Technology Readiness and System-Level Maturity of Aerospace Development in Peru: An Engineering-Based Systematic Review

Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive technology-oriented review of aerospace development in Peru, integrating historical scientific infrastructure, suborbital experimentation, orbital satellite missions, and a systematic literature review of contemporary engineering research. Beyond a descriptive historical account, the study evaluates national aerospace capabilities from a system-engineering perspective, emphasizing technology readiness levels (TRL), subsystem integration, and validation environments. A regional comparison based on UNOOSA, CelesTrak, and nanosatellite databases contextualizes Peru’s orbital activity within South America. Furthermore, a systematic literature review using the PRISMA 2020 methodology was performed covering the period 2000–2025. The systematic literature review identifies nine major aerospace research lines, quantifies institutional participation through bibliometric analysis, and assigns TRLs using consistent criteria derived from reported experimental and operational evidence. The results reveal a fragmented yet progressively maturing ecosystem, characterized by strong analytical and laboratory-level capabilities (TRL 2–5) but limited system-level integration and flight-qualified developments (TRLs $N\ge 6$). These findings highlight structural gaps in program continuity, test infrastructure, and transition mechanisms from academic prototyping to operational aerospace systems. Overall, this work establishes a technology assessment baseline for an emerging space nation, providing evidence-based insights relevant to aerospace engineering, technology management, and capacity-building strategies in developing space ecosystems.

1. Introduction

Aerospace technology encompasses the engineering methods and systems required for the design, development, and operation of vehicles and instruments in atmospheric and space environments. Its evolution is closely linked to space sciences, which provide the theoretical and observational foundations for characterizing orbital dynamics, celestial mechanics, and spacecraft–environment interactions. Together, these fields enable advances in scientific experimentation, precision instrumentation, and international technological collaboration [1].

Figure 1 illustrates the rapid expansion of global satellite activity since 2014. Currently, there are approximately 22,140 objects in orbit, with more than 59% of all satellites launched after 2020. Notably, within the nanosatellite segment (<10 kg), CubeSats accounted for over 94% of deployments during this period [2]. The discrepancy between the two curves in the figure (particularly the decline observed in recent years in the UNOOSA series) stems from methodology: while UNOOSA relies on formal state registration, nanosats.eu tracks real-time CubeSat launches, including failures. This overall surge is driven by reduced launch costs, reusable orbital-class vehicles, and the consolidation of the New Space paradigm [3,4]. Under this model, a decentralized private sector increasingly performs functions traditionally dominated by national agencies. Companies such as Blue Origin and SpaceX exemplify this shift, which has accelerated the deployment of large constellations like Starlink [5].

In parallel, technological democratization has been fueled by the miniaturization of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) electronics and the adoption of standardized platforms, particularly the CubeSat architecture introduced in 1999. Initiatives such as NASA’s CubeSat Launch Initiative and ESA’s Fly Your Satellite! program have further lowered entry barriers, enabling countries without established space industries to participate in satellite missions [6,7].

Figure 1. Yearly satellite and CubeSat launches based on the UNOOSA Outer Space Objects Index (blue line) [8] and the nanosats.eu database (orange line) [9].

Figure 1. Yearly satellite and CubeSat launches based on the UNOOSA Outer Space Objects Index (blue line) [8] and the nanosats.eu database (orange line) [9].

Additionally, owing to its proximity to the magnetic equator, Peru has historically hosted key geophysical and ionospheric research facilities, including the Jicamarca Radio Observatory, the Huancayo Magnetic Observatory, and early satellite tracking stations [10]. Building upon this legacy, and in response to recent global developments in space science and technology, Peru has strengthened its institutional framework for space-related research and technological development. The National Center for Strategic Planning (CEPLAN) established a multisectoral National Space Policy aligned with the National Strategic Development Plan toward 2050, guiding national initiatives in research, innovation, and space exploration. Consequently, the National Commission for Aerospace Research and Development (CONIDA) and several academic institutions have expanded their participation in aerospace projects [11,12].

Despite this progress, Peruvian aerospace research remains fragmented across isolated publications, institutional documents, and university-led projects. Until 2025, the country lacked formal Aerospace Engineering programs, and scientific output emerged primarily from Aeronautical, Mechanical, Electronics, and Mechatronics disciplines [11,13]. This dispersion has limited the identification of national research trajectories, the assessment of technological maturity, and the characterization of institutional contributions.

To date, no comprehensive review has consolidated Peru’s aerospace contributions from a technology-readiness and system-integration perspective. This lack of synthesis constrains the evaluation of national capabilities and the identification of technological gaps for evidence-based policy and strategic planning. To address this gap, the present study provides the first integrated review of aerospace technology development in Peru, combining historical analysis, suborbital and orbital activity, and a systematic literature review (SLR) of recent engineering research. By establishing a structured baseline, this work aims to clarify Peru’s aerospace trajectory and inform future initiatives in research, education, and national space governance.

To achieve this objective, Section 2 presents a comparison of Peru’s orbital capabilities with those of other Latin American countries. Section 3 summarizes the historical development of aerospace technology in Peru during the early 20th century, while Section 4 reviews suborbital launch activities conducted in Peru from the mid-20th century through the 2000s. Section 5 presents a SLR aimed at diagnosing aerospace technology development in the 21st century, based on 124 documents indexed in SCOPUS and the ALICIA Peruvian repository. From this corpus, all 124 documents are included in the bibliometric analysis, while 68 documents with full-text availability are analyzed in the qualitative synthesis. Finally, Section 6 and Section 7 present the discussion and conclusions, respectively.

2. The Regional Context: Orbital Capability and Challenges

The first South American operational satellite recorded in the UNOOSA Register was the Brazilian telecommunications satellite Brasilsat, launched in 1985. Since then, most South American States have registered at least one orbital object, as illustrated in Figure 2a. However, the UNOOSA Register, despite being the official repository under the Registration Convention, presents significant structural limitations, including delayed or incomplete State submissions, non-registration of certain space objects, and inconsistencies arising from classification disputes, bureaucratic processes, or non-participation in the Convention [14]. These limitations are particularly relevant for small satellites with short operational lifetimes, many of which never appear in national registries. For this reason, Figure 2a combines UNOOSA data with complementary sources from CelesTrak [15] and Nanosats.eu [9] to provide a more accurate estimate of satellite activity across South American States.

As indicated by the UNOOSA records (blue bars), Uruguay and Brazil appear to lead in registered satellites. However, these figures often reflect the practices of launching States rather than actual satellite ownership or operation [14]. Representative cases include the Argentine-developed NuSat constellation, registered by Uruguay through URUGUS S.A. [16,17], and the Peruvian CubeSat Chasqui-I, registered by the Russian Federation despite being developed by the Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. A similar discrepancy is observed in Ecuador, where multiple nanosatellites developed by national institutions were never formally registered due to inconsistent participation in the Registration Convention.

According to CelesTrak data, which reflects the country of primary operation or control, Argentina leads the region with 69 satellites, followed by Brazil with 32. In contrast, CubeSat activity (as recorded by Nanosats.eu) displays a different distribution: Brazil leads with 11 CubeSats, followed by Argentina with 10 and Chile with 7. To date, Bolivia and Venezuela are the only countries in the region that have not developed CubeSats, despite maintaining other operational space assets. Representative satellites for each South American country, selected as benchmarks for technology readiness and system-level maturity, are summarized in

Table 1. Representative South American satellites.

