Canadian CubeSat Project

Announcement of Opportunity

Publication date:

Application deadline: 2 p.m. (ET), New

Please note - Changes have been made since the posting of this Announcement of Opportunity.

Summary of Key Information

  • Expected budget for new awards over four years: $2.85 million
  • Eligible recipients: Canadian post-secondary institutions (colleges and universities)
  • Type of transfer payment: Grants
  • Maximum amount per grant: Up to $200,000 Summary of Key Information note *
  • Duration of grant: Up to four (4) years from award
  • Approximate number of grants: 13
  • Application deadline: 2 p.m. (ET), New

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. AO Objectives
  3. Eligibility Criteria
  4. Applications
  5. Evaluation
  6. Roles of the CSA
  7. Funding
  8. Funding Agreements
  9. Privacy Notice Statement
  10. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

List of Acronyms

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

In , the California Polytechnic State University and the Stanford University launched the CubeSat concept (see Wikipedia). It was conceived as a very low-cost satellite project that could be built by a team of about 10 students within two to three years.

The CubeSat concept sets the baseline satellite measurement to be 10 cm × 10 cm × 10 cm and to weigh less than 1.4 kg. This configuration is commonly known as "one unit" or 1U. It has been adopted by several academic institutions worldwide. Hundreds of post-secondary institutions in over 40 countries have developed or are in the process of developing CubeSats. With the introduction of CubeSat kits offered by specialized space companies, the complexity of building the satellite is further reduced. This is evidenced by the participation of a few U.S. primary and secondary schools in CubeSat projects. Over the years, as the capability of microelectronics improved, the popularity of CubeSats has spread to government agencies, research organizations and private enterprises. CubeSats have proven to be capable of carrying out missions for scientific research, Earth observation, meteorological measurements, and imaging. Appendix A to this document provides more information about CubeSats.

1.2 Canadian CubeSat Project (CCP) Announcement of Opportunity

With this as background, the CSA issues this CCP Announcement of Opportunity (AO) under the CSA Class Grant & Contribution (G&C) program. Through the CCP AO, the CSA aims to provide post-secondary institutions across Canada with an opportunity to engage their students in a real space mission by supporting projects that consist of designing, building, launching and operating a CubeSat in space. It is expected that through this unique hands-on experience, students will increase their interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), acquire expertise in a wide variety of areas – ranging from space science and technology to communicating their work with the public to project management (PM) – and develop invaluable skills to transition into the Canadian workforce.

Post-secondary institutions from every province and territory are invited to participate in this innovative AO-funded project. To this end, the CSA plans on awarding thirteen (13) grants –one for each province and territory. Appreciating that some provinces and/or territories may not have within them post-secondary institutions – universities or colleges – which feel ready to take the lead on a CubeSat project, the CSA encourages these institutions to partner with more experienced institutions in any of the other provinces and/or territories. Through such collaborative partnerships, the CSA is confident that it can meet its chief objective of achieving participation of all provinces and territories.

Each grant is expected to be up to $200,000 for the provinces (up to $250,000 for proposal involving one of the territories to support additional travelling costs to partake in collaborative efforts). Teams receiving grants will not only design and build their CubeSats; they will also prepare them for space. All thirteen (13) CubeSats are planned to be transported to and launched into space from the International Space Station (ISS). The CSA will make all arrangements for the CubeSats' launches and will cover the associated costs. The teams will then operate their satellites and conduct scientific experiments and/or validation of their technology development from space according to the objectives of their respective missions, which could last up to a maximum of 12 months.

The CSA has secured 30 units through NanoRacks LLC, a private company which hosts a CubeSat Deployer and equipment for experiments on the ISS. The CSA hopes to make full utilization of these 30 available units. As such, there will be the possibility from this CCP AO initiative to have the 13 satellites be a mixture of the 1U, 2U and 3U configurations. How many of each will be accommodated will be determined by the three-step evaluation process detailed within this document.

This initiative falls under the CSA's Space Science and Technology mandate to foster the continuing development of a critical mass of Canadian researchers and highly qualified personnel (HQP) with space-related knowledge, skills and expertise.

This AO is consistent with the terms and conditions of the CSA Class G&C Program to Support Research, Awareness and Learning in Space Science and Technology – Research Component.

Applicants are asked to read the following AO thoroughly before submitting their applications. This AO was prepared to help applicants complete the application process and outlines key elements, including mandatory criteria for eligibility, details on eligible projects, the selection process and required content of the proposal. In the event of any discrepancies between this AO and the individual funding agreements governing a project, the latter document(s) will take precedence.

2. AO Objectives

Through this AO, the CSA intends to support Canadian post-secondary institutions across Canada in offering HQPs hands-on experience with real space missions through a CubeSat development project. In addition to the objectives listed below, one important goal is to have each team being trained in multiple disciplines (science, technology, business, and communication) at university or college levels.

Such projects will contribute towards the following objectives; which are in line with the CSA G&C Program objectives:

By contributing to maintaining excellence in key capabilities and to inspiring Canadians, this AO will address key principles of Canada's Space Policy Framework. It will enable Canadian HQP to participate in future space missions, acquire new scientific and technical knowledge, as well as managerial and communication skills. This AO thus ensures the strategic and sustained utilization of space in Canada and the transition to the workforce of tomorrow.

3. Eligibility Criteria

3.1 Eligible Recipients

Canadian universities and post-secondary institutions.

3.2 Eligible Projects

To be eligible, it is mandatory that a project address the following elements:

All of the above elements must be described clearly in the proposal.

All applicants are asked to submit a proposal for either a 1U or 2U CubeSat project targeting a mission linked to space-based science or technology development.

Applicants who wish to ultimately work on a 3U CubeSat are invited to submit such proposals as options. Such applicants are to understand, however, that the initial selection of projects to be funded will be based solely on the evaluation of the 1U and 2U proposals (see Section 5.3 for additional details on the evaluation methodology and Section 5.4 for details regarding the evaluation process).

Note: Breaking down a project into numerous elements to obtain more than the maximum grant is not allowed.

3.3 Links to CSA Priorities and to the G&C Program Objectives

To be eligible, projects supported under this AO must contribute to the achievement of at least one of the following objectives:

4. Applications

4.1 Required Documentation

Each application must include the following:

Please see Appendix D for additional details regarding the content expected to be seen in each proposal.

It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the application complies with all relevant federal, provincial and territorial legislation and municipal bylaws.

Applications must be mailed to the CSA at the following address:

CCP AO
c/o France Bolduc
Space Science & Technology
Canadian Space Agency
6767 Route de l'Aéroport
Saint-Hubert, Quebec J3Y 8Y9

Applicants must also take note of the following:

Questions and answers related to this AO will be posted on the CSA website in the FAQ section of this AO (see Section 10). The CSA will answer questions received before .

4.2 Additional Factors for Applicants to Consider

Institutions applying for this Opportunity are responsible for the development of their CubeSat including the design and manufacturing of their CubeSat, as well as its operation and utilization after deployment. Therefore, to be eligible for this Opportunity, applicants must have sufficient capability in the following areas:

4.3 Service Standards for this AO – Complete Applications

Applicants will be notified in writing of decisions regarding their application. Selected applications will be announced on the CSA website. The CSA has set the following service standards for processing times, acknowledgements of receipt, funding decisions and payment procedures.

Acknowledgement: The CSA's goal is to acknowledge receipt of proposals within ten (10) working days following the AO's closing date.

Decision: The CSA's goal is to evaluate and respond to the proposal within twelve (12) weeks of the AO's closing date and to send a grant agreement for signature within six (6) weeks after formal approval of the proposal.

Payment: The CSA's goal is to issue a first installment payment within four (4) weeks of the successful fulfillment of the requirements outlined in the grant agreement.

Compliance with these service standards is a shared responsibility. Applicants must submit all required documentation in a timely fashion.

5. Evaluation

5.1 Eligibility Criteria

Applications will first be submitted to an eligibility assessment to verify if each of them:

5.2 Evaluation Criteria

Once the eligibility assessment is completed, compliant applications will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

Table 5-1 shows the definition and a breakdown of all evaluation criteria, which are further described in Appendix B. Applicants should carefully address each of them when writing their proposals.

Table 5-1 Definition and Breakdown of Evaluation Criteria
Category Sub-Category Max. score % of Total Score
1. Expected Results 1.1 HQP Training and Impact
This criterion assesses the relevance, type, diversity and level of experience, knowledge and professional skills (engineers, scientists, communication, and business) expected to be gained by the participating HQP. It also assesses the level of collaboration with other post-secondary institutions. All of the above being detailed in the training plan which is also to be measured against the intermediate- to long-term impact expected to have on the proposed HQP.
25 40%
1.2 Public Outreach Effectiveness
This criterion evaluates the relevance, feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed activities, as detailed in the Public Engagement Plan.
15
2. Project Feasibility 2.1 PM
This criterion evaluates the clarity and completeness of the PM plan.
15 35%
2.2 Resources
This criterion evaluates the quality, quantity and relevance of the human and non-human resources planned to be utilized to meet the project goals and objectives. It evaluates the timely availability of these resources and the adequate allocation of these resources to each specific project task. It also evaluates the existence of collaborators willing to provide financial and/or in-kind contribution, thereby leveraging funds from the CSA.
10
2.3 Risks Identification and Risk Mitigation Strategies
This criterion assesses the quality of the analysis regarding the risk factors associated with the proposed project, their identified probability of occurring and the planned mitigation strategies.
10
3. Project Merit 3.1 CubeSat Mission and Development
This criterion evaluates the scientific and/or technical merits of the proposed CubeSat mission and its development, as detailed in the CubeSat Development and Operation Plan.
15 15%
4. Benefits to Canada 4.1 Space Science and/or Technological Knowledge Creation
This criterion evaluates the direct and indirect contribution to the advancement of space science and/or the development of space-related technology derived from the CubeSat mission.
10 10%
Total 100 100%

Although proposals are not required to achieve a minimum score in order to be considered for funding, obtaining the highest score possible maximizes your chance of being selected to obtain financial support.

