2001, Stanford
University,
http://ssdl.stanford.edu/opal/.

16
Biography appearance with Kermit the Frog or a cameo
in the next Superman film.

Patrick Schubel received his BS in

mechanical engineering at the University of
Dayton in 1999 and MSME from
Northwestern University in 2002, where he is
now a PhD student. His interest lies in
experimental mechanics and composite
behavior. His research has included studying
the fracture mechanics response of tires and
quantifying effects of porosity on the strength
of aerospace fiberglass. Besides being a
Jeremy G. Opperer received a B.S. in
dedicated scholar, he enjoys playing cards,
Mechanical Engineering from Lawrence
driving his 1990 Mercury Grand Marquis,
Technological University in 1998 and a M.S.
and rock and roll.
in Mechanical Engineering from
Northwestern University in 2002. He is
currently conducting top secret research and
working to complete a Ph.D. in Mechanical
Engineering from Northwestern University.
His interests include long walks on the beach
and a warm fire to cuddle up to. He also
enjoys tennis and the ancient art of the caber
toss.

Nick A. Pohlman received a B.S. in

Mechanical Engineering from the University
of Dayton in 2000 and a S.M. in Aeronautics
and Astronautics from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 2002. He is
currently conducting research and working to
complete a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering
from Northwestern University. His future
interests include obtaining tenure at an
academic institution and having a guest

17