Country	Satellite	Launch	Relevance	Type
Argentina	SAOCOM 1A/1B	8 October 2018; 30 August 2020	SAR satellites for disaster monitoring, agriculture, and resource management [18,19,20].	SAR Observation
	ARSAT-1	16 October 2014	First Argentine geostationary telecommunications satellite; national connectivity [18,21].	Telecommunications
Bolivia	Túpac Katari	20 December 2013	Telecommunications satellite for national and rural connectivity [18,22].	Telecommunications
Brazil	Amazonia-1	28 February 2021	First indigenous Brazilian Earth observation satellite; Amazon and environmental monitoring [23,24].	Earth Observation
	BrasilSat A1	8 February 1985	First Brazilian telecommunications satellite; international cooperation (Canada/USA/France) [18,25].	Telecommunications
Paraguay	GuaraníSat-1	14 March 2021	First Paraguayan satellite; scientific and educational mission [26].	Scientific/Educational
Peru	PerúSAT-1	16 September 2016	High-resolution Earth observation for environmental and resource monitoring [18,27].	Earth Observation
Uruguay	ANTELSAT	19 June 2014	First Uruguayan telecommunications satellite; rural connectivity deployed by the Italian satellite Unisat-6 [18,28].	Telecommunications
Venezuela	Venesat-1	29 October 2008	National telecommunications satellite developed with China [18,29].	Telecommunications

.

In the Peruvian context, CONIDA has experienced significant institutional growth, with its annual budget rising from 2.9 million PEN in 1999 to 29.7 million PEN in 2024. Notably, the budget peaked at 122.3 million PEN in 2014, a surge driven primarily by the acquisition of the PeruSat-1 system, including its ground facilities and associated personnel training [30,31]. Global integration is supported through memberships in the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) in 1981, the Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO), and the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), alongside the recent signature of the Artemis Accords. Regarding orbital infrastructure, Peru’s profile remains modest. To date, five satellites have been deployed: three CubeSats (PUCP-SAT-1, Chasqui-I, UAPSAT-1), one PocketQube (Pocket-PUCP), and the PeruSAT-1 Earth observation satellite. These missions, developed by academic institutions (

Table 2. Summary of Peruvian satellites (validated with UNOOSA records).

Satellite	Date	Type	Developer	Mission	UNOOSA Status
PUCP-SAT-1	21 November 2013	CubeSat 1U	PUCP/INRAS	Low-resolution imaging; microwheel stabilization test; Pocket-PUCP deployment; low-power (10 mW) comunication [27].	Registered (2013-066AC); decayed 21 March 2025
Pocket-PUCP	6 December 2013(deployed)	PocketQube	PUCP/INRAS	Femtosatellite demonstrator; ultra-small satellite architecture and basic telemetry [27].	Registered (2013-066AU); decayed 21 July 2022
Chasqui-1	18 August 2014	CubeSat 1U	UNI	Low-resolution Earth imaging; thermal and communication subsystem testing from ISS deployment [34].	Registered as NS-1 (1998-067FH); decayed 15 January 2015
UAP-SAT	28 February 2014	CubeSat 1U	UAP	Educational nanosatellite for telemetry and communication testing (ISS deployment) [35].	Reported in UNOOSA index (1998-067EM); not formally registered; decayed 22 May 2014

) and through government-to-government agreements, reflect a gradual consolidation of capabilities built upon a century of scientific heritage [18,32,33].

3. Development of Aerospace Technology and Space Sciences in Peru in the 20th Century

Peru’s earliest major scientific contribution is linked to the Carmen Alto Observatory, also known as Harvard’s Boyden Station, which operated between 1890 and 1926. The station was established to extend Harvard’s stellar catalog to the Southern Hemisphere, selecting Arequipa for its altitude (2500 m) and exceptionally clear atmosphere. Equipped with the 24-inch Bruce photographic telescope, the most powerful of its time, the observatory discovered 1130 nebulae, Saturn’s moon Phoebe, and cataloged over 250,000 stellar spectra as part of the Henry Draper Memorial project [36,37]. These achievements positioned Arequipa as a premier global site for astronomical observation.

In parallel, in 1922, the Huancayo Magnetic Observatory was established near the town of Huayao by the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism of Carnegie Institution of Washington, owing to its strategic location close to the magnetic equator [38]. This location enabled the observation of unique geomagnetic and ionospheric phenomena that significantly affect both the Earth’s magnetic field and the upper atmosphere, such as equatorial spread F, sporadic E layers, and the equatorial electrojet (EEJ). These phenomena were later investigated in greater detail through sounding-rocket campaigns, as reviewed in Section 4 [39]. The Huancayo Observatory was formally designated as the Geophysical Observatory of Huancayo in 1947, and in 1962, it was transferred to the administration of the Instituto Geofisico del Peru (IGP). Since then, equipped with a Magnetograph DTM CIW N° 2 of the Eschenhagen type (comprising declination (D), horizontal intensity (H), and Pushkov vertical intensity (Z) variometers) and one photographic recorder made by Otto Toepfer and Sohn (Potsdam) with a resolution of 1 s, it has provided significant scientific contributions to major international experimental programs, including the EQUION and CONDOR sounding-rocket campaigns [40,41,42].

A further pivotal advancement occurred in the late 1950s through a cooperation agreement between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa (UNSA) [36]. The installation of a Baker-Nunn tracking camera integrated Peru into a 12-station global network, enabling precise orbit determination for early satellites such as Sputnik 3 and Explorer 9. These data contributed to the refinement of Earth’s gravitational field parameters and supported the identification of the planet’s “pear-shaped” asymmetry [43,44,45]. Optical tracking later evolved into Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR), which employs short-pulse lasers to measure two-way light travel time between ground stations and satellites’ reflectors [46]. In Arequipa the Baker-Nunn camera was replaced by the SAO ruby-laser system (SAO-2) in 1970 and subsequently by the TLRS-3 station around 1992, which now operates a high-power Nd:YAG laser (532 nm, 100 mJ, 150–200 ps), achieving a ranging precision of approximately 5 mm over distances up to 6000 km [47].

Another important facility was the Ancón Observatory, located at an elevation of approximately 40 m above sea level and about 40 km north of Lima. The observatory was constructed in 1961 by NASA as a satellite-tracking station based on the Doppler technique. Its original instrumentation included two VHF Taco 9-element Yagi receiving antennas with right-hand circular polarization, separated along a 1200-ft west–east baseline, Bendix Modification I receivers, and interstate tracking filters [48]. In 1966, the facility was subsequently integrated into the national geomagnetic network deployed along the path of the total solar eclipse, marking its transition toward continuous geomagnetic monitoring station [42].

In parallel, Peru advanced in radio science and atmospheric physics with the inauguration of the Jicamarca Radio Observatory (JRO) in 1962, marked by the construction of a large radar array approximately 300 m × 300 m in size, composed of 18,432 half-wave dipoles mounted on 9216 wooden posts and arranged in 64 crossed-dipole modules of 288 dipoles each, allowing each set of 144 linearly polarized dipoles to be fed in phase [49]. The 50 MHz transmitter consisted of two major components: the power supply and plate modulator, and the 50 MHz power amplifier section [49,50]. The facility was initially built by the U.S. National Bureau of Standards (NBS) in collaboration with the IGP, and it was fully transferred to IGP in 1969 [10,51]. Located about 25 km northeast of downtown Lima, in the Quebrada de Jicamarca near the magnetic equator, the large phased-array radar has enabled fundamental studies of geospace and upper-atmospheric dynamics, including measurements of electron density profiles, ion composition spectra, ion and electron temperatures, ion drift velocities, and geomagnetic field parameters through the incoherent scatter technique [49,50]. The system provides data with typical sampling intervals of about 10 min and covers an altitude range extending from the E-region up to the topside ionosphere; early experiments reported measurements reaching approximately 1000–2000 km, and in some special cases even higher [49].

This era of collaboration led to the establishment of five major scientific facilities in Peru, as summarized in Figure 2b, and laid the foundation for the ratification of key international treaties presented in

Table A1. International space treaties and agreements ratified by Peru.

Treaty/Agreement	Year
United Nations Space Treaties
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space (Outer Space Treaty)	1967
Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (Rescue Agreement)	1968
Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention)	1972
Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (Registration Convention)	1975
Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Moon Agreement)	1979
Other International Space-Related Agreements
Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and under Water (Partial Test Ban Treaty)	1963
Agreement Relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (ITSO)	1971
Agreement on the Establishment of the INTERSPUTNIK International System and Organization of Space Communications	1971
Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (Brussels Convention)	1974
Convention on the International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO)	1976
Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)	1992

. This institutional maturation culminated on 11 June 1974 with the establishment of CONIDA via Decree-Law No. 20643 [12]. Currently operating under the Ministry of Defense (MINDEF), the agency was tasked with promoting peaceful space research aligned with national development and proposing space-related legislation, establishing a sounding rocket launch site at Punta Lobos initiating an era of suborbital launch activities [18,52].