5.3 Evaluation Steps for the three (3) CubeSat Sizes

In the spirit of encouraging participation from all interested institutions while remaining mindful of its objectives and the NanoRacks constraints, the CSA has opted to proceed with the following methodology:

See Section 5.4 for details regarding the evaluation process

5.4 Evaluation Process

Only applications meeting the eligibility criteria listed in Section 5.1 will be given further consideration.

Eligible applications will be evaluated according to the criteria listed in Section 5.2 and described in more details in Appendix B.

Evaluators will include experts in the fields relevant to the proposed mission's applications and may include representatives from other government and non-government agencies and organizations. If and when applicable, a multidisciplinary evaluation committee will be formed when applications from different disciplines are competing with each other. Only responsive applications shall be considered further for funding. A steering committee at executive level will review the overall evaluation to provide final recommendations.

As was introduced at Section 1.2, the CSA hopes to award a grant to each of the ten (10) provinces and three (3) territories with the intent of ideally launching thirteen (13) CubeSats from the ISS.

Taking into account that there are thirty (30) units available for launch on NanoRacks, and in order to allow all interested applicants to participate in a fair and equitable manner, applicants are asked to submit proposals for the CubeSat configurations demanded by the evaluation steps detailed in Sections 5.4.1, 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.

5.4.1 Step 1 – Evaluation and Ranking of 1U and 2U Proposals

For the first evaluation step, only the 1U and 2U proposals will be evaluated as per the same evaluation criteria (see Section 5.2 and Appendix B). The 1U or 2U projects within each province and territory earning the top scores will form the initial list of projects to be funded. Proposals from a province or territory will not be compared nor assessed against those of other provinces or territories. Through this initial step, the CSA hopes to identify thirteen (13) proposals, one for each province and territory.

In the event that not all provinces and territories are represented upon the completion of Step 1, the evaluation process will proceed with Step 2.

5.4.2 Step 2 – Identification of Additional Projects

The evaluation of the 1U and 2U proposals in Step 1 will indicate which province and/or territory are so far represented by at least one of its post-secondary institutions.

In order to try and meet its prime objectives of ensuring, to the fullest extent possible, the participation of all ten (10) provinces and three (3) territories, and of having a total of thirteen (13) funded projects, the selection committee will then select additional projects from those not already selected.

In so doing, this committee will first place emphasis on projects involving the collaboration of the provinces and territories not represented by projects selected in Step 1. In addition to collaboration between the provinces and territories, the CSA will also consider the collaborative effort being proposed between the leading CubeSat teams (Applicants) and other participants from the Canadian space sector (industry, researchers) as well as from foreign researchers.

Upon completion of Step 2, the CSA plans on having successfully identified thirteen (13) projects that, together, involve the participation of each province and territory in at least one (1) project.

5.4.3 Step 3 – Upgrading Selected 2U CubeSat Projects to 3U CubeSat Projects

The completion of Step 2 will indicate how many free units remain on the NanoRacks' thirty (30) available units and thus how many 3U CubeSats could then be considered instead of 2U CubeSats.

To this end, the selection committee will identify which of the institutions already selected in the previous steps are to see their 3U projects funded rather than their 2U projects.

This process will be followed until all thirty (30) NanoRacks units are filled up.

6. Roles of the CSA

6.1 Launch Services

The CSA will be responsible to procure the launch service capacity (i.e., transport of the CubeSats to the ISS and launch of the CubeSats from the ISS). Launches are planned to occur in two batches. The first batch of CubeSats is expected to be ready within two years (24 months) after receipt of the grant awards and the second batch is expected to be delivered to the launch provider within three years (36 months) after receipt of the grant awards. The exact dates for both batches are not yet known and will be determined by NanoRacks.

The CSA will be responsible for conducting all liaisons with NanoRacks. As such, the CSA will ensure that all integration requirements identified by the CubeSat teams are made known to NanoRacks just as all the requirements demanded by NanoRacks are made known to the CubeSat teams. No CubeSat team is to liaise directly with NanoRacks.

6.2 Support from CSA to Selected Teams after Grant Awards

Following grant awards, the CSA will provide guidance to the CubeSat teams in the form of teaching and learning activities so as to ensure that the participating teams gain as much knowledge, skills and expertise through this CubeSat initiative. This guidance may include the conduct of activities such as webinars, seminars or workshops, progress/safety reviews, team project presentations as well as CubeSat performance demonstrations with the purpose of maximizing the overall learning and teaching experience, of ensuring the safe transport of the CubeSats to the ISS and the launch from the ISS, and of facilitating the creation of informal networks among team members.

During the design and building of the CubeSats, teams will therefore be invited to provide their technical questions to the CSA CCP team. These questions will serve as the basis for the following specific activities:

In addition to the above activities, the CSA may provide teaching documentations that teams could find useful when designing, building, testing and operating their CubeSats.

The intention behind the activities listed above is to create collaborative mechanisms that will assist all teams with achieving their project goals. Each team will, however, be responsible for the execution and success of their project.

The CSA will in no way be responsible or liable for the success of any of the CubeSat projects nor will it be liable for damages caused or sustained by either party or by any 3rd party.

It is worth emphasizing that the CubeSat projects to be funded under this AO will not in any way consist of competitions between the funded teams. To this end, in addition to the guidance opportunities mentioned above, teams will be encouraged to assist each other. The CSA sees collaborative effort between teams as one of the most important vehicles to maximizing the level of knowledge, skills and expertise expected to be gained by the CCP participants.

6.3 Support from Industry to Selected Teams

The CSA has conducted a Request for Information (RFI) to solicit information from Canadian companies interested in offering expertise, products and/or services to faculty members in post-secondary institutions participating in the CCP.

A list was created with the names of the Canadian companies who responded to the RFI and accepted to share their information with CCP applicants.

Two international companies also expressed an interest in offering their assistance and they are both included in the list of interested companies.

This list is provided in Appendix C to facilitate the collaboration between post-secondary institutions and RFI respondents interested in offering expertise, products and/or services to CCP applicants. Applicants are invited to consult this list and communicate with the company or companies of their choice. Applicants may also collaborate with other companies that did not respond to the RFI.

The CSA does not endorse nor support any company identified in this list.

7. Funding

7.1 Available Funding and Duration

The total maximum funding amount given in grant for each project will be $200,000, over a maximum period of up to four (4) years to allow successful applicants (recipients) to complete their training and project objectives.

Note: considering the substantial costs that teams with participation from the three (3) territories will face for travels to and from southern Canadian locations to attend collaborative efforts and/or project review meetings, the CSA is planning on covering such travels by increasing the total grant to an amount not exceeding $250,000 (thus an additional amount not to exceed $50,000 per agreement for teams involving participation by a territory).

It is expected that the launch of the CubeSats will be scheduled within 36 months after the starting date of the grant agreement. The operation phase of a CubeSat will usually be performed for up to twelve (12) months after the satellite is placed into orbit.

The total funding available under this AO is $2.85M but could be subject to change based on competing CSA operational requirements and funding availability.

The total number of projects under this AO will depend on funding availability.

Each eligible recipient can be funded for one (1) project under this AO.

The CSA reserves the right to reject any proposals or reduce the amount of the grants at its entire discretion.

Approved proposals will be eligible for a total amount of government assistance (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) of up to 100% of total project costs.

To determine the amount of funding to be allocated, consideration will be given to the availability of CSA funds, the total cost of the project, and the other confirmed sources of funds provided by other stakeholders and the applicant.

Given that the total cost of a proposed project can exceed the level of funding offered by the CSA, applicants are encouraged to seek funding from partners with the space industry or from local organizations. In addition to securing additional financial support, such funding partnerships can be a key element in developing successful HQP for future workforce.

Applicants must identify all sources of funding in their applications and confirm this information in the funding agreement if the project is selected for funding. Upon completion of a project, the recipient must also disclose all sources of funding.

7.2 Eligible Costs

Eligible costs are direct expenses that are associated with the delivery of the approved project and that are required to achieve the expected results of the project. Expenses will be covered subject to the applicant signing a funding agreement, in the form of a grant, with the CSA. Expenses incurred prior to the receipt of a grant agreement are not ineligible. Eligible costs for grants under this AO are the following:

8. Funding Agreements

8.1 Payments

The CSA and each successful applicant (the recipient) will sign a funding agreement. This is a condition for any payment made by the CSA with respect to the approved project.

The CSA plans on making two payments (installments), with the first being made within four (4) weeks of the successful fulfillment of the requirements outlined in the grant agreement and the second installment approximately one year later.

Each grant shall be disbursed depending on CSA's fund availability. The first installment shall not exceed $150,000 and must be in line with the recipient funding needs during the first year of the project, as described in the proposal. The second grant installment will be subject to the recipient's confirmed eligibility and acceptable progress as determined by the CSA's review of progress/safety reports.

Payments will be made in accordance with the process and the reporting requirements described in the signed funding agreement. Upon notice of a successful application, the CSA will have no liability until a funding agreement is signed by both parties. Only eligible costs indicated in the funding agreement and incurred after such agreement is signed will be reimbursed. The funding agreement will include a clause stipulating the recipient's obligation to confirm, once a year in the case of multi-year agreements, their eligibility for the G&C Program, and inform the CSA in writing of any changes to the conditions used in determining their eligibility.

