An Overview of CubeSat Missions and Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is very interesting to read and definitely worth publishing. The amount of material and its analysis is enormous, and I know very well that writing a meaningful review is not an easy task.

However, there is one major issue (I indicate "minor revision" as overall recommendation, as this issue requires no more than one iteration of the manuscript refinement). This review leaves a feeling that only USA and Europe (with rare additions of peripheral Western countries – South Korea, Japan, Canada) launch CubeSats. Obviously, this is not the case. I suggest adding at least one or two Russian, Chinese, and Indian missions. There are other countries that launch CubeSats, but these are not major spacefaring nations, while these three are surely among them.

Among interesting Russian missions I suggest Norby spacecraft due to the fact that it incorporates quite good solar telescope (which is developed by my close colleagues). About mission [https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1867/1/012038]. Unfortunately I was unable to find “normal” journal paper in English. About telescope [https://doi.org/10.1134/S0020441222020051]. The telescope is operational, but as for now it is unable to provide meaningful information due to the problems with ADCS.

Another example of successful Russian scientific CubeSats program comes from the Moscow State University, with overview presented in [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2024.08.025]. More broad consideration of Russian near Earth scientific CubeSat missions can be found in [https://doi.org/10.1134/S0010952524601488].

Of course, I do not insist on adding these exact missions/references (rest assured, there are no references to my works among them). As for Chinese/Indian CubeSats, I’m sure Authors can easily find some interesting missions.

 

Other technical remarks:

- Figures 5a and 5b are switched.

- Section 2.4. This section (and the whole review tbh) is solely centered on Europe-USA-Japan. Meanwhile, although Russian space program continues to fall behind, and Chinese still forcing to catch Western countries, they are also worth mentioning. The main Russian CubeSat oriented program is Space pi (https://en.spacepi.space/about/), which offers a free launch as a piggyback and financial support for the satellite construction (educational/research institutions build a payload and receive money to buy a platform from Russian private space companies). Not sure exactly, but I believe it is for Russian entities (but maybe for post-soviet countries). I’m sure China should have a dedicated CubeSat “aid” program also.

- Line 624. Did anything changed since April 2024?

- Lines 868-869. The same, “is expected to provide service until March 2025”, whereas it is already May…

- In a few Sections (2.4, 5.1, lines 1472, 1559, 1575) where examples of missions (programs in case of section 2.4) are discussed, the last example is preceded with the word “finally”. This leaves an impression that the list of missions is full, all of them are listed. However, they are not.

- Line 1176: expected or launched?

- Line 1200: expected in 2024.

- Line 1682 sentence inconsistent.

- Section 8.1 mainly describes sails/tethers, with only one example of an engine. I think this should be highlighted.

- Also, on lines 1738-1748 there is an example of ADCS testing mission, whereas the section is about orbital maneuvering. Maybe remove this example, or make a dedicated section for the angular motion and add one or two more examples.

- Please work on a proofreading. The amount of small mistakes/typos is a little bit over the allowed threshold.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

General quality of English is excellent. However, it suffers from quite large amount of minor typos.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We would like to thank you for your suggestions and especially the comments that highlighted the manuscript’s shortcomings with regard to the representation of more countries in our review. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files

Comment 1: 

However, there is one major issue (I indicate "minor revision" as overall recommendation, as this issue requires no more than one iteration of the manuscript refinement). This review leaves a feeling that only USA and Europe (with rare additions of peripheral Western countries – South Korea, Japan, Canada) launch CubeSats. Obviously, this is not the case. I suggest adding at least one or two Russian, Chinese, and Indian missions. There are other countries that launch CubeSats, but these are not major spacefaring nations, while these three are surely among them.

Among interesting Russian missions I suggest Norby spacecraft due to the fact that it incorporates quite good solar telescope (which is developed by my close colleagues). About mission [https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1867/1/012038]. Unfortunately I was unable to find “normal” journal paper in English. About telescope [https://doi.org/10.1134/S0020441222020051]. The telescope is operational, but as for now it is unable to provide meaningful information due to the problems with ADCS.