4. Suborbital Launch Activities in Peru

4.1. Launch Activities in the 20th Century

4.1.1. Early Experimental Attempts (1964–1965)

In 1965, the NASA Mobile Launch Expedition conducted equatorial ionospheric sounding experiments using four Nike-Apache sounding rockets, a two-stage, solid-propellant, unguided vehicle whose Nike booster generated approximately 21,300 kgf of thrust with a nominal burn time of 3.5 s [53]. These rockets carried free-precession magnetometers and FM–FM telemetry systems to measure the solar quiet (Sq) current system and the equatorial electrojet (EEJ) in the Peruvian sector of the magnetic dip equator [54]. Mission records indicate that flights UNIT-65-5 and UNIT-65-2 reached apogees of approximately 173 km and 162 km, respectively, and were launched from the USNS Croatan.

According to NASA’s official historical account, the Croatan departed from Balboa, Panama, on 6 March 1965 bound for Lima, Peru, launching a series of ten sounding rockets en route as part of the Mobile Sea Launch Expedition [55]. Once positioned offshore Piura and Lima, the scientific Nike–Apache flights were executed, providing some of the earliest in-situ magnetic and electrodynamic measurements of the Peruvian equatorial ionosphere.

Despite these early activities in the Peruvian region, none of the 1965 launches occurred from Peruvian territory. Some authors have mentioned earlier academic rocket projects CFYM III and CFYM IV carried out by the Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería (UNI) in July 1964 near kilometer 32 of the Lima–Ancón highway. However, despite the existence of thesis-based research from that period [56], no publicly verifiable technical documentation, archival material, or institutional reports have been found to confirm or adequately characterize these activities [52].

4.1.2. EQUION Campaign (1974)

The first well-documented suborbital launch conducted from Peruvian territory occurred in 1974 with the flight of the Ayacucho-JUC sounding rocket at the Punta Lobos Scientific Base. This mission was executed under the (Electric-Quasi-Static Ionosphere) EQUION program, a collaborative research effort between the IGP, The University of Texas at Austin, and The Aerospace Corporation [10,40]. The primary objective of EQUION was to investigate equatorial spread-F irregularities through coordinated in-situ and ground-based observations.

The Ayacucho-JUC vehicle (a Bristol Black Brant IV B) acquired high-resolution measurements of electron density, plasma waves, particle fluxes, and optical emissions. These in-situ observations were analyzed jointly with extensive ground-based measurements obtained during the campaign. At the Ancón Observatory, scintillation data from the ATS-3 satellite at 137.3 MHz were recorded until a few minutes before launch; after liftoff, scintillation measurements continued using the 136 MHz beacon onboard the rocket. The Huancayo Observatory simultaneously recorded 137.3 MHz scintillation data from ATS-3 and obtained nightglow oxygen emissions at 630.0 nm using a photometer and at 777.4 nm using a 1-m Grille spectrometer [40]. Additionally, the Jicamarca Radio Observatory operated a C-4 ionosonde, a 630 nm photometer, and the 50 MHz incoherent scatter radar, providing continuous measurements of vertical plasma drifts, backscatter power, and Doppler spectra throughout the event. These coordinated datasets enabled one of the most detailed characterizations of equatorial ionospheric irregularities ever conducted from Peruvian territory.

4.1.3. ANTARQUI Campaign (1975)

After the EQUION campaign, in 1975 the United States and Peru initiated Operation Antarqui, named as the Inca god of flight. This major joint U.S.-Peru atmospheric sounding experiment was conducted during the night of 23–24 May from the Chilca Launch Base (12.5° S, 76.8° W) [57,58]. The program deployed a coordinated sequence of high-altitude sounding rockets, rocket probes, and balloon-borne instruments to investigate the equatorial energetic electron environment and its associated bremsstrahlung X-ray emissions [59,60].

The NASA launch log for the May–June 1975 period lists four Nike-Tomahawk vehicles (NT-18.149, NT-18.150, NT-18.170, and NT-18.171). However, only NT-18.170 and NT-18.171 are documented in the scientific literature [59], each carrying X-ray scintillation detectors, Geiger-Müller electron sensors, magnetometers, and attitude instrumentation. These flights reached altitudes exceeding 300 km. In addition to the four Tomahawk vehicles, NASA TM-80546 reports that several other sounding rockets were flown during the ANTARQUI period, including Super Loki (ozone sondes), Nike-Apache (conductivity probes), and Super Arcas vehicles (winds and conductivity), collectively sampling the 30–80 km region. Balloon platforms near 40 km simultaneously monitored cosmic rays and soft X-rays throughout the night [57].

4.1.4. Artificial Spread-F Campaign in Peru (1979)

The Artificial Spread-F campaign in Peru, also referred to as the CASTOR campaign [52,61], was conducted at the Punta Lobos range in March 1979 and was led by the German Aerospace Research Establishment (DFVLR) in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics (MPE). The campaign employed two Argentine-built Castor A sounding rockets to investigate nighttime equatorial Spread-F irregularities through barium release in the F-region [62].

The Castor A vehicles, developed by the Instituto de Investigaciones Aeronáuticas y Espaciales (IIAE) in the province of Córdoba, were two-stage solid-propellant rockets featuring a first stage composed of four Canopus II motors and a single-motor second stage. This configuration enabled the delivery of 50–68 kg payloads to altitudes of 450–500 km [63]. Two launches were carried out from Punta Lobos on 19 and 22 March 1979; the first attempt failed, whereas the second reached an apogee of approximately 268 km, successfully deploying the chemical payload [62].

The chemical payload employed in this mission belongs to the same class of ion-cloud release systems jointly developed by DFVLR and MPE. Although no document explicitly states that the exact configuration used in the 1975 Antarctic CASTOR launches was reused in Peru, the available evidence shows that both campaigns relied on chemically-based ionization charges designed to generate artificial plasma structures in the upper ionosphere. In Antarctica, the payload consisted of “a special mixture including a shape charge to form an ionized cloud producing a jet of electrons,” developed with the Max Planck Institute [63]. In Peru, DFVLR similarly reported “barium cloud experiments in the Artificial Spread-F Campaign in Peru,” identifying the same institutions (DFVLR and MPE) as responsible for the experiment. This strongly suggests that both Antarctic and Peruvian missions used CASTOR as a carrier for chemical-release payloads intended to generate transient ionized clouds for investigating electrodynamic processes in the upper atmosphere.

4.1.5. Potential Association Between the 1979 Nike-Nike Launches and Mission 6687-II

Despite the lack of official records, several secondary sources describe the 6687-II mission or the SMOKE Aeronomy/Chemical Release missions [52,61,64]. According to Encyclopedia Astronautica [64], three Nike-Nike GL sounding rockets were launched from Chilca (Punta Lobos), Peru, on 23, 24, and 29 October 1979 as part of a US Air Force Geophysics Laboratory “SMOKE Aeronomy/Chemical Release Mission,” each reaching approximately 50 km. These dates, vehicle types, and scientific objectives closely match the summarized description of CONIDA’s mission 6687-II in [52,61]; however, no primary mission report confirming this association has been found.

4.1.6. CÓNDOR Campaign (1983)

According to historical documentation, the CÓNDOR Project began in 1983 designed as a “cluster mission” to maximize scientific return through simultaneous measurements. This effort involved a broad international collaboration between NASA, CONIDA, IGP, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), and academic partners, which included Cornell University, Utah State University, the University of Illinois, the University of Michigan, the University of Toulon, the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Key instrumentation was distributed across several sites: the Jicamarca Radio Observatory (50 MHz radar), the Ancón Observatory (scintillation monitors and 14 MHz radar), and the Huancayo Observatory (digital ionosonde and magnetometer). Additionally, a Fabry-Perot interferometer was operated at Arequipa to measure neutral winds [41].