8.2 Audit

The recipient of a funding agreement shall keep proper records of all documentation related to the funded project, for the duration of the project and for six (6) years after the completion date of the project, in the event of an audit. This documentation shall be available upon request.

8.3 Conflict of Interest

In the funding agreement, the recipient will certify that any current or former public office holder or public servant it employs complies with the provisions of the relevant Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector respectively.

Note: Current employees of the CSA are not eligible to participate in any way in any application under this AO.

8.4 Intellectual Property

All intellectual property developed by the recipient in the course of the project shall vest in the recipient.

8.5 Organizations in Quebec

An organization in Quebec whose operations are partially or fully funded by the province of Quebec may be subject to the Act Respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif, R.S.Q., Chapter M-30.

Under Sections 3.11 and 3.12 of this Act, certain entities/organizations, as defined in the meaning of the Act, such as municipal bodies, school bodies, or public agencies, must obtain authorization from the Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes du Québec (SAIC), as indicated by the Act, before signing any funding agreement with the Government of Canada, its departments or agencies, or a federal public agency.

Consequently, any entity that is subject to the Act is responsible for obtaining such authorization before signing any funding agreement with the Government of Canada, its departments or agencies, or a federal public agency.

Quebec applicants must complete, sign and include the M-30 Supporting Documentation form with their application.

8.6 Outcomes and Performance Measurement

The CSA will ask the recipients to report on the following outcomes:

8.7 Publications and Communication

As a courtesy, the CSA would like to receive a copy of publications arising from the work, and be informed in advance of significant press releases or media interest resulting from the work.

9. Privacy Notice Statement

The CSA will comply with the federal Access to Information Act and Privacy Act with respect to applications received. By submitting personal information, an applicant is consenting to its collection, use and disclosure in accordance with the following Privacy Notice Statement, which explains how the applicant's information will be managed.

Necessary measures have been taken to protect the confidentiality of the information provided by the applicant. This information is collected under the authority of the CSA Class G&C Program to Support Research, Awareness and Learning in Space Science and Technology, and will be used for the evaluation and selection of proposals. Personal information (such as contact information and biographical information) included in the rejected proposals will be stored in a CSA Personal Information Bank for five (5) years and then destroyed (Personal Information File no. ASC PPU045). Personal information included in the successful proposals will be kept along with the proposal results for historical purposes. These data are protected under the Privacy Act. According to the Privacy Act, the data linked to an individual and included in the proposal being evaluated can be accessed by the specific concerned individual who has rights with respect to this information. This individual may, upon request,

  1. be given access to his/her data and
  2. have incorrect information corrected or have a notation attached.

Applicants shall note that for all agreements over $25,000, information related to the funding agreement (amount, grant or contribution, name of the recipient and project location) will be made available to the public on the CSA website.

For additional information on privacy matters prior to submitting a proposal, please contact:

Access to Information and Privacy
Canadian Space Agency
Telephone: 450-926-4866
Email: asc.aiprp-atip.csa@canada.ca

10. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

It is the responsibility of the applicants to obtain clarification of the requirements contained herein, if necessary, before submitting an application.

For any questions related to the AO, applicants shall use the following generic email address: asc.lecedessetc-thegandccoe.csa@canada.ca. Questions and answers related to this AO will be posted on the CSA website in the FAQ section of this AO. In addition to posting answers on the afore-mentioned website, the CSA will hold a webinar, approximately two weeks after posting the AO. in order to answer any additional questions applicants may have pertaining to the AO or regarding the answers posted on the website. Information on this webinar will be posted on the CSA website. The CSA will respond to questions received before 12 noon (ET), .

At any point, applicants are welcome to share with the CSA their comments or suggestions regarding the AO, the program or the process. Applicants may either use the generic email address or the generic web-based Comments and Suggestions Box.

Question 1: Is it possible to include an electronical propulsion unit in the project?

Answer 1: The arrangement with the launch provider stipulates that all CubeSats will use the Safety Reviews applicable to CubeSats without a propulsion system. For that reason, Canadian CubeSat Project cannot accept proposals with a propulsion unit.

Question 2: Appendix D describes the proposal elements, but are there any guidelines on the expected length of the proposal (number of pages)?

Answer 2: The length of a CubeSat proposal typically varies between 20 to 30 pages with the key proposal elements being covered within 12 to 20 pages and the remaining pages addressing ancillary elements such as Curriculum Vita and letters of support.

Question 3: Section 4.1 states that "a copy of the document(s) confirming the legal name of the applicant" is required. On the application form, Section 1 asks for the "legal name of the organization (must be confirmed by the Office of Research)". What sort of documentation is required? Would a signed letter from the Office of Research confirming the legal name of the university be appropriate?

Answer 3: The CSA will accept a signed letter from the Office of Research confirming the legal name of the university.

Question 4: How can I determine if a Canadian post-secondary institution is eligible for this AO?

Answer 4: Canadian post-secondary institutions include any Canadian college and any Canadian university.

Question 5: Could CSA consider extending the AO deadline to the beginning of January?

Answer 5: Unfortunately, the AO deadline cannot be extended until January. Note that the AO deadline is now (ET) .

Question 6: In Appendix A.1 of the AO, it is stated that "Deployable mechanisms for antennas, arrays or booms will be reviewed on a case by case basis." Does this mean that we need to verify with the CSA that our design is acceptable before submitting our proposal? When will this review occur?

Answer 6: The review and approval of any deployable mechanism will be conducted at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) gate and does not therefore need to be verified with the CSA prior to proposal submission.

Question 7: Is there an overall page limit to the submission for the CCP?

Answer 7: Please see the answer formulated for question two (2).

Question 8: Is it necessary for a Co-PI to have a tenure-track appointment at the university?

Answer 8: The proposal must be signed by the duly representative of the institution and one PI. It is the responsibility of the institution to identify the PI authorized to sign the grant application form.

Question 9: Can we carry out an experiment with bacteria, specifically with Geobacter class?

Answer 9: Biological payloads are acceptable as long as they do not exceed Biosafety Level (BSL) 2. A BSL 2 payload will require a minimum 2 layers of containment.

Question 10: What is the maximum number of professors that can participate in one team? For example, are 4 professors too much?

Answer 10: CCP does not impose a maximum number of professors. It is important to clearly explain the role and contribution of each professor to the project.

Question 11: During the 6 month period that CSA keeps the CubeSat before the launch, is it possible to have an active system in the CubeSat? It could be independent of the rest of the CubeSat systems. In other words, it is a system for feeding. For example, a system that feeds the bacteria in order to assure their survival during the storage period.

Answer 11: The CubeSat is delivered to NanoRacks Houston facility immediately after passing the third safety review and the storage period can be up to 6 months. In principle, an independent mechanism connecting the CubeSat is allowed as long as it is isolated from the safety-critical inhibits. If the independent mechanism is a non-electrical feeding mechanism, it is usually permissible subject to review by safety panel. Note that the usual 6 month delay can be shortened, subject to the availability of launch opportunity, for biological payloads.

Question 12: What kind of output is allowed? For example, in the case of bacteria experiment, can we have a system to measure the CO2 produced?

Answer 12: Every biological experiment will be studied carefully before a definite answer can be provided. In general, CO2 generation is not a concern as long as the gas remains within the enclosure and the team can demonstrate the enclosure is not pressurized beyond the safe limit.

Question 13: In Section 5.3, it is mentioned that: "Applicants wishing to embark on a 3U CubeSat are required to submit two proposals – one for a 2U CubeSat and the other for a 3U CubeSat (note: for economy of effort, the proposed 3U project should, whenever possible, be an extension of the proposed 2U project).” For those interested in submitting a 3U CubeSat option, should they:

  1. Submit a two separate stand-alone proposal documents, each with the complete breakdown of sections etc.?
  2. Submit a single proposal document with the 3U option completely described in the 2U proposal subsections of the same document, where relevant?
  3. Submit a single proposal but with the 3U option elements in a separate document with the references to the 2U proposal sections, where relevant

Answer 13: The CSA will accept the proposals submitted in any of the three forms described in this question provided that such a proposal includes clearly all the necessary information regarding additional design, tasks and technical requirements.

Question 14: Section 7.2: Are students stipends classified under Bursaries for the purpose of this AO?

Answer 14: For the purposes of this AO, the stipends represent salaries but they are not subject to the limitation of 20% mentioned in Section 7.2 Eligible Costs.

Question 15: Application Form - Section 6: Are Form 100 or Canadian Common CV (CCV) accepted as for a CV?

Answer 15: The Form 100 (NSERC Personal Data Form) and the Canadian Common CV (CCV) are accepted forms of CV requested for this AO.

Question 16: Should the salaries of co-op undergraduate engineering students be included in the proposal budget as part of the "Bursaries" category?

Answer 16: For the purposes of this AO, the CO-OP undergraduate engineering students' salaries paid by the applicant as well as other salaries paid to students are salaries but they are not subject of 20% limitation mentioned in Section 7.2 Eligible Costs.

Question 17: In Section 1, please clarify what you mean by "Legal name of the organization".

Answer 17: The "Legal name of the organization" is the name which appears on legal documents such as letters of patent or federal or provincial documents of incorporation to confirm the form of an organization.

Question 18: In Section 3, please clarify who should be the "Duly authorized Signatory".

Answer 18: The duly authorized signatory is the person who represents the organization legally.

Question 19: In Section 4 of the Application Form, are the "top 5 Canadian collaborators" people or institutions?