Another example of successful Russian scientific CubeSats program comes from the Moscow State University, with overview presented in [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2024.08.025]. More broad consideration of Russian near Earth scientific CubeSat missions can be found in [https://doi.org/10.1134/S0010952524601488].

Of course, I do not insist on adding these exact missions/references (rest assured, there are no references to my works among them). As for Chinese/Indian CubeSats, I’m sure Authors can easily find some interesting missions.

 

Response 1:

The issue of missing information on missions from those countries has been noted and the manuscript has been revised accordingly. More specifically, the following missions have been included in the manuscript:

- The CubeSat SATHYABAMASAT has been added to Chapter 3 (lines 406 to 409). (India) 

- The CubeSat OrbiCraft-Zorkiy has been added to Chapter 3 (lines 410 to 417). (Russia) 

- The Zorkiy-2M CubeSats have been added to Chapter 3 (lines 418 to 426). (Russia) 

- The CubeSat Zhixing-3 A has been added to the SAR section of Chapter 3 (lines 701 to 707). (China)

- The CubeSat Norbi-2 has been added in Chapter 5 (lines 1177 to 1188).  (Russia)

- The CubeSat RVSAT-1 has been added in Chapter 6 (lines 1425 to 1434).  (India) 

- The CubeSat Vizard-ion has been added to Chapter 8 (lines 1830 to 1838). (Russia) 

Furthermore SPUTNIX LLC has been added to the list of notable CubeSat manufacturers in the manuscript introduction (line 91).

Comment 2: 

- Figures 5a and 5b are switched.

 

Response 2:

Figure 5a and 5b order of appearance has been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript. This change can be found in the revised manuscript on page 7.

 

 

Comment 3: 

- Section 2.4. This section (and the whole review tbh) is solely centered on Europe-USA-Japan. Meanwhile, although Russian space program continues to fall behind, and Chinese still forcing to catch Western countries, they are also worth mentioning. The main Russian CubeSat oriented program is Space pi (https://en.spacepi.space/about/), which offers a free launch as a piggyback and financial support for the satellite construction (educational/research institutions build a payload and receive money to buy a platform from Russian private space companies). Not sure exactly, but I believe it is for Russian entities (but maybe for post-soviet countries). I’m sure China should have a dedicated CubeSat “aid” program also.

 

Response 3:

CubeSat aid initiatives have been added, based on the available information online. Space-π has been added in the revised version of the manuscript. Dedicated CubeSat initiatives for India and China could not be found, although their support for CubeSat missions has been mentioned.    

These changes can be found in the revised manuscript in page Section 2.4 and more specifically lines 274-293.

Comment 4: 

- Line 624. Did anything changed since April 2024?

 

Response 4:

It does not seem that any significant milestone in the development of the SATURN satellites has been completed so far post PDR (for example, other Design Review milestone or launch), nor is there any information on potential cancellation of the project so we assume that development work continues. Therefore no changes were performed in the revised manuscript. It is however now located in lines 694-695.

Comment 5: 

- Lines 868-869. The same, “is expected to provide service until March 2025”, whereas it is already May…

 

Response 5:

Seems like the constellation has indeed been retired although no explicit statement is available, so we will assume that the initially reported cutoff date was indeed applied. It has been clarified in the text and a relevant reference to the NewSpace Index webpage has been included in the revised version of the manuscript.

This change can be found in the revised manuscript in Section 4.1. and more specifically lines 943-945.

 

Comment 6: 

- In a few Sections (2.4, 5.1, lines 1472, 1559, 1575) where examples of missions (programs in case of section 2.4) are discussed, the last example is preceded with the word “finally”. This leaves an impression that the list of missions is full, all of them are listed. However, they are not.

 

Response 6:

All the mentioned examples as well as some more found by the authors have been reworked in the revised version of the manuscript so as not to leave a misleading impression on the reader. Also, the reference of EQUULEUS has been completely removed from 5.1. as it is extensively covered in Chapter 3.