To investigate “Spread-F”, a phenomenon characterized by intense electron density fluctuations with spatial scales ranging from tens of kilometers to a few meters, two large Terrier-Malemute sounding rockets were launched from the Punta Lobos Rocket Range [41]. These rockets carried electric field probes, plasma density sensors, and energetic particle detectors. Spread-F is interpreted as a turbulence process generated by a Generalized Rayleigh-Taylor instability, where large, low-density plasma bubbles originate in the lower ionosphere and rise rapidly via buoyancy to altitudes exceeding 1000 km. While this theory is widely accepted, clarifying the secondary processes and scale-size distributions constituted a primary objective of the CÓNDOR Project [10,41]. The in-situ rocket measurements were compared directly with simultaneous observations from Jicamarca, Ancón, and Huancayo [65].

Another major objective was the investigation of equatorial sporadic-E (Es) irregularities. At Peruvian latitudes, the Equatorial Electrojet flows at approximately 105 km altitude, driven by the interaction of tidal winds with the geomagnetic field. This current, roughly 10 km thick and extending 600 km north–south, generates a two-stream instability, often referred to as a counter-streaming instability. This instability creates strong turbulence and pronounced electron density fluctuations that can efficiently scatter VHF radio signals. To study these phenomena, four sounding rockets, two Nike-Orion and two Taurus-Orion, were launched, with two payloads successfully recovered from the ocean by the Peruvian Air Force and Navy [10].

Additionally, ref. [10] reports that three rockets were specifically designed to validate the radar technique developed at Jicamarca [50]. This technique uses incoherent scatter radar to obtain atmospheric wind and turbulence profiles at 15–35 km and 60–85 km, altitudes typically below the sensitivity of standard ionospheric modes. The radar measurements achieved signal levels tens of decibels above the noise floor, confirming the technique’s effectiveness for mesospheric comparison with rocket-borne instruments.

Furthermore, reports indicate that 6 small and 11 medium rockets were launched to study the atmosphere at 35–80 km and to measure electric fields. Finally, the campaign employed Taurus-Orion rockets to release barium and strontium clouds at altitudes of 450–550 km. These releases enabled the measurement of neutral tides via the neutral metal clouds and the determination of magnetic field intensity and direction via the ionized clouds, similar to the experiments conducted during the Artificial Spread-F Campaign in 1979.

As shown throughout this Section, Peru has played a significant role in sounding-rocket research owing to its geographic position near the magnetic equator and the unique geophysical phenomena that occur in this region. Facilities such as the Jicamarca Radio Observatory, the Huancayo Geophysical Observatory, and the Ancón Observatory enabled direct comparison between in-situ rocket measurements and simultaneous ground-based observations, substantially enhancing the scientific value of the campaigns. A consolidated summary of the verified sounding-rocket missions associated with Peruvian territory is presented in

Table 3. Summary of suborbital sounding-rocket campaigns conducted in the Peruvian region (1964–1983).

Year	Vehicle Type	Apogee	Experiment/Objective	Institutions
1964	CFYM III/IV (unverified)	Not reported	Alleged student-built rockets; no archival evidence [52].	UNI (Peru)
1965	Nike–Apache (UNIT-65-5, UNIT-65-2)	173/162 km	CROATAN CAMPAIN: Sq current, EEJ, ionospheric electrodynamics [53,54].	NASA
1974	Black Brant IVB (Ayacucho–JUC)	742 km	EQUION: spread-F irregularities [10,40].	IGP, UT Austin, Aerospace Corp.
1975	Nike–Tomahawk (NT-18.170, NT-18.171)	>300 km	ANTARQUI: energetic electrons, X-rays [57,58,59].	NASA, CONIDA, IGP
1975	Super Loki/Nike–Apache/ Super Arcas	30-80 km	ANTARQUI: Ozone, winds, atmospheric conductivity [57].	NASA, CONIDA, IGP
1979	Castor A (22 March 1979)	268 km	Artificial Spread-F: barium cloud release [62].	DFVLR, MPE, IIAE
1979	Castor A (19 March 1979)	Failed flight	Artificial Spread-F: failed attempt [62].	DFVLR, MPE, IIAE
1979	Nike–Nike GL (SMOKE) (unverified)	Not reported (no primary source)	SMOKE Aeronomy/chemical release (tentative) [52,61,64].	USAF GL (secondary sources)
1983	Terrier–Malemute (2 launches)	550 km	CÓNDOR: Spread-F turbulence [10,41].	NASA, CONIDA, IGP, NSF, Cornell, etc.
1983	Nike–Orion/Taurus–Orion (4 launches)	Not reported	CÓNDOR: Sporadic-E, EEJ instabilities [10,41].	NASA, CONIDA, IGP
1983	Taurus–Orion (chemical release)	Not reported	CÓNDOR: Barium/strontium clouds: neutral winds, magnetic field [10,41].	NASA, CONIDA, IGP

, highlighting the international collaborations involved and the scientific objectives pursued in each campaign.

4.2. Launch Activities in the 21st Century

In the field of suborbital launch platforms in the 21st century, Peru has produced limited publicly documented autonomous developments; consequently, much of the available information derives from research proposals as [66] and media releases rather than peer-reviewed publications. An early reported case is the Terra LM rocket, mentioned in [52,61,67] as a cooperative effort with the Argentine space agency CONAE and allegedly capable of reaching 20 km. However, no technical documentation, photographic evidence, or institutional records have been identified in Peruvian or Argentine archives, and its execution therefore cannot be independently confirmed.

National launch activities in the 21st century are more commonly associated with the Paulet program as summarized in

Table 4. National Peruvian PAULET sounding-rocket program (2006–2021).

Vehicle	Program	Apogee *	Developer	Launch Site	References
Paulet-1	PAULET	∼45 km	CONIDA	Punta Lobos	[52,68]
Paulet-IM	PAULET	∼90 km	CONIDA	Punta Lobos	[52,68]
X-PAX II	PAULET	n/a	CONIDA	Punta Lobos	[52,69]
Paulet-1B	PAULET	∼15 km	CONIDA	Punta Lobos	[18,70,71]
Paulet-1C	PAULET	∼10 km	CONIDA	Punta Lobos	[18,71,72]

* Apogees are based on publicly reported values.

. The Paulet 1 rocket (2006) was reported as a 2.83 m, 108.3 kg vehicle that reached approximately 45 km while carrying a 2 kg payload, followed by the Paulet IM (2009), a 2.8 m vehicle said to have reached about 90 km [52,68]. On 30 September 2011, the X-PAX II sounding rocket was launched and described in media sources as being designed and manufactured in Peru [52,69]. In June 2013, the Paulet 1B rocket was reported to have reached 15 km [18,70,71]. However, no public technical reports, propulsion data, or telemetry records have been released for the Paulet 1, Paulet IM, X-PAX II, or Paulet 1B. Some sources indicate the use of solid propellants in the Paulet 1 and Paulet 1B, but no documentation concerning propellant composition, testing procedures, or performance parameters is available.

The first autonomously developed Peruvian suborbital launcher officially reported by the peruvian government is the Paulet 1C mission, conducted in December 2021 from the Punta Lobos Scientific Base. According to official institutional statements, the vehicle reached approximately 10 km and had a total mass of 82.6 kg and a length of 2.47 m. CONIDA describes the Paulet 1C as a milestone in the national sounding-rocket program, noting that its components were developed domestically “without external advisory support” [71,72]. Nevertheless, Garvin [18] reports that Major General Mario Pimentel Higueras referred to the earlier Paulet 1B as the first autonomously developed Peruvian rocket. This characterization appears only as an institutional statement, and no public technical documentation has been released to independently verify the design, level of autonomy, or performance parameters of either vehicle.

5. Aerospace Technology Development in 21st Century

Most of the well-documented recent history of aerospace technology in Peru is associated with the four small-satellite missions summarized in Table 2, as well as the PeruSAT-1 Earth observation satellite [33]. However, beyond these milestones, no comprehensive studies have systematically synthesized the main research trends and technological development pathways pursued at the national level during this period.