Answer 19: For Section 4, the "top 5 Canadians collaborators" makes reference to institutions and not to people.

Appendix A: Background Information on CubeSat

The objective of this appendix is to provide relevant information on CubeSats and key consideration to assist applicants with formulating their proposals.

A.1 Technical Consideration

  1. Form Factor: CCP accepts proposals for 1U, 2U or 3U with physical size and mass as follows.
    Form Factor Dimension (cm) Mass (kg)
    1U 10 × 10 × 10 2.4
    2U 10 × 10 × 20 3.6
    3U 10 × 10 × 30 4.8
  2. Orbit altitude and inclination: The satellites will be launched from ISS NanoRacks CubeSat Deployer (NRCSD). The nominal orbit will be at 350 km altitude and inclination of 51º.
  3. The CubeSat batteries should maintain charge for a minimum of 6 months from time of integration into the NRCSD.
  4. The CubeSat shall remain in a full power off condition until 30 minutes after deployment from the ISS. Only an onboard timer system can be turned on immediately after deployment.
  5. Pyrotechnics device shall not be permitted in the CubeSat.
  6. Components that can be detached or fragmented shall not be allowed.
  7. Deployable mechanisms for antennas, arrays or booms will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
  8. The CubeSat shall be required to pass three Progress/Safety Reviews before being accepted for launch.
  9. Each CubeSat shall include three mechanical inhibits that prevent the CubeSat from being turned on accidentally.
  10. As the CubeSat size increases, the volume to accommodate the payload and the number of solar cell increases. Subsequently, the capability of the CubeSat increases. Moreover, there is an associated increase in cost and complexity.

A.2 Build versus Buy

Understanding that the provinces and territories do not necessarily have the same starting level of experience and expertise with CubeSats, the CSA will accept projects based on partial or full turnkey solutions. Because of the standardization of CubeSats, it is currently possible to purchase each or all CubeSat subsystems. It is equally feasible to purchase a turnkey solution that includes the CubeSat bus and the payload. Applicants considering purchasing a commercial solution are no doubt aware that, while such an approach reduces risks and shortens project schedule, it does come at the expense of a higher cost and potentially fewer learning opportunities in the STEM fields. The trade-offs between making and buying a CubeSat are illustrated in Figure A-1.

Figure A-1 Trade-offs between make versus buy

Sub-Program Management Structure Graph. Text version above

That being said, a turn-key or partial turn-key solution can be a more attractive option for applicants with limited experience and/or expertise with satellite design and fabrication or for those involving more junior students.

Building a CubeSat from basic materials can be a cheaper option but demands experienced spacecraft engineers to supervise the student team. The increased technical challenges typically yield increased STEM learning opportunities if the work is performed by students.

A.3 Suggested Technical Disciplines for Team Members

Table A-1 represents a typical CubeSat project team structure based on experiences of CubeSat building teams.

Table A-1 Typical CubeSat Project Team
Role Assignment Responsibility
Principal investigator (PI) Teacher / Professor Managing the budget, interface with CSA, assign responsibility to team members. The PI could also take the role as the PM or use this opportunity to train a student to be the PM.
Co-PI Teacher / Professor Support the PI in all responsibility areas. Since the Co-PI can be from different institutes, it is essential that PI and Co-PI maintain regular communications.
Project Manager Teacher / Professor with 1 Student The PM shall be the conduit between the PI and the team. It is essential that the PM collaborates with all the team leads. The key responsibility is monitoring the progress of the work packages (WP) as well as planning the schedule and budget.
Team lead 1 student per team There should be a team lead for the following aspects: electrical, mechanical, software, radiofrequency (RF) communications, mission systems and outreach. The team leads are responsible for the delivery of the assigned WP.
Team member 1-5 students per team It is recommended that each team be assigned a minimum of one team member. This would also ensure a backup in each key activity.

Note: owing to the relatively small size and simplified structure of a CubeSat, it is not an issue if one student assumes more than one role. What is most important to the project is that each member shall understand his/her role(s) and responsibility right from the beginning. The team size depends on the a priori experience of space projects. For a novice team, CSA recommends a size of 10–20 students.

A.3.1 Electrical

The electrical team looks after the power conversion and supply, battery, circuit board manufacturing (or procurement) and assembly as well as electrical systems integration and testing.

A.3.2 Mechanical

The mechanical team looks after the satellite structure manufacturing and assembly (including solar panels), thermal environment, mechanism (inhibits) design and installation as well as all bill of materials (BOM). NanoRacks advised that some CubeSat projects failed the final progress/safety review when the satellite structure could not fit smoothly into the NRCSD. The importance of the mechanical subsystems cannot be overlooked.

A.3.3 Software

Although most of the CubeSat hardware can be purchased as turnkey solution, turnkey software solution is not feasible. Each CubeSat will have its own unique payload and hardware. The software team is responsible for writing and testing codes to ensure proper functioning from ground to space and from space to all subsystems onboard the CubeSat.

A.3.4 RF Communications

The common communications protocol for CubeSat is the utilization of amateur radio bands with uplink in UHF and downlink in VHF. The RF communications team looks after the testing and programming for the radios. It will also be responsible for setting up the ground station and determining the operations schedule.

A.3.5 Mission Systems

The systems team is responsible for the requirements of the missions. It supports every team in requirement definition and validation and, as such, works closely with every team. Students will gain experience in systems engineering.

A.3.6 Public Engagement

Each team is responsible for developing a Public Engagement Plan that outlines how it will raise public awareness of the project. The plan should include a communications objectives, as well as the activities that will be developed and undertaken to achieve these objectives; examples include (but are not limited to): web content, social media activity, reaching out to the media, public presentations, and presentations to students (elementary, high-school or peers), which are effective tools in stimulating interest among students and the general public.

A.4 Development Timeline

There are certain factors that influence the development time of a CubeSat. A few of them are listed below:

A.5 Licensing Requirement

The use of RF requires close coordination to avoid unwanted interference and unauthorized usage that can jeopardize public safety. In Canada, the coordination is managed by the Directorate of Spectrum Management and Telecommunications within the Ministry of Innovation, Science & Economic Development (ISED). The communications with a satellite also necessitates an operations license from ISED. The procedures are fairly complex for first-time applicants. As such, Frequency Coordination System Association (FCSA) published a useful reference entitled "Frequency Coordination Procedures & Database Maintenance Responsibilities Manual" that explains the step-by-step procedure.

A.6 Mission Ideas

Since the introduction of CubeSat concept in , the latest estimate shows over 140 1U, over 50 2U and over 475 3U CubeSats have been launched. Among these, approximately many were designed, built and operated by university teams from over 20 countries. Swartwout maintained until an online database of the university CubeSat missions in which he classified broadly into 4 categories: T-class, S-class, C-class and E-class. They are defined as follows:

In fact, the majority of the university CubeSats fits into multiple categories. Below is a sample of 10 different CubeSat missions that highlights a variety in space mission ideas:

Table A-2 Sample CubeSat missions
Mission Description CubeSat Format Class
T S C E
CanX-2 Developed by University of Toronto Institute of Aerospace Studies, this CubeSat performs GPS radio occultation experiment, measurement of greenhouse gas using an atmospheric spectrometer, demonstration of a new propulsion unit, and evaluation of protective coating
Web page: utias-sfl.net/?page_id=274
3U Yes Yes    
CUNYSat This is the first satellite project of City University of New York. The goal is to design, assemble and test a basic pathfinder CubeSat; provide workforce experience for undergraduate students in building a 1U CubeSat using mostly commercial components
Web page: cunysat.org
1U       Yes
ESTCube The Estonian student CubeSat projects that have two objectives: training of space science and engineering and technology demonstration
Web page: estcube.eu/en/home
1U Yes     Yes
Ex Alta 1 Experimental Albertan 1 (Ex Alta 1) satellite is the first CubeSat designed, built and tested by Alberta students. The primary objective is the demonstration of a new digital fluxgate magnetometer. As it is also a member QB50 constellation, Ex Alta 1 collects space plasma physics data from a Langmuir probe.
Web page: www.albertasat.ca
3U Yes Yes   Yes
Firebird Joint development between University of New Hampshire and Montana State University in studying space weather phenomena
Webpage: ssel.montana.edu/firebird.html
1.5U   Yes    
ROBUSTA A CubeSat designed by students in University of Montpellier 2, France that studies space radiation. The project is funded by the French Space Agency (CNES) under the program EXPRESSO
Webpage: https://robusta.cnes.fr/en/ROBUSTA/index.htm
1U Yes      
ZACUBE-1 A student training project from South African Institute of Technology. The CubeSat includes an experiment to study ionospheric propagation and demonstration of in-house built transceiver. An onboard camera also takes images of the Earth.
Webpage: ZACUBE-1 | French South African Institute of Technology
1U Yes     Yes

In , Canadian Satellite Design Challenge (CSDC) was created and launched by CSDC Management Society. The goal of CSDC is to encourage university student teams in Canada to design, build and test a 3U CubeSat. Each team is judged by a panel of experts on the technical content. A real-life vibration test of the engineering model is conducted at CSA DFL. Each contest lasts about 18 months and, since , three campaigns have successfully been carried out and the fourth one was launched in . Table A-3 summarizes the mission ideas of some of the past missions.

Table A-3 Mission Concept from 3rd CSDC
Team Mission Concept
Concordia University Testing a self-healing material in microgravity.
École Polytechnique de Montréal A deployable drag sail to reduce end-of-life time on orbit. The project team also collaborates with University of Bologna, Italy.
University of Manitoba Testing the resilience of extremophile bacteria to survive the space environment.
University of Toronto Testing the pathogenicity of yeast strains in micro-gravity conditions.
University of Victoria Testing the use of a diamagnetic material for spacecraft attitude control.
York University Camera to detect airglow, a possible earthquake precursor.