Comment 7: 

 - Line 1176: expected or launched?

 

Response 7:

Thank you for pointing out this mistake. Sentence typographical error has been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript. This change can be found in the revised manuscript in Section 5.4. and more specifically in lines 1259-1261.

Comment 8: 

- Line 1200: expected in 2024.

 

Response 8:

Thank you for pointing out this mistake. Year information has been corrected to 2025 in the revised version of the manuscript. This change can be found in the revised manuscript in Section 5.5. and more specifically in lines 1283-1285.

Comment 9:  

- Line 1682 sentence inconsistent.

 

Response 9:

Thank you for pointing out this mistake. This sentence layout has been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.This change can be found in the revised manuscript in Section 8.1 and more specifically in the lines 1824-1826.

Comment 10: 

- Section 8.1 mainly describes sails/tethers, with only one example of an engine. I think this should be highlighted.

 

Response 10:

- The Vizard-ion CubeSat has been added, in which the VERA propulsion system has been used. (lines 1830 to 1838).

- The AQua Thruster-Demonstrator (AQT-D) CubeSat has been added, in which the green AQUA ResIstojet propUlsion System has been used. (lines 1838 to 1853).

Section 8.1 now includes propulsion system for rendez-vous and maneuvering (CPOD), plasma propulsion (Vizard-Ion), green/sustainable propulsion systems (AQT-D, PTD-1), exo-brake system (TES-10), solar sails (NanoSail-D2, Light- Sail 2) and drag sails (InflateSail, DeorbitSail).

Through these additions, this section has become more representative to its title “Propulsion and Manoeuvring Demonstration”.

Comment 11: 

- Also, on lines 1738-1748 there is an example of ADCS testing mission, whereas the section is about orbital maneuvering. Maybe remove this example, or make a dedicated section for the angular motion and add one or two more examples.

 

Response 11:

This example has been removed from the revised version of the manuscript. (two more missions have been added, see previous comment) 

Comment 12: 

- Please work on a proofreading. The amount of small mistakes/typos is a little bit over the allowed threshold.

Response 12:
Thank you for pointing out these shortcomings of the submitted manuscript in that area. A considerable amount of mistakes and typos have been located and addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.

 

 

We would like to express our gratitude for your insightful comments. We strongly believe that, by addressing these points, the quality of our manuscript will be enhanced.   

 

The authors

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comments

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The paper addresses an interesting and timely topic with clear potential to contribute to the field of CubeSat missions and applications. While the study is well-structured overall, I recommend minor revisions to strengthen the literature context, streamline redundancies, and enhance the depth of analysis. Below are my detailed suggestions:

 

Literature Context & Novelty：The introduction would benefit from a more thorough review of recent advancements in CubeSat control technologies to better position the novelty of this work. Specifically, I suggest incorporating the following key references to contextualize the study:

 

• X. Sun, Y. Wang, J. Su, J. Li, M. Xu, and S. Bai, "Relative orbit transfer using constant-vector thrust acceleration," Acta Astronaut., vol. 229, pp. 715–735, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.01.023
• Ledkov, A., Aslanov, V. Hybrid electrostatic ion beam shepherd schemes for active space debris removal from GEO to disposal orbit. Astrodyn 9, 273–288 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42064-024-0235-3
• Smith, T.K., Akagi, J. & Droge, G. Model predictive control for formation flying based on D’Amico relative orbital elements. Astrodyn 9, 143–163 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42064-024-0214-8.

 

Structural Redundancies：Chapter 2 ("CubeSat Success Factors") overlaps with later sections (e.g., discussions on standardization and business models reappear in subsequent chapters). Consider consolidating these themes to improve flow and avoid repetition.

 

Deep-Space Mission Analysis：The manuscript would gain value by including a dedicated root-cause analysis of failures in deep-space CubeSat missions (e.g., propulsion/communication failures, radiation effects). This would provide critical insights for future mission design.