5.1. Systematic Literature Review Methodology

To address the identified gap in the literature, a SLR was conducted following an adapted PICO framework, as summarized in

Table 5. PICO components and associated keywords for the systematic review on aerospace technology development in Peru.

P	Peruvian national aerospace ecosystem (institutions, agencies, research centers, satellite missions, and ground-segment infrastructure).
I	Engineering research on aerospace technologies (CubeSats, microsatellites, ADCS/AOCS, Earth observation, space science instrumentation).
C	Not applicable.
O	Identification and qualitative assessment of technological maturity, national capabilities, and capacity-building outcomes.

. This review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Supplementary File S1) [73] and the review protocol was not prospectively registered. The search strategy was executed across the SCOPUS database and the ALICIA-CONCYTEC repository (the national Peruvian repository for academic research). The search strings utilized were: ((“satellite” OR “rocket”) AND “Peru”) for SCOPUS, and (“satellite” OR “rocket” OR “satelite” OR “cohete”) for ALICIA-CONCYTEC. The search included all records available up to December 2025.

The exclusion and inclusion criteria were defined as follows:

• CE1: documents focused exclusively on image processing or remote sensing applications without a technological or system-level aerospace contribution.
• CE2: documents related to space weather studies based solely on data from non-national satellite missions.
• CI1: documents which address the development, design, testing, or implementation of aerospace technologies within the Peruvian context

The study selection process was conducted by two independent reviewers whose manually screened 968 records, resolving eligibility discrepancies through consensus. Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria (CE1, CE2, CI1) to titles and abstracts, 124 records were retained for bibliometric analysis. From this subset, 68 full-text documents were selected for qualitative synthesis. Data extraction was performed manually using a standardized form to capture key variables, including study objectives, institutional affiliation, research topic, and evidence for NASA Technology Readiness Level (TRL) assessment. The selection process flow is illustrated in Figure 3.

5.2. RSL Results

As shown in Figure 3, a total of 124 documents were identified from 30 Peruvian institutions involved in aerospace-related research. The contributing institutions include major national universities and research centers, such as Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, and the Comisión Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Aeroespacial, among others.

Figure 4a presents the distribution of institutions according to their level of scientific production in the aerospace field. To account for both multi-institutional collaborations and heterogeneous document types, a multiplicative weighted counting methodology was applied. When multiple institutions co-authored a document, its contribution was equally divided among them. This institutional weight was then multiplied by a document-type weight, defined as 1.0 for journal articles, 0.5 for conference papers, and 0.75 for academic theses.

The research lines identified after the proposed RSL are presented in Figure 4b. As shown, nine space-related research lines were identified: Attitude Determination and Control Systems (ADCS), Scientific Payloads (PAYL), Satellite Communications (COM), Space Weather and Ionosphere (IONO), Orbital Mechanics and Mission Design (ORB), Space Policy and Economy (POL), CubeSat and CanSat Programs (CUBE), Satellite Subsystems (SUB), and Launch Vehicles (LAU). The document count for each research line was computed using the same multiplicative weighted methodology applied in Figure 4a.

Figure 5a shows the annual evolution of aerospace-related scientific publications. A noticeable increase in the number of space-related documents can be observed from 2015 onwards, which coincides with the period in which the four Peruvian CubeSat missions were launched, as seen in Table 2.

Additional relationships are illustrated in the heatmap shown in Figure 5b. The x-axis represents the research topics, while the y-axis corresponds to the institutions with more than three aerospace-related publications. The diagram was generated using the weighted methodology mentioned before.

The following sections synthesize and summarize the technological developments identified across the different research lines. Additionally, the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) were systematically assigned to each reviewed study following NASA/ESA definitions, based on the highest level of validation explicitly reported by the authors. Simulation-only and conceptual studies were classified as TRL 2–3, laboratory validation as TRL 3–4, subsystem validation in relevant environments as TRL 5–6, and in-orbit or operational demonstrations as TRL ≥ 7. The same criteria were consistently applied across all technological domains.

5.3. Launch Vehicles and Rocktry (LAU)

As shown in Figure 4b, launch vehicles and rocketry constitute the most active research area within Peruvian aerospace development. However, the maturity of this field remains heterogeneous, with contributions spanning conceptual vehicle design and subsystem-level experimentation, but without evidence of fully integrated launch vehicle systems. The most representative studies, selected based on methodological clarity, comparability, and defensible TRL assignment, are summarized in

Table 6. Comparative analysis of representative Peruvian launch vehicle studies.

Ref.	Objective	Methodology	Key Results	Integration	TRL
[66]	Conceptual feasibility of suborbital sounding rockets via MDO.	MDO (MDF); solid propulsion, mass, aerodynamics (DATCOM), trajectory; MATLAB a/Simulink.	Feasible configurations for 80–200 km apogees with 5–80 kg payloads (simulation only).	Conceptual	2
[74]	Injector flow characterization for small launch vehicles.	CFD (ANSYS a Fluent., RNG k–$\epsilon$, VOF) + hydraulic test bench + analytical models.	Component-level validation showing agreement in mass flow rate, discharge coefficient, and spray angle.	Subsystem	4
[75]	Low-cost structural load monitoring for rocket structures.	Strain gauges + HX711 + Arduino; validation via ISO 527-2 tensile tests.	Embedded system reproduces laboratory tensile stress trends with quantified RMSE.	Subsystem	4
[76]	Conceptual design of an orbital-class solid launch vehicle.	GA + SQP optimization within an MDO framework; integrated propulsion and trajectory models.	Three-stage solid launcher delivering 100 kg to 600 km LEO (simulation only).	Conceptual	2
[77]	Preliminary design of a single-stage sounding rocket.	PSO-based MDO; propulsion, mass, aerodynamics (DATCOM), trajectory models.	Optimized single-stage rocket delivering 20 kg to 100 km apogee (simulation only).	Conceptual	2–3
a Software version was not specified by the authors.

.

Overall, the reviewed literature can be grouped into three main categories. First, subsystem-level studies address propulsion [74,78,79], structures [75], and instrumentation through experimental and numerical approaches [80], including rocket engines, nozzles, injectors, and structural sensing. These works demonstrate tangible engineering capabilities with laboratory or component-level validation, typically corresponding to TRL 3–5, but without integration into complete launch vehicle architectures.

A second group focuses on avionics, sensing, and atmospheric instrumentation, such as Kalman-filter-based temperature estimation on reconfigurable logic and radiosonde-based atmospheric measurements [81,82]. While technically sound, these studies remain confined to laboratory-scale or limited operational environments and do not address vehicle-level integration.

Finally, a substantial body of work is devoted to conceptual design and multidisciplinary optimization of sounding rockets and launch vehicles [66]. Some of them use Multidisciplinary Design Optimization frameworks and metaheuristic techniques, these studies evaluate the theoretical feasibility of suborbital and orbital missions through integrated analytical models [76,77,83]. Despite their methodological rigor, these contributions remain simulation-based and correspond to early TRL (2–3).

Additionally, feasibility studies on ground-test infrastructure, such as thrust and gas-dynamic measurement benches, highlight persistent structural limitations that hinder the progression toward higher TRLs [84]. Collectively, the reviewed works reveal emerging engineering capabilities and strong analytical expertise in launch vehicle research in Peru, but also a clear absence of system-level integration and operational validation.

5.4. Attitude Determination and Control Systems (ADCS)

As shown in Figure 4b, attitude determination and control systems (ADCS) represent the second most active research line in the Peruvian satellite ecosystem. The systematic literature review identified three main ADCS testbed prototypes described in Figure 6.