A.7 Design and Test Reviews

Design and test reviews are essential to the success of every satellite project. They consist of meetings during which satellite teams presents the progress of their project and the results of tests conducted on their CubeSat to the CSA review team. Table A-4 highlights the timeframe and location planned for each of these meetings. The responsibility of the review team is to assess whether there is any design issue and whether the progress satisfies the milestones. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook is a comprehensive guidebook on design reviews including full list of deliverables for reviews. For CCP, CSA has adjusted the requirements for design and test reviews to be commensurate with a typical college/university CubeSat project. The goal of the design and test reviews is to satisfy the safety requirements for the launch provider, NanoRacks, and to maximize the probability of success of the CubeSats.

Each CubeSats funded following this AO will have to successfully pass all four design and test reviews in order to be integrated into the ISS flight manifest and be put into orbit.

A.7.1 Mission Concept Review (MCR)

At MCR, each CubeSat team will have to answer these questions:

The MCR is an-house activity to which all team members should participate.

A.7.2 Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

As the name suggests, PDR is an opportunity for the CubeSat team to present the preliminary design of the satellite mission. The key expectations from the review team are as follows:

Each team should plan on having a minimum of one individual attend the PDR, with a typical team representation being 3 to 5 individuals.

A.7.3 CDR

In the CDR, the role of the review team is to ensure the satellite is ready for assembly, integration and testing (AIT). The reviewers will focus on:

Each team should plan on having a minimum of one individual attend the CDR, with a typical team representation being 3 to 5 individuals.

A.7.4 Vibration Test and Test Review

Teams will, at a minimum, be required to have their assembled satellite vibration tested. Although not a requirement for this CubeSat initiative, teams may opt to have additional tests conducted.

For the vibration tests, any recognized facility is acceptable. Those wishing to call upon the services of the DFL in Ottawa, should budget for a fee of $5,000.

Teams should allow for two (2) days for the conduct of the vibration tests.

The CSA will require the testing facility to forward a copy of the test results for its review and approval.

Upon review of the vibration tests, the CSA will provide feedback to each team regarding their respective test results. In the event of a test failure, a strategy regarding how to move forward will also be discussed and agreed upon.

A.7.5 FRR

NanoRacks will use the FRR to confirm that the completed CubeSats meet all the safety requirements. As a minimum, the company demands:

Each team should plan on having a minimum of one (1) individual attend the FRR, although 2 to 3 representatives would be better. The CSA will use the FRR as part of its CubeSat Project publicity and outreach strategy.

Table A-4 Typical Schedules
The following compares the timelines between a 24-month project (Schedule A) and a 36-month project (Schedule B).
Project Stage Phase Schedule A Schedule B
Mission Definition A 2 months 4 months
MCR Milestone KOM +2 months KOM + 4 months
Preliminary Design B 6 months 8 months
PDR Milestone KOM + 8 months KOM + 12 months
Detailed Design C 7 months 12 months
CDR Milestone KOM + 15 months KOM + 24 months
AIT D 8 months 11 months
Vibration Testing D KOM + 23 months KOM + 35 months
Vibration Test Review D TBD TBD
FRR Milestone KOM + 24 months KOM + 36 months

Appendix B: Point-Rated Evaluation Criteria

This Appendix provides details about each of the seven (7) point-rated criteria that will be used to evaluate and rank all eligible (compliant) proposals (see eligible criteria at Section 5.1). Points will be awarded for each criterion as per the benchmark statements (assessment guidelines) provided herein.

The evaluators shall provide their assessments objectively by using only the information provided in the proposals. It is the responsibility of the applicants to provide pertinent and complete information for each criterion. In preparing their proposals, applicants are asked to also refer to the information provided in Appendix D – Proposal Elements.

Each point-rated criterion will be evaluated using four (4) benchmark statements and assigned one of four (4) ratings (Poor, Average, Good or Excellent). The grid below outlines the maximum number of points available for each of the four (4) evaluated categories as well as the maximum number of points associated with each of the four (4) benchmark statements for each of the seven (7) criteria.

Also note that each of the four (4) evaluation categories is assigned a percentage (%) of the overall total score (which 100%).

Categories and Criteria

Category 1: Expected Results (40% of overall score)
Maximum: 40 Points

Criterion 1.1: HQP Training and Impact
Maximum: 25 Points

This criterion assesses the relevance, type, diversity and level of experience, knowledge and professional skills (engineers, scientists, communication, and business) expected to be gained by the participating HQP. It also assesses the level of collaboration with other post-secondary institutions. All of the above being detailed in the training plan which is also to be measured against the intermediate- to long-term impact expected to have on the proposed HQP.

The proposal should also elaborate on how the project is expected to impact HQP beyond the CubeSat mission. For instance, will the CubeSat project provide a stepping stone to the HQP higher education in STEM, future employment opportunities or future business? Does the CubeSat project provide opportunities for HQP outside the institute?

HQP Training and Impact (Maximum 25 Points)
Rating Assessment Guidelines
Poor:
(0 Point)
The proposal does not discuss the training to be provided to the HQP and does not discuss how the CubeSat project is expected to impact on the HQP.
or
The supporting information provided misses all the key information and details. The training to be received and how it is expected to impact on the HQP in their higher education or potential future careers cannot be assessed. There will be no impact on HQP outside the institute.
Average:
(8 Points)
The experience, knowledge and professional skills that each HQP will receive are provided but the depth of the diversity is shallow and key information and details are missing. The proposal provides an average assessment with little supporting information about how the project is expected to impact on the HQP in their higher education or future career. The impact on HQP outside the institute is briefly discussed and the overall impact is assessed to be low.
Good:
(16 Points)
The diversity of experience, knowledge and professional skills that each HQP will receive are provided but minor details are missing. The proposal provides a good assessment with some supporting information about how the project is expected to impact on the HQP in their higher education or future career. The impact on HQP outside the institute is explained and the impact is assessed to be medium.
Excellent:
(25 Points)
The experience, knowledge and professional skills that each HQP will receive reflect a wide diversity (skills and geographical areas) and are clearly provided in details. The proposal provides a complete assessment with all supporting information about how the project is expected to impact on the HQP in their higher education or future career. The impact on HQP outside the institute is discussed in details and the overall impact is assessed to be high.

Criterion 1.2: Public Outreach Effectiveness
Maximum: 15 Points

This criterion evaluates the nature and breadth of the activities outlined in the Public Engagement Plan which aim at promoting the different facets of the project and at providing avenues to discuss the project's challenges and success stories as well as ways for the team to gain additional hands-on experience in a variety of fields.

Public Outreach Effectiveness (Maximum 15 Points)
Rating Assessment Guidelines
Poor:
(0 Point)
The proposal does not include a Public Engagement Plan.
or
The Public Engagement Plan misses all the key information and their associated details. There is no information on the budget and student resources. There is little likelihood of achieving success with the proposed outreach activities.
Average:
(5 Points)
The Public Engagement Plan lacks details and is missing key information such as proposed activities, targeted audiences and the variety of promotional tools being envisaged. The proposal provides no or poor justification as to why the proposed budget and student resources will be sufficient to support the outreach activities. The planned outreach activities will be limited to the institution itself.
Good:
(10 Points)
The Public Engagement Plan is detailed but some minor information is missing such as details on proposed activities, targeted audiences and the variety of promotional tools being envisaged. The proposal provides insufficient justification as to why the proposed budget and student resources will be sufficient to support the outreach activities. The planned outreach activities will cover at least one institution and/or organization other than the applying institution within the province or territory.
Excellent:
(15 Points)
The Public Engagement Plan is detailed and includes all relevant information on the proposed activities, the targeted audiences and the variety of promotional tools to be developed to communicate the team's project. The proposal provides full justification as to why the proposed budget and student resources will be sufficient to support the outreach activities. The planned outreach activities will target several institutions and/or organizations within the province or territory.

Category 2: Project Feasibility (35% of overall score)
Maximum: 35 Points

Criterion 2.1: PM
Maximum: 15 Points

This criterion evaluates the clarity and completeness of the PM plan.

PM (Maximum 15 Points)
Rating Assessment Guidelines
Poor:
(0 Point)
The proposal does not include a PM plan.
or
The project plan provided is clearly insufficient as most of the expected information is either missing or severely lacking in its level of details. The plan also indicates no schedule margin. The time commitment of the PI and Co-PI to the project is not indicated.
Average:
(5 Points)
The proposal includes a PM plan that only includes some of the required information such as WP, resource allocation for each WP and schedule. The plan also indicates a schedule margin that is insufficient. The time commitment of the PI and Co-PI to the project is inadequate.
Good:
(10 Points)
The proposal includes a PM plan that has most of the expected details such as WP, resource allocation for each WP and schedule. The plan also indicates a schedule margin that is marginal. The time commitment of the PI and Co-PI to the project is acceptable.
Excellent:
(15 Points)
The proposal includes a solid and credible PM plan complete with all the details regarding WP, resource allocation and schedule. The plan also allocates a schedule margin that is sufficient. The time commitment of the PI and Co-PI to the project is clearly adequate.

Criterion 2.2: Resources
Maximum: 10 Points

This criterion evaluates the quality, quantity and relevance of the human and non-human resources planned to be utilized to meet the project goals and objectives. It evaluates the timely availability of these resources and the adequate allocation of these resources to each specific project task. It also evaluates the existence of collaborators willing to provide financial and/or in-kind contribution, thereby leveraging funds from the CSA.