 

Conclusions：The current conclusions could be strengthened by synthesizing cross-cutting challenges (e.g., shared limitations in power, control, or miniaturization across different CubeSat applications) rather than listing domain-specific findings.

 

Overall, this is a promising study, and I believe these revisions will significantly enhance its rigor and impact. I look forward to seeing the revised version.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for the time invested to provide us with this thoughtful review. We appreciate your recognition of the manuscript's potential and we tried to carefully address your suggestions to improve the literature context, reduce redundancies, and deepen the analysis in the revised version of the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

 

Comment 1:

Literature Context & Novelty：The introduction would benefit from a more thorough review of recent advancements in CubeSat control technologies to better position the novelty of this work. Specifically, I suggest incorporating the following key references to contextualize the study:

• X. Sun, Y. Wang, J. Su, J. Li, M. Xu, and S. Bai, "Relative orbit transfer using constant-vector thrust acceleration," Acta Astronaut., vol. 229, pp. 715–735, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.01.023
•  Ledkov, A., Aslanov, V. Hybrid electrostatic ion beam shepherd schemes for active space debris removal from GEO to disposal orbit. Astrodyn 9, 273–288 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42064-024-0235-3
• Smith, T.K., Akagi, J. & Droge, G. Model predictive control for formation flying based on D’Amico relative orbital elements. Astrodyn 9, 143–163 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42064-024-0214-8

 

Response 1:

These key references have been added in Section 1 - Introduction, as they point out novel control algorithms and propulsion methods, which is essential for active space debris removal, deep space applications and CubeSat constellations. These changes can be found between the lines 115-126.

Comment 2:

Structural Redundancies：Chapter 2 ("CubeSat Success Factors") overlaps with later sections (e.g., discussions on standardization and business models reappear in subsequent chapters). Consider consolidating these themes to improve flow and avoid repetition.

 

Response 2:

From the manuscript revisit/analysis it was found that indeed, there was an overlap between the contents of Section 2 and Subsection 9.7. For that reason, section 9.7 has been modified to enhance the flow and avoid repetitions. The title has been modified from “9.7 Standardization of CubeSat and Regulatory considerations” to “9.7 CDS evolution and and Regulatory considerations”. The content of this subsection has been modified to shift the emphasis from descriptive history and specification details (already handled in Section 2) to a forward-looking reflection on the strategic impact of the CDS within the evolving CubeSat landscape (lines 2286 to 2300). Also, reference to EQUULEUS has been removed from 5.1. as it is extensively covered in Chapter 3.

Comment 3:

Deep-Space Mission Analysis：The manuscript would gain value by including a dedicated root-cause analysis of failures in deep-space CubeSat missions (e.g., propulsion/communication failures, radiation effects). This would provide critical insights for future mission design.

 

Response 3:

Even though no root causes have officially been identified/reported from the parties involved in Artemis 1 for the high failure rate observed among CubeSats, a high-level attempt to discuss some of the possible reasons that could potentially have caused these failures was made by the authors and is included in Section 9. These changes can be found in the revised manuscript in Section 7.1 and more specifically from line 1584 to line 1625.

Comment 4:

Conclusions：The current conclusions could be strengthened by synthesizing cross-cutting challenges (e.g., shared limitations in power, control, or miniaturization across different CubeSat applications) rather than listing domain-specific findings.

 

Response 4:

As correctly noted, a cross-cutting of the challenges would indeed strengthen our manuscript. For that reason, a new section has been added to the conclusions to address this subject. Namely the 9.8 section (from line 2338 to line 2406), summarizes all the cross-cutting identified challenges and limitations that CubeSat platforms usually face.

 

We would like to thank you once again for your comments and valuable suggestions. We believe that these revisions have improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript. We hope the current version addresses all concerns in a satisfactory manner.