The prototype depicted in Figure 6a, as described in [85,86], focuses on the experimental validation of attitude control algorithms using a planar air-bearing platform and a CubeSat prototype actuated by a reaction wheel. The 262-g platform, with a principal moment of inertia of $1.75\times {10}^{-3}$ kg·m², employs a 10-g reaction wheel with a moment of inertia of $2.86\times {10}^{-6}$ kg·m², based on an optical disk drive motor capable of reaching 18,760 rpm, angular rate sensing via an IDG-500 gyroscope, and control execution on an MSP430F2618 microcontroller. Using this setup, a detumbling algorithm based on angular momentum conservation achieved a reduction in angular velocity from 140 deg/s to approximately 10% of its initial value within 4.3 s.

Another prototype, depicted in Figure 6b and described in [87,88,89], is based on a spherical air-bearing platform that enables full yaw rotation and $\pm {45}^{°}$ motion in roll and pitch. The system consists of a 1U CubeSat prototype equipped with three orthogonally arranged reaction wheels driven by Maxon EC45 Flat motors with a moment of inertia of $27\times {10}^{-6}$ kg·mm², paired with DEC 24/2 controllers, and instrumented with a BNO055 inertial measurement unit. Attitude control is implemented on an ESP32 microcontroller running micro-ROS 2, which exchanges sensor data and pulse-width modulation (PWM) speed commands at a sampling rate of 100 Hz. Experimental yaw-axis tests were conducted using one PID controller and two nonlinear control strategies, including an adaptive variable-structure algorithm [90], under sinusoidal reference maneuvers at 0.524 rad/s, achieving steady-state errors of 0.88° for the PID controller and 0.62° for the nonlinear controller. Additional studies addressed automatic balancing of the spherical air-bearing platform using batch least-squares estimation and movable masses [91], while preliminary work on a Helmholtz cage for magnetorquer testing and Earth’s magnetic field simulation has been reported, although no physical implementation has been documented to date [92].

Another prototype, depicted in Figure 6c and described in [93,94,95,96], consists of a self-balancing experimental platform and an associated CubeSat prototype. The self-balancing testbed has a total mass of 3.8 kg and is implemented using two STM32 microcontrollers. One microcontroller executes an extended Kalman filter (EKF) based on measurements from an MPU6050 inertial sensor and an HMC5883 magnetometer to estimate platform tilt angles, while the second microcontroller performs parameter estimation, transmits data to a host computer via a Bluetooth interface at 10 Hz, and generates control commands for the balancing mechanism. Actuation is achieved through movable masses driven by JGA 25370 DC motors controlled via a TB6612 H-bridge, using an LQR-integral control strategy at a sampling frequency of 200 Hz. Communication between both microcontrollers is performed at 100 Hz. Planar (x–y) balancing is achieved using a nonlinear PID controller, while the vertical (z) component is estimated using a least-squares estimation (LSE) algorithm, achieving a center-of-mass to center-of-rotation alignment precision better than 210 µm in all axes. The associated CubeSat prototype, described in [95,96], consists of a 1.47 kg 3U CubeSat equipped with three reaction wheels based on Nidec BLDC motors (model 24H404H070), each with a moment of inertia of $1.55\times {10}^{-4}$ kg·mm². Reaction wheel speeds are regulated using a model reference adaptive control (MRAC) scheme, while overall attitude control is performed using a PID controller. Experimental results report a mean yaw tracking error of $0.{09}^{°}$ during sinusoidal maneuvers with periods of 500 and 1000 s. The control architecture is based on an ESP32 microcontroller, which transmits telemetry data to a remote ESP32 unit using the ESP-NOW protocol for signal monitoring.

As can be seen several experimental platforms based on spherical and planar air-bearing systems were developed to emulate microgravity conditions. These platforms integrate low-cost inertial sensors and COTS embedded microcontrollers. However, most validations remain constrained to laboratory environments (TRL 3–4), with persistent limitations arising from center-of-mass imbalance, friction effects, network-induced delays, and manual calibration processes.

Experimental validation efforts range from planar air-bearing platforms with a single reaction wheel, used to validate detumbling strategies based on angular momentum conservation [85,86], to spherical air-bearing testbeds enabling full three-degree-of-freedom attitude control and comparative assessment of linear and nonlinear control strategies [87,88,89,90]. More advanced developments integrate self-balancing mechanisms and reaction-wheel-based actuation within CubeSat-scale prototypes, addressing center-of-mass alignment, state estimation, and adaptive control [93,94,95,96]. Overall, these platforms achieve laboratory-level validation within TRL 3–4.

In addition to the physical testbeds summarized in

Table 7. Summary of experimental ADCS testbed platforms developed by Peruvian institutions.

Item	Platform	Testbed/DOF	Configuration	Key Performance	TRL
1	[85,86]	Planar air-bearing (1 DOF)	262-g CubeSat with single RW (optical disk motor, $J=2.86\times {10}^{-6}$ kg·m2), IDG-500 gyro, MSP430-based control.	Detumbling from 140 deg/s to 10% in 4.3 s.	3
2	[87,88,89]	Spherical air-bearing (3 DOF)	1U CubeSat with three orthogonal RWs (Maxon EC45 Flat), BNO055 IMU, ESP32 with micro-ROS 2.	Yaw steady-state error: 0.88° (PID), 0.62° (adaptive).	4
3.a	[93,94,95,96]	Self-balancing platform	3.8-kg movable-mass platform with DC motors; EKF-based state estimation and LQR/PID control.	COM alignment error < 210 µm in all axes.	4
3.b		3U CubeSat prototype	1.47-kg 3U CubeSat with three BLDC RWs (Nidec 24H404H070); MRAC wheel speed control and PID attitude control.	Mean yaw tracking error of 0.09° for 500–1000 s maneuvers.	3–4

, several complementary contributions address supporting ADCS infrastructure and tools. These include preliminary studies on automatic mass balancing and Helmholtz cage concepts for magnetorquer testing and geomagnetic field simulation, which remain at the conceptual or simulation level [91,92,97]. Furthermore, software-based tools for attitude dynamics modeling and magnetic detumbling analysis have been proposed to support controller development and validation [90,98,99].

Overall, the reviewed ADCS literature reveals a progressive consolidation of ground-based experimental capabilities, while also highlighting a persistent gap between laboratory validation and integrated, flight-qualified ADCS demonstrations.

The planar air-bearing platform shown in Figure 6a was used to experimentally validate detumbling algorithms based on angular momentum conservation using a single reaction wheel [85,86]. The spherical air-bearing testbed in Figure 6b extends this validation to three degrees of freedom, enabling comparative assessment of linear and nonlinear attitude control strategies previously studied in [90]. Preliminary efforts addressing automatic balancing methods based on least-squares estimation, as well as the development of Helmholtz cages for magnetorquer testing and Earth’s magnetic field simulation, have also been reported, although no physical implementation has been documented to date [91,92]. The self-balancing platform and associated CubeSat prototype illustrated in Figure 6c represent the evolution of an earlier prototype developed in [94], addressing center-of-mass alignment, adaptive control, and reaction-wheel-based attitude regulation. Additionally, attempts to develop a geomagnetic field simulator capable of providing a cubic working volume of 0.40 m per side, with a magnetic field resolution of 0.73 mG, have been reported in [97]. Finally, complementary software tools for two-dimensional attitude dynamics and magnetic detumbling algorithms have been proposed in [98,99].

Figure 6. ADCS testbed platforms developed by Peruvian institutions. (a) Planar air-bearing platform for 1-DOF testing (Ref. Table 7, Item 1). (b) Spherical air-bearing testbed with manual balancing system (Ref. Table 7, Item 2). (c) Self-balancing test-bed and 3U CubeSat prototype with reaction wheels (Ref. Table 7, Items 3a/3b).

Figure 6. ADCS testbed platforms developed by Peruvian institutions. (a) Planar air-bearing platform for 1-DOF testing (Ref. Table 7, Item 1). (b) Spherical air-bearing testbed with manual balancing system (Ref. Table 7, Item 2). (c) Self-balancing test-bed and 3U CubeSat prototype with reaction wheels (Ref. Table 7, Items 3a/3b).

5.5. Space Policy, Economics and Ecosystem

This topic constitutes one of the most active research lines in Peru, as shown in Figure 4a. The reviewed literature describes a clear evolution of national space activities, from early feasibility studies focused on small satellite programs and ground infrastructure [61,100,101] toward the gradual consolidation of a national aerospace ecosystem. This transition is associated with the establishment of CONIDA, the creation of the National Center for Satellite Image Operations (CNOIS), and the launch of Peruvian satellite missions summarized in Table 2 [33].

More recent contributions emphasize space policy, economic impact, human capital formation, and New Space paradigms as key enablers of sustainable development [4,11,102,103]. Despite reduced technological barriers driven by miniaturization and low-cost missions, a recurring conclusion is that the absence of a coherent and long-term national space policy remains a major structural limitation. In this context, CONIDA has emerged as a central coordinating actor through STEM outreach, project development, and indigenous satellite initiatives [104]. In parallel, academic events and international competitions (including the NASA Space Apps Challenge, the Human Exploration Rover Challenge, multiple Mars exploration crew simulations, and national space-related conferences) have played a significant role in fostering public engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration, and talent development within the Peruvian aerospace ecosystem [33,103,105].

5.6. CubeSat/CanSats Programs and Educational Missions

CubeSat and CanSat initiatives constitute a major research and educational line within the Peruvian aerospace ecosystem. As summarized in

Table 8. Peruvian CanSat and CubeSat initiatives.

Work	Platform	Key Features	TRL
KunturSat [106]	CanSat	Parafoil-based controlled descent, post-landing stabilization, biodegradable surface marking; flight-tested.	6
MK-Sat [107]	CanSat	ADEPT-inspired aerodynamic deceleration with sequential parachute deployment; validated in CanSat USA competition.	6
Run2Sat I [108]	CanSat	Passive autogyro-based descent for impact velocity reduction; experimental flight validation.	6
[109]	CanSat	6-DOF parafoil dynamics model with PID yaw control for precision delivery (simulation-based).	3
INCA Program [110]	CubeSat	Modular, thesis-driven institutional CubeSat development framework (conceptual).	2
QB50 [111,112]	CubeSat constellation	Peruvian participation in QB50: mission definition and communication performance evaluation (simulation).	3
[113]	CubeSat constellation	Low-cost CubeSat relay constellation design and performance assessment.	4
CLUSBRIS-Sat [114]	CubeSat	Conceptual CubeSat for active debris removal using robotic and magnetic capture mechanisms.	2
UAPSAT-1 [35]	CubeSat	1U CubeSat deployed from ISS; in-orbit validation of communication, ADCS, and telemetry subsystems.	7

, two main branches can be identified: experimentally validated CanSat platforms and CubeSat-oriented educational, institutional, and conceptual programs. The reviewed literature shows a clear evolutionary pattern. Early efforts focused mainly on conceptual designs and simulation-based studies, particularly for CubeSat constellations, communication architectures, and institutional development frameworks, typically remaining within TRL 2–4. In contrast, more recent CanSat initiatives demonstrate a higher level of maturity, with several platforms achieving TRL 6 through flight-tested systems validated in relevant environments and international competitions. These developments emphasize controlled descent mechanisms, passive or semi-active stabilization strategies, and low-cost telemetry solutions.

Despite this progress, recurring limitations persist, including deployment reliability, descent stability, and restricted post-landing operability. Notably, only a single initiative, UAPSAT-1, has reached full in-orbit operational validation (TRL 7), underscoring the persistent gap between experimental prototyping and sustained CubeSat missions. Overall, the analyzed initiatives reveal a fragmented yet progressively maturing ecosystem, strongly driven by educational objectives but constrained by limited program continuity, infrastructure, and long-term institutional support.

5.7. Satellite Communications and Antennas

The reviewed literature shows that satellite communications and ground-segment research in Peru has evolved mainly through applied and experimentally oriented studies, with a strong emphasis on low-cost implementations, academic training, and operational validation [115,116,117]. As summarized in

Table 9. Peruvian studies on satellite communications and ground-segment systems.

Work	Contribution	TRL
[115]	Modular university ground station architecture with multi-mission scalability.	5
[116]	VHF/UHF ground station with integrated hardware–software control; CubeSat telemetry validated.	6
[117]	Low-cost portable ground station (Raspberry Pi + SDR) for automatic NOAA image reception.	6
[118]	Parabolic antenna with patch feeder for L-band HRPT reception; experimentally characterized.	6
[119]	High-gain circularly polarized parabolic patch antenna for meteorological ground stations.	6
[120]	Turnstile, QFH, and V-dipole antennas for automatic NOAA reception in VHF band.	5
[121]	Compact fractal microstrip antenna for CubeSat constellations and deep-space links.	4
[122]	C-band microstrip antenna array compatible with the CubeSat standard.	4
[123]	Hemispherical QFH antenna for LEO–GEO data relay using Inmarsat-F4.	4
[124]	BB84-based secure inter-satellite communications (theoretical and simulation study).	2

, most contributions focus on the design and deployment of university ground stations operating in amateur radio bands, as well as on the reception of meteorological satellites, demonstrating successful telemetry decoding and image acquisition under real operational conditions.

Antenna design constitutes a consolidated research line, spanning from simple VHF structures to high-gain parabolic and microstrip-based solutions for both ground stations and CubeSat platforms [119,120,122]. More recent studies extend the scope toward advanced communication architectures, including CubeSat constellations, higher-frequency bands, LEO–GEO data relay systems, and exploratory approaches to secure inter-satellite communications [121,123,124].

Overall, these studies indicate a gradual transition from educational and proof-of-concept developments toward more specialized solutions; however, most contributions remain within intermediate TRLs, reflecting the emerging yet growing maturity of the national aerospace ecosystem.

5.8. Scientific Payloads

Table 10 summarizes representative Peruvian studies on scientific payload development and aerospace instrumentation, highlighting their technical scope and estimated maturity levels.

Overall, the reviewed works show a gradual yet fragmented progression in payload development, largely driven by academic initiatives and oriented toward educational and proof-of-concept missions. Most contributions address low-cost, miniaturized payloads for CubeSat, picosatellite, ThinSAT, or suborbital platforms, reflecting the constraints typical of emerging space programs.

From a technological maturity perspective, the majority of payloads remain within TRL 3–5, corresponding to laboratory or breadboard-level validation. Only a limited number of studies, particularly those employing stratospheric balloon platforms as suborbital testbeds, reach higher maturity levels through flight validation [125]. A recurring limitation across the literature is the absence of full system-level integration and comprehensive environmental qualification. While several payloads demonstrate successful validation of individual functions, such as optical sensing, biological experimentation, or thermal control, most do not achieve integrated validation with critical satellite subsystems, including power management, thermal regulation, radiation tolerance, and onboard data handling.

Table 10. Comparative overview of Peruvian studies on aerospace payloads.

Ref.	Platform	Payload and Validation	TRL
[126]	ThinSAT	Miniaturized spectrophotometry-based bio-payload (Beer–Lambert) for S. cerevisiae growth monitoring; laboratory validated.	4
[127]	PUCP-SAT	Autonomous microbiological payload for P. infestans growth monitoring using pressurized nutrient injection (conceptual/lab).	3
[128]	PUCP-SAT-1	Low-cost CubeSat thermal chamber with active Peltier heating/cooling for LEO thermal-cycle simulation.	4
[129]	QB50	Conceptual payload and component selection framework for QB50 atmospheric CubeSat mission.	2
[130]	Picosatellite	Compact CMOS imaging payload with onboard JPEG compression and SD storage; laboratory validated.	4
[125]	Stratospheric balloon	Inertial and atmospheric payload (pressure, temperature, GPS, IMU); flight validated on stratospheric platform.	6
[131]	CubeSat 1U	Modular optical bio-payload using ESP32-CAM units for biological monitoring under simulated microgravity/hypergravity.	5–6

Table 10. Comparative overview of Peruvian studies on aerospace payloads.

Ref.	Platform	Payload and Validation	TRL
[126]	ThinSAT	Miniaturized spectrophotometry-based bio-payload (Beer–Lambert) for S. cerevisiae growth monitoring; laboratory validated.	4
[127]	PUCP-SAT	Autonomous microbiological payload for P. infestans growth monitoring using pressurized nutrient injection (conceptual/lab).	3
[128]	PUCP-SAT-1	Low-cost CubeSat thermal chamber with active Peltier heating/cooling for LEO thermal-cycle simulation.	4
[129]	QB50	Conceptual payload and component selection framework for QB50 atmospheric CubeSat mission.	2
[130]	Picosatellite	Compact CMOS imaging payload with onboard JPEG compression and SD storage; laboratory validated.	4
[125]	Stratospheric balloon	Inertial and atmospheric payload (pressure, temperature, GPS, IMU); flight validated on stratospheric platform.	6
[131]	CubeSat 1U	Modular optical bio-payload using ESP32-CAM units for biological monitoring under simulated microgravity/hypergravity.	5–6

5.9. Others Research Lines

Other research lines address satellite subsystems such as recovery systems [132], payloads [133], electrical power systems (EPS) [134], on-board computer and data handling (OBC&DH) [135], and structures [136], as well as orbital mechanics [137,138], ground test systems [139], and mission design [140]. Within this body of work, most contributions focus on subsystem-level development, numerical modeling, and ground-based validation rather than integrated flight missions.

Power system research emphasizes the analysis of DC converter efficiency and topology selection for CubeSat Electrical Power Systems (EPS). Simulation-based studies compare Buck, Boost, and Buck–Boost converters under varying electrical loads, establishing design guidelines but remaining at approximately TRL 3 [134]. More advanced efforts report the laboratory implementation of complete EPS prototypes, integrating power generation, conditioning, battery charging, and distribution, which reach TRL 5–6 due to experimental subsystem validation [141].

Environmental qualification infrastructure represents another relevant contribution area. Thermal–vacuum chambers and temperature control benches have been developed to reproduce Low Earth Orbit (LEO) conditions for CubeSat testing. These systems enable controlled laboratory validation of critical subsystems and typically reach TRL 4, as demonstrated by vacuum thermal control platforms designed for CubeSat qualification campaigns [139].

Analytical and numerical modeling of the space environment and satellite dynamics forms a complementary research stream. Studies addressing atmospheric drag and orbital decay rely on simplified aerodynamic models to estimate deorbit times and compliance with the 25-year rule [132,137], while gravitational field modeling based on GNSS mission data focuses on equipotential surface construction and harmonic representations [138]. As these contributions remain purely theoretical and computational, they are classified as TRL 2.

Finally, structural and protection-related research explores MMOD shielding concepts through high-fidelity numerical simulations of Whipple shields and laminated armor configurations. Although these studies demonstrate advanced mechanical and materials modeling capabilities, the absence of experimental impact testing limits their maturity to TRL 3 [136].

6. Discussion

The results of this review reveal a clear duality in the development of aerospace technology in Peru. On one hand, the country exhibits a strong historical foundation in space science, particularly in ionospheric physics, geomagnetism, and atmospheric research, as discussed in Section 3 and Section 4. The concentration of high-impact scientific facilities near the magnetic equator enabled Peru to contribute disproportionately to global geospace research during the 20th century, primarily through international collaboration and sounding-rocket campaigns, as summarized in Table 3.

On the other hand, the transition from scientific experimentation to sustained engineering and technological development has been uneven. As shown in Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10, the SLR indicates that most contemporary aerospace research in Peru remains concentrated at low to intermediate TRLs. Subsystem-level developments, including propulsion components, attitude determination and control testbeds, antennas, and scientific payloads, exhibit solid analytical rigor and, in several cases, laboratory-scale or experimental validation. However, these efforts rarely converge into fully integrated, flight-qualified systems with only a few exceptions reaching high TRL levels, as reflected by the CubeSat missions summarized in Table 2 and by the PAULET rocket program reported in Table 4.

Beyond these specific successes, fragmentation is particularly evident in launch vehicle research. As shown in Table 6, multiple studies demonstrate competence in numerical modeling, finite element analysis, and mission planning. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence of coordinated national programs advancing these technologies beyond TRL 4–5. A comparatively more structured landscape is observed in the ADCS domain, where three independent development tracks (Table 7) show some degree of continuity, including one proposed for the PUCP-SAT-1 mission. Despite this progress, these developments appear to be primarily institutional initiatives rather than outcomes of a cohesive national policy, with technological maturity generally remaining between TRL 3 and TRL 4.

A similar pattern is observed in CubeSat and payload development. The literature shows a strong emphasis on educational and proof-of-concept CanSat missions, often driven by participation in international competitions, as summarized in Table 8. In contrast, most CubeSat missions remain at TRL 2–3, as in the cases of CLUSBRIS-Sat and the QB50 concepts, with the exception of the launched missions listed in Table 2. In the fields of satellite communications and scientific payloads, the situation remains comparable. As shown in Table 9 and Table 10, reported developments typically reach TRL 4–6 for satellite communications and TRL 2–6 for scientific payloads; however, at the time of this review, none of the analyzed works report full integration into an operational, end-to-end satellite system.

From an institutional perspective, the bibliometric analysis highlights the central role of a limited number of universities and research centers, with weak cross-institutional integration, as illustrated in Figure 4a and Figure 5b. Although recent policy initiatives and the strengthening of CONIDA indicate a growing awareness of space as a strategic sector, the reviewed literature consistently points to the absence of long-term program continuity, stable funding mechanisms, and system-level roadmaps as persistent constraints. Nevertheless, the increase in space-related research output shown in Figure 1 suggests that, despite the lack of integrated national programs, university-driven and institutional efforts continue to motivate student and researcher participation through academic projects and international competitions.

Taken together, these findings suggest that Peru’s aerospace ecosystem is not constrained by a lack of technical talent or scientific tradition, but rather by structural and organizational limitations that prevent fragmented developments from maturing into fully integrated systems. Bridging the gap between experimentation and operational capability will require coordinated national programs, shared infrastructure, and stronger alignment between academic research, institutional objectives, and long-term policy frameworks.

Finally, methodological limitations must be acknowledged. The exclusive use of SCOPUS and ALICIA databases, along with language restrictions to English and Spanish, potentially omitted grey literature and non-indexed local records. This is particularly relevant for the emerging Peruvian ’NewSpace’ sector, including entities such as Deimos Perú, Geomática Soluciones, Killa Lab, qAIRa, Qinti Space, SpaceAG, Tumi Robotics, and Villa Automation, which operate in robotics, spaceborne systems, and drone remote sensing. However, these actors were largely absent from the bibliometric analysis because their primary output is commercial innovation rather than indexed scientific literature. Most downstream initiatives focus on proprietary image processing services, while upstream hardware developments often remain as internal industrial knowledge (grey literature) rather than public academic records. Additionally, the assignment of Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) entailed a degree of qualitative judgment based solely on reported experimental evidence, which may not fully capture the undisclosed operational maturity of these private projects.

7. Conclusions

This paper has presented the first comprehensive review of aerospace technology development in Peru, integrating historical analysis, suborbital and orbital activities, and a SLR of contemporary research. The results confirm that Peru possesses a unique and internationally significant legacy in space science, supported by strategic geographic advantages and decades of participation in global research programs.

However, the analysis also reveals a fragmented modern aerospace ecosystem, characterized by strong subsystem-level capabilities but limited system integration and operational maturity. Most national developments remain within low to intermediate TRL, with few examples of sustained, flight-qualified systems. This pattern reflects structural challenges rather than purely technical limitations.

By consolidating historical milestones, institutional contributions, and recent research trends, this work establishes a structured baseline for assessing Peru’s aerospace capabilities. The findings underscore the need for coherent national strategies that emphasize long-term program continuity, infrastructure development, and the transition from academic prototyping to operational systems.

Ultimately, Peru’s aerospace future will depend on its ability to leverage its scientific heritage, coordinate institutional efforts, and align research activities with national policy objectives. The framework and evidence provided in this review offer a foundation for future studies and for informed decision-making aimed at strengthening Peru’s role within the regional and global aerospace landscape.