Considering that the grant is a fixed amount, recipients cannot expect an amendment for an additional sum. The recipient has the ultimate responsibility for any cost overrun.

Resources (Maximum 10 Points)
Rating Assessment Guidelines
Poor:
(0 Point)
There is a clear mismatch between the resources proposed to be used and the project goals and objectives. Key resources are missing and there is no indication of a plan to obtain them. There are no contributions from the applicant or from other organizations.
Average:
(5 Points)
Some resources (material, research infrastructure, human expertise and skills, and/or financial resources) are missing to accomplish the project goals and objectives. The applicant provides an in-kind contribution. Other organizations to be involved in the project plan to provide financial and/or in-kind contribution.
Good:
(7 Points)
Material, research infrastructure, human (expertise and skills), and financial resources required to accomplish the project goals and objectives are identified and their utilization is planned adequately. While being well identified, there are some uncertainties about availability of resources in a timely manner. The allocation of resources per project task is appropriate. The applicant plans to provide an in-kind contribution. Other organizations to be involved in the project may plan to provide a financial or in-kind contribution. Only some resources are secured and/or confirmed so far.
Excellent:
(10 Points)
Material, research infrastructure, human (expertise and skills), and financial resources required to accomplish the project goals and objectives are clearly identified, well detailed and planned to be efficiently and effectively used. Resources will be available in a timely manner. The allocation of resources per project task is clearly appropriate. The applicant plans to provide a significant in-kind contribution considering the total project budget. Other organizations to be involved in the project will provide significant financial and in-kind contributions. All resources have been secured and/or confirmed.

Criterion 2.3: Risks Identification and Mitigation Strategies
Maximum: 10 Points

This criterion assesses the quality of the analysis regarding the risk factors associated with the proposed project, their identified probability of occurring and the planned mitigation strategies.

The purpose of this analysis evaluation is to determine the feasibility of the team being able to complete the project within the proposed time and budget.

Risks Identification and Risk Mitigation Strategies (Maximum 10 Points)
Rating Assessment Guidelines
Poor:
(0 Point)
The proposal does not identify any risks.
Or
The proposal only identifies some obvious risks but does not outline any mitigation strategies for these risks.
Average:
(5Points)
Although the proposal identifies some key risks, major risk factors are missing and/or the mitigation strategies for the identified risks are either missing or not realistic.
Good:
(7 Points)
Most key financial, technical, managerial and environmental risks and their associated mitigation strategies are identified with their associated mitigation strategies described but with some of them being questionable. Some information is provided regarding the probability of the identified risks materializing.
Excellent:
(10 Points)
All key financial, technical, managerial and environmental risks associated with all phases of the project and all of their associated mitigation strategies are relevant and well described. The information provided for the purpose of assessing the probability of the risks materializing is deemed realistic. There is a high level of confidence that the bus and the payload will be successfully developed and operated.

Category 3: Project Merit (15% of overall score)
Maximum: 15 Points

Criterion 3.1: CubeSat Mission and its Development
Maximum: 15 Points

This criterion evaluates the scientific and/or technical merits of the proposed CubeSat mission and its development, as detailed in the CubeSat Development and Operation Plan.

CubeSat Mission and its Development (Maximum 15 Points)
Rating Assessment Guidelines
Poor:
(0 Point)
The proposal provides no review of the mission objectives and no justification as to the choice of the proposed payload and bus format.
or
The bus and payload development plan is noticeably incomplete and many key information and details are missing. The choice of payload and bus cannot be justified and the probability of meeting the mission objective is consequently assessed to be low.
Average:
(7 Points)
The proposal provides a basic review of the mission objective, of the proposed payload and of the bus format. The bus and payload development plan is provided. The justification for the choice of the payload and bus is marginal with key information missing. The probability of meeting the mission objective is assessed to be average.
Good:
(10 Points)
The proposal provides a good review of the mission objective, of the proposed payload and of the bus format. The bus and payload development plan provides most of the key information. The justification for the choice of the payload and bus is acceptable with minor information missing. The probability of meeting the mission objective is assessed to be high.
Excellent:
(15 Points)
The proposal provides an excellent review of the mission objective as well as of the choice of the proposed payload and bus format. A complete bus and payload development plan with all key information and details is also provided. The justification for the choice of the payload and bus is complete and credible. The probability of meeting the mission objective is assessed to be very high.

Category 4 Benefits to Canada (10% of the overall score)
Maximum: 10 Points

Criterion 4.1: Space Science and/or Technological Knowledge Creation
Maximum: 10 Points

This criterion evaluates the direct and indirect contribution to the advancement of space science, and/or the development of space-related technology from the CubeSat mission.

Examples of direct contribution include new scientific observations and/or measurements realized through the CubeSat mission. It also includes demonstration of new instrument or payload on the CubeSat. Indirect contribution refers to the increased dissemination of space science and technology knowledge through the CubeSat mission. It can include the creation of new space curriculum or of a new ground facility (e.g., laboratory, observatory or ground station) for Canada.

Space Science and/or Technology Knowledge Creation (Maximum 10 Points)
Rating Assessment Guidelines
Poor:
(0 Point)
The proposal does not discuss how the CubeSat mission contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge or to the development of technology.
or
The supporting information provided misses all the key information and details. The direct or indirect contribution to space science or to technology development is expected to be negligible.
Average:
(5 Points)
There is a discussion on how the CubeSat mission contributes directly or indirectly to space science or to technology development. The supporting information provided is inadequate with key information and details are missing. The contribution to science advancement and/or technology development is assessed to be low.
Good:
(7 Points)
There is a good discussion on how the CubeSat mission contributes directly or indirectly to space science or to technology development. The supporting information is adequate with all key information provided except that some minor details are missing. The contribution to science advancement and/or technology development is assessed to be medium.
Excellent:
(10 Points)
There is a detailed discussion on how the CubeSat mission contributes directly and indirectly to space science or to technology development. The supporting information is complete with all key information and details provided. The contribution to science advancement and/or technology development is assessed to be high.

Appendix C: List of Companies that Responded to the RFI

The following is the list of companies that have expressed, in response to a CSA's RFI, an interest in offering expertise, products and/or services to faculty members in post-secondary institutions participating in the CCP.

The CSA does not endorse nor support any company identified in this list.

Id Company Name of Product/
Service/
Expertise
Type of Collaboration
Considered
Name of Provinces
and/or Territories
Interested
to Work with
1

ABB Inc.
Measurement & Analytics Business Unit
3400 rue Pierre-Ardouin
Quebec, QC G1P 0B2

# Of Employees:
4000 in Canada
250 in local business unit

Point of Contact:
Jacques Giroux, Business Development Manager, Space and Defence Systems
Telephone: 581-628-2113
Email: jacques.g.giroux@ca.abb.com

Website: www.abb.ca
www.abb.com/spacedefense

  • Coaching in: system engineering; mechanical engineering for space systems (structural and thermal); in electrical engineering applied to space systems; and in integration and tests process for space systems
  • Use of structural and thermal analysis tools
  • Test and integration facilities (clean rooms, environmental chamber, thermal vacuum chambers, optical measurements)
  • Expertise in space optics
  • Other kinds of contribution may also be considered
  • Training, coaching, review
  • Access to company's facilities
  • Other types of collaboration may also be considered
All provinces and territories
2

Canadensys Aerospace Corporation
10 Parr Boulevard
Bolton, Ontario L7E 4G9

# Of Employees: 15+

Point of Contact:
Dr. Nadeem Ghafoor Vice-President, Space Exploration
Telephone: 416-845-8129
Email: nadeem.ghafoor@canadensys.com

Website:
www.canadensys.com

Nanosatellite Mission & System Design, Nano-space Mission Assurance, Nanosat Subsystems, Nano-class Assembly & Test Technology / product supplier, Engineering design consultancy, Assembly, integration & test support, Assembly, integration & test facilities, Environmental test support & facilities, Research collaboration, Student mentoring, In-kind contributions
  • Quebec
  • British Columbia
  • Alberta
  • Manitoba
  • Saskatchewan
  • Nova Scotia
  • New Brunswick
  • Newfoundland and Labrador
  • Prince Edward Island
  • Northwest Territories
  • Nunavut
  • Yukon
3

C-CORE
Morrissey Road
St. John's, NL A1B 3X5 – and
4043 Carling Avenue
Ottawa, ON K2K 2A4

# Of Employees: 70

Point of Contact:
Desmond Power, Vice President, Remote Sensing
Telephone: 709-864-8353
Email: des.power@ccore.ca

Website: www.c-core.ca

  • Space systems hardware development.
  • Radar systems development.
  • High speed space-qualified data acquisition to support C-band radar.
  • Consulting advice on development of space qualified hardware.