 

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-structured and detailed review article that systematically traces the development of CubeSats from their inception to their widespread application. It covers their standardization framework, core components, manufacturer ecosystem, and diverse application domains such as Earth observation, telecommunications, scientific experimentation, and deep space exploration. The article presents a large amount of information with extensive references, showcasing the latest advancements in CubeSat technology and its future potential. It highlights numerous representative missions and platforms (such as TROPICS, HORACIO, and EZIE), offering strong reference value. The chapter organization is logical, the content is coherent, the use of technical terminology is accurate, the English writing is fluent, and the references are properly cited.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank you for the positive and encouraging feedback. We are pleased to hear that the structure, content, and clarity of the article were well received, and that the review was found to be informative and valuable. We greatly appreciate the recognition of our efforts in organizing and presenting the recent developments in CubeSat technology applications. Your comments are highly motivating and will inspire us to maintain high standards in our future work.

 

The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review explores how CubeSat missions have evolved from simple tech demonstrations to sophisticated operations, including areas like Earth monitoring, communication systems, space science, biological studies, and missions beyond Earth orbit. The paper investigates the main drivers behind this transformation, such as reduced launch expenses, compact and efficient electronics, standardized parts, and institutional backing. By reviewing past, ongoing, and upcoming missions, it offers a broad overview of CubeSat potential across various fields.

My suggestions are recommendations are given below;


1- Nowadays it is quite popular to work on placing active/passive space debris removal systems inside satellites. Since this is a review paper, I think that the authors should mention abou this new trend in satellite technology.


For example, some companies work to achieve this

- ClearSpace https://clearspace.today/
-AstroScale https://astroscale.com/

These companies plan to initiate space debris removal missions using satellite technology.


2- Regarding passive space debris removal

https://space.fmi.fi/main/planetary-research-and-space-technology/dragliner/

https://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/61747


3- It is quite expensive to set a satellite oriented mission, so that companies, institutions and organizations mostly test, verify and validate their equipment before sending it to space. There are some on-ground orbital robotic testins facilities that are worth to mention, for example;

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2023.09.003
- https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3311202

4- About biological experiment companies using satellites

-https://yurigravity.com/

 

Author Response

The author team would like to thank you for your thoughtful review and valuable suggestions regarding our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to provide constructive feedback, which will undoubtedly help us to improve the quality and clarity of our work. We have revised the paper based on your suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

 

Comment 1&2:

1- Nowadays it is quite popular to work on placing active/passive space debris removal systems inside satellites. Since this is a review paper, I think that the authors should mention about this new trend in satellite technology.

For example, some companies work to achieve this
- ClearSpace https://clearspace.today/
-AstroScale https://astroscale.com/
These companies plan to initiate space debris removal missions using satellite technology.

2- Regarding passive space debris removal
https://space.fmi.fi/main/planetary-research-and-space-technology/dragliner/
https://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/61747

 

Response 1&2:

The proposed active and passive space debris mitigation systems have been incorporated in our manuscript, as we also believe that this will lead to a more sustainable space exploration framework. These changes can be found in the revised manuscript in lines 2317 - 2328.

Comment 3:
3- It is quite expensive to set a satellite oriented mission, so that companies, institutions and organizations mostly test, verify and validate their equipment before sending it to space. There are some on-ground orbital robotic testing facilities that are worth to mention, for example;
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2023.09.003

- https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3311202

 

Response 3:

These have been added in Chapter 8-The use of CubeSats in novel technology demonstration missions, as all CubeSats undergo a series of tests in testing facilities before their launch. These changes can be found in the revised manuscript in lines 1800-1804.

Comment 4:

4- About biological experiment companies using satellites

-https://yurigravity.com/ 

 

Response 4:

This was added in Chapter 6. These changes can be found in the revised manuscript in line 1307-1313.

 

We sincerely appreciate your kind and encouraging feedback. It is truly gratifying to know that the structure, clarity, and content of our article met your expectations and that you found the review both informative and valuable. Your thoughtful comments are a great source of motivation and will continue to inspire us to uphold the quality and rigor in our future work.

 

The authors