Website Link to the Description of
Each Product/ Service/ Expertise:
https://www.c-core.ca/systems-expertise

product/ service supplier All provinces and territories
4

DRS Technologies Canada Ltd.
500 Palladium Drive, Suite 1100
Kanata, ON K2V 1C2
Canada

# Of Employees: 300

Point of Contact:
Hendrik van der Linde, Business Development Manager – Advanced Manufacturing
Telephone: 613-591-6468
Email: hvanderl@drs.ca

Website: leonardodrs.com

Build to Print manufacturing services (Circuit Cards Assemblies, cables/harnesses, complete box builds), manufacturability, layout and some design recommendations Build to Print Electronic Manufacturing Services, Manufacturability, Layout & Design collaboration, Post-secondary Co-op student positions (engineering, supply chain, etc.) All provinces and territories
5

Kepler Communications Inc.
675 King Street W, Suite 204
Toronto, ON M5V 1M9

# Of Employees: 13

Point of Contact:
Jeffrey Osborne
Telephone: None provided
Email: josborne@kepler.space

Website: www.keplercommunications.com

Telecommunications Mentoring of students Ontario
6

Magellan Aerospace, Winnipeg
660 Berry Street
Winnipeg, MB R3H 0S5

# Of Employees: 693

Point of Contact:
Dario Schor
Telephone: 204-775-8331 ext 3165
Email: dario.schor@magellan.aero

Website: www.magellan.aero

  • Advanced Satellite Integration Facility (ASIF)
  • Thermal-vacuum test facilities
  • Vibration test facilities
  • Satellite engineering mentorship in the following subsystem areas; covering the full cycle of design, development and testing:
    • Mission and orbit analysis
    • Spacecraft systems engineering
    • Power generation and distribution
    • Attitude determination & control
    • Command and data handling
    • Communications
    • Hardware and firmware
    • Spacecraft and mission simulators
    • Structures
    • Thermal control
    • Flight software

Website Link to the Description of
Each Product/ Service/ Expertise:

Provide service support and access to the ASIF for cleanroom spacecraft activities, or access to other manufacturing and test facilities. Provide mentorship to students in satellite development and sounding rockets. All provinces and territories
7

MPB Communications Inc.
147 Hymus Boulevard
Pointe-Claire, QC H9R 1E9

# Of Employees: 130+

Point of Contact:
Roman Kruzelecky
Telephone: 514-694-8751
Email: roman.kruzelecky@mpbc.ca

Website: www.mpbcommunications.com

  Consulting services, mission definition and support, payload design, CubeSat/Components TVAC Testing All provinces and territories.
8

NGC Aerospace Ltd
2995 boul. Industriel
Sherbrooke, QC J1L 2T9

# Of Employees: 18

Point of Contact:
Jean de Lafontaine
Telephone: 819-348-9483 ext. 221
Email: ngc@ngcaerospace.com

Website: www.ngcaerospace.com

Customized Attitude and Orbit Control System (AOCS) software development from requirements definition to in-flight validation, Flight software development, High-fidelity simulator development, Validation services, Turn-key navigation solutions

Website Link to the Description of
Each Product/ Service/ Expertise:

www.ngcaerospace.com/
space-systems/guidance-navigation-control-solutions/for-satellites

www.ngcaerospace.com/
space-systems/locoos-navigator

www.ngcaerospace.com/
space-systems/mission-design-analysis

Consultancy support, Mentoring of students All provinces and territories
9

Prestige Space Systems
52 Ashdale Ave.
Toronto, Ontario M4L 2Y7

# Of Employees: 2

Point of Contact:
Ivan Pienaar
Telephone: 647-529-5544
Email: ivan@prestigespacesystems.com

Website: www.prestigespacesystems.com

  • Attitude Determination and Control System
  • Electrical Power System
  • Magnetorquers

Website Link to the Description of
Each Product/ Service/ Expertise:

www.prestigespacesystems.com/
products/adcs/

www.prestigespacesystems.com/
products/eps/

www.prestigespacesystems.com/
products/magnetorquer

Product supplier All provinces and territories
10

Promethean Labs
6710 1000 Airport Road
Edmonton International Airport, Alberta
Canada T9E 0V3

# Of Employees: 5

Point of Contact:
Charles Nokes
Telephone: 780-270-4967
Email: charles.nokes@prometheanlabs.ca

Website: prometheanlabs.ca

Consultation for CubeSat design, build, test, and operation

Website Link to the Description of
Each Product/ Service/ Expertise:

Specific services listed on our webpage:
prometheanlabs.ca/services/
Link to AlbertaSat webpage for information and updates on Ex-Alta 1:
https://albertasat.ca

Service supplier and mentoring of students and Faculty All provinces and territories
11

RHEA Inc.
6700 Côte-de-Liesse, Suite 105
Montreal, Quebec H4T 2B5

# Of Employees: 10 (RHEA Inc., in Canada), ~300 (groupwide)

Point of Contact:
Cedric Seynat
Telephone: 438-792-1877
Email: c.ceynat@rheagroup.com

Website: www.rheagroup.com

Concurrent Design tools and methodology for feasibility studies and options analysis

Website Link to the Description of
Each Product/ Service/ Expertise:

https://www.rheagroup.com/
services/concurrent-design

Product/service supplier
  • Quebec
  • Ontario
12

Sinclair Interplanetary
Suite 200, 20 Maud Street
Toronto, Ontario M5V 2M5

# Of Employees: 7

Point of Contact:
Cordell Grant (Chief Operating Officer)
Telephone:
647-648-3466
Email:
ccg@sinclairinterplanetary.com
Thomas Sears (Engineer)
Telephone:
416-908-3238
Email:
tmcs@sinclairinterplanetary.com

Website: www.sinclairinterplanetary.com

Develops and manufactures high performance small satellite hardware, expertise in small satellite mission development.

Website Link to the Description of
Each Product/ Service/ Expertise:

www.sinclairinterplanetary.com/
capabilitiesandequipment

Mentorship, training and review. Use of facilities may be granted, subject to availability. All provinces and territories
13

SkyWatch Space Applications
14 Erb St. W
Waterloo, ON N2L 1S7

# Of Employees: 17

Point of Contact:
Dexter Jagula
Telephone: 647-966-4621
Email: dexter@skywatch.co

Website: https://www.skywatch.co

EarthCache™

Website Link to the Description of
Each Product/ Service/ Expertise:

https://www.skywatch.co/
data-partner

product/service supplier and/or in-kind contributor All provinces and territories
14

Space Strategies Consulting Ltd
555 Legget Drive, Tower A, Suite 304
Kanata, Ontario
Canada K2K 2X3

# Of Employees: 10

Point of Contact:
Andre Dupuis, President
Telephone: 613-979-0623
Email: andre@sscl.solutions

Website: www.sscl.solutions

SSCL provides trusted, third -party advice to the civil, commercial and national security space enterprise

  • Technology Outlook
  • Technology Integration
  • Development of Concepts of Operations / Concepts of Employment
  • Strategy Development,
  • Policy Development
  • Capability-Based Planning
  • Space Mission Design
  • Space Sciences and Exploration
  • Government Contracting
  • Earth Observation and Remote Sensing / Space-based Sensors and Systems
  • Surveillance of Space
  • Satellite Communications
  • Training and Professional Development
  • Exercise and Wargame Design, Scenario Development and Execution
  • Market Analysis
  • Strategic Partnership Development
SSCL would be willing to support across the entire spectrum of its services. All provinces and territories
15

Telecan Space Inc
44 Montee Juniper
Chelsea, Quebec J9B 1T4

# Of Employees: 3

Point of Contact:
Jean Paul Carnicer
Telephone: 613-219-1002
Email: paulcarnicer@telecanspace.com

Website: www.telecanspace.com

Thermal Vacuum Testing, Thermal Engineering services, Mechanical Engineering Services, Satellite Program Management.

Website Link to the Description of
Each Product/ Service/ Expertise:

Thermal Vacuum Testing: www.telecanspace.com
Thermal Engineering Services: www.telecanspace.com
Mechanical Engineering Services: www.telecanspace.com
Satellite Program Management: www.telecanspace.com

Product/Services supplier All provinces and territories
16

Swedish Space Corporation (SSC)
Tritonvägen 11, Lastkaj BTritonvägen, SE-171 54 Solna, Sweden

# Of Employees: 536

Point of Contact:
Jennifer Blasko
Telephone: 1-703-577-7596
Email: jennifer.blasko@sscspace.com

Website: www.sscspace.com

Ground station communications

Website Link to the Description of
Each Product/ Service/ Expertise:

www.sscspace.com/
Products-Services/
satellitemanagementservices

Service supplier, provide general information to students All provinces and territories
17

SatRevolution S.A.
Stabłowicka 147, 54-066 Wrocław, Poland

# Of Employees: 10

Point of Contact:
Pawel Rymaszewski
Telephone: 48 790 549 957
Email: p.rymaszewski@satrevolution.com

Website: www.SatRevolution.com

The company has built "Światowid", the first commercial satellite (CubeSat) built in Poland. The company has access to different kinds of modern devices used in nanotechnology, such as: Solid State Physics, Printed Electronics, X-Ray Crystallography, Polymer Materials, Electron Microscopy, Laser Micromachining, Laser Sensing, and Optical Spectroscopy Space system control/Optics and optoelectronics/Communication/Power/Onboard computer/Structures All provinces and territories

Appendix D: Proposal Elements

Proposal Elements

Proposals shall address the following elements, which are described further in the subsequent subsections:

  1. Mission objective(s),
  2. Benefits to Canada,
  3. Project Team,
  4. CubeSat Development and Operating Plan,
  5. Training Plan,
  6. Public Engagement (Outreach) Plan,
  7. PM Plan, and
  8. Budget.

D.1 Mission Objectives

Each proposal must have as its mandatory objective to train HQP. In addition to that objective, each proposal must clearly identify the main scientific and/or technological purpose of the CubeSat's payload being proposed (i.e., whether the payload addresses a scientific research question or a technology/demonstration objective).

In defining the mission objective(s), the PI should first consult the open literature so as to become familiar with what has been achieved with CubeSats elsewhere and the type of missions (e.g., earth observation, imaging, or space physics) that could be accomplished by students with the end goal of increasing expertise related to space science and/or space technology. Appendix A to this AO provides a sample list of and a link to some CubeSat databases.

The PIs should also consider the following when scoping their projects:

D.2 Benefits to Canada

The proposal shall describe how the proposed project will contribute to:

Notes:

  1. Increased knowledge in space science and/or technology expected from the CubeSat: recognizing that there is a varying level of space science and technology knowledge across the country, the increase in knowledge expected to be achieved by a proposed project in a particular province/territory will be considered in the measurement metrics.
  2. Sustained HQP in the space sector as a result of the CubeSat project: each proposal shall address the short- and medium-term impacts expected to be accrued after the completion of the CubeSat project. Measurement metrics could be, but not limited to, the number of students pursuing higher education or degree in STEM, the level and breadth of the HQP training achieved and the level of experience to which the team members were exposed and which of the newly-gained experiences are believed to be in line with what is needed by space industry.

D.3 Project Team

The proposal shall include a description of the team composition, complete with the position to be held by all planned team members (i.e., PI, Co-PI, Project Manager, Team Leads, Team Co-leads, etc.) as well as their respective areas of responsibility. Please refer to section A3 of appendix A for the suggested technical disciplines for team members.

For this AO, each proposed team is, as a minimum, to consist of a PI and a team of post-secondary students.

It is expected that the PI will be the lead in the project and have the following responsibilities:

Note:

  1. Although each post-secondary institution can submit more than one proposal, a given individual cannot be the PI for more than one proposal.

Collaborators to the project are encouraged and may come from either the same institution as that of the PI or from another Canadian institution or organization within or outside the applicant's province or territory. International collaborators are also permitted.

Note:

  1. Notwithstanding Note III above, and with the objective of securing the widest participation of academic personnel and students across the country, PIs are permitted to invite others from the same or different institute to assist them by being their Co-PIs. There is no limit on the number of proposals for which an individual can be named as Co-PI. The intent is to encourage inter- and intra-province/territory collaboration. For example, a PI from one college/university could be Co-PI of another college/university in the same or different province or territory.

It is anticipated that most HQP will work on a part-time basis on the project; however, CSA recommends each HQP works, on average, a minimum 3 hours/week on the project in order to gain the proficiency of a space HQP.

In addition to collaboration, applicants are encouraged to have a diversity of skills represented within their proposed team. To this end, the team should have engineers as well as scientist, communication experts and business-savvy individuals.

D.4 CubeSat Development and Operating Plan

The objective of a space mission can only be accomplished by a functioning satellite bus and by the successful operation of the onboard payload; which is normally a scientific instrument or a technology used to conduct an experiment. The proposed CubeSats shall not have any propulsion capabilities. The cost and complexity of a CubeSat typically increase with the size. In other words, a 1U CubeSat is less complicated and costs less to build compared to a 3U CubeSat. The complexity of the payload depends on the type and nature of information or data which the mission intends to collect. A simple CubeSat payload can be a camera imaging the Earth or a radio repeater for ground-space-ground communications. Designing a payload shall take into account requirements such as battery power management, data storage and downlink as well as controlling software.

As a minimum, a CubeSat bus has the following four key subsystems:

In light of the above, the proposal shall provide a CubeSat development and operating plan which is to include all the activities related to the development of the CubeSat bus and its payload (if not purchased already developed) as well as to those related to the operation of the CubeSat once in orbit.

A CubeSat development and operating plan should consider factors such as:

Operating a CubeSat launched from ISS is subject to several orbital and communication constraints which must also be considered in the CubeSat development and operating plan. Past experience indicates that CubeSats will remain in orbit between 3 to 12 months, depending upon the atmospheric density which in turn is related to the level of solar activity. Due to the high latitude of Canada, the RF communication link between a ground station and the CubeSat launched from the ISS is limited as illustrated in Table D-1.

This table illustrates that the average contact between a city in Canada and a CubeSat can vary between 754 sec/day and 2,685 sec/day.

Table D-1 Communication Links between a Ground Station in Canadian Cities and CubeSat in ISS Orbit over 30 Days
City Latitude Longitude Number of Contacts
Over 30 Days
Minimum
Contact Duration (sec)
Maximum Contact Duration (sec) Average
Contact per day (sec)
Iqaluit 63.7º –68.5º 90 1 322 754
Yellowknife 62.5º –114.4º 100 78 363 968
Whitehorse 60.7º –135.1º 115 51 409 1262
Edmonton 53.5º –113.5º 154 36 497 2162
Saskatoon 52.1º –106.7º 160 50 501 2280
Winnipeg 49.8º –97.1º 167 63 502 2458
Victoria 48.4º –123.4º 172 79 501 2543
St. John's 47.6º –52.7º 175 79 501 2589
Charlottetown 46.2º –63.1º 179 59 502 2645
Montreal 45.5º –73.6º 182 41 500 2671
Saint John 45.3º –66.1º 181 92 501 2671
Halifax 44.6º –63.6º 184 65 501 2694
Toronto 43.6º –79.4º 186 91 500 2710

D.5 Training Plan

Proposals shall include a detailed training plan that outlines how hands-on experience will enable Canadian HQP to develop some or all of the following skills:

The PI has the responsibility to define the training plan of each HQP. The level and content of training should be appropriate to the academic background of the HQP. Applicants should take into account the possibility of HQP turnovers and should put in place a shadowing strategy. In the event a HQP leaves the project, such a strategy ensures that the knowledge remains with the project team and thus minimizes the negative impact on the project.

The training plan should include opportunities for interaction and collaboration with other researchers or HQP, at all levels, inside and outside the organization, where appropriate.

The CSA reminds applicants to consider incorporating in their proposals collaborative research activities involving academia, industry, and foreign researchers.

CSA aims to promote approaches that increase the representation and advancement of women in space STEM disciplines, as one means to foster excellence in research and training. Applicants should strive for a balanced gender representation in the group of trainees and in their supervisors, role models and mentors. If the discipline of the proposed project tends to have a gender imbalance in the trainee population, applicants are strongly encouraged to demonstrate that this imbalance has been considered and addressed in their plan for trainee recruitment.

D.6 Public Engagement (Outreach) Plan

CCP is expected to stimulate the interest in space science and technology among young Canadians such that they will be encouraged to pursue advance STEM education. Each proposal should include a Public Engagement Plan that includes activities such as:

D.7 PM Plan

The maximum duration for the completion of the project is four (4) years after receipt of a grant agreement, including one year for operating the CubeSat and providing to the CSA a final report showing all project results.

The PM Plan shall include the following information:

The CSA will be responsible for coordinating the integration of all CubeSats with the launch provider. As such, the CSA will conduct three progress/safety review meetings: the PDR, the CDR and the FRR. Applicants will have to include such reviews in their PM Plan. See Appendix A (Section A7) for more information on all mandatory review meetings.

The CSA intends to have the following responsibilities under this AO:

It is expected that the launch provider will be the company NanoRacks. This company will be responsible for the integration of the completed CubeSats onboard the ISS cargo flights and for arranging their launches from the ISS in and . Each CubeSat will have to pass three progress/safety reviews to ensure that it will meet ISS operations requirements. To maximize the success in the progress/safety reviews, NanoRacks may provide names of solution providers with which the company has worked in the past.

PIs from grant recipient institutions are encouraged to collaborate amongst themselves to obtain discount on the purchase of bulk CubeSat parts prior to making the procurement decision during the development phase as many teams can share their problems and solutions.

Two development timelines are considered for this AO and would be based on the complexity of the proposed CubeSat design:

  1. Schedule A: simple design CubeSat; and
  2. Schedule B: complex design CubeSat.

Note: applicants must clearly specify in their proposals which schedule (KOM + 24 months or KOM +36 months) they are targeting.

Table D-2 Planned CubeSat Development Schedule and Meeting Locations
Project Stage Phase Schedule A Schedule B Location
Mission Definition A 2 months 4 months  
MCR Milestone KOM +2 months KOM + 4 months Local
Preliminary Design B 6 months 8 months  
PDR: 1st Safety Review Milestone KOM + 8 months KOM + 12 months See Table note 1
Detailed Design C 7 months 12 months  
CDR: 2nd Safety Review Milestone KOM + 15 months KOM + 24 months See Table note 1
AIT D 8 months 11 months  
Vibration Testing D KOM + 23 months KOM + 35 months See Table note 2
Vibration Test Review D TBD TBD See Table note 1
FRR: 3rd Safety Review Milestone KOM + 24 months KOM + 36 months CSA (St-Hubert)

D.8 Budget

A proposal shall describe all expenses and source of funds related to the institution's CubeSat development project, including the CSA potential grant. The budget section of the proposal should include, as a minimum, an estimate for the following categories:

Proposals involving one of the 3 territories and requesting additional (up to $50K) funding beyond $200K must clearly detail the total amount requested by describing estimated travel and living expenses.

Further information on eligible expenses is listed in Section 7.2. To ensure maximum investment on CubeSat, CSA imposes a limit on equipment rental/acquisition as well as administrative charge by the institution.

In addition, the total budget shall include in-kind or cash contribution from collaborators. As such, letters of support for other sources of funding and in-kind contribution are expected to be included in the proposal. The CSA strongly encourage the team to seek additional sources of funding.

Note – the following paragraph has been removed from section A.5 as it does not apply in the context of this Announcement of Opportunity.

"In 2014, Taylor University, Technology and TEST Satellite (TSAT) demonstrated the use of Globalstar constellation of satellites as a conduit of communications. Instead of communicating with a university ground station, TSAT received commands and downlink the telemetry through one of the 32 Globalstar satellites. This strategy eliminates the need of a ground station and hence the license requirement."

Date modified: