Blog
What is the failure rate of small satellite missions?
Why failure rate of small satellites matters
Small satellites have revolutionised access to space by lowering costs and development barriers. Universities, startups, commercial organisations and even governments are now launching spacecraft that once would have required entire agency budgets. But while the barriers to entry have fallen, mission reliability remains a critical question.
Understanding the failure rate of small satellite missions helps new operators set realistic expectations, design mitigation strategies and justify budgets to stakeholders.
For clarity, “small satellite” typically refers to spacecraft under 500 kg, including:
- Minisatellites (100–500 kg)
- Microsatellites (10–100 kg)
- Nanosatellites (1–10 kg)
- CubeSats (modular units ~1.3 kg each)
Different classes have different risk profiles. For a more detailed breakdown, see our companion article “What is considered a small satellite?”.
The numbers: How often do small satellite missions fail?
Historically, small satellites have had significantly higher failure rates than larger spacecraft. Some widely cited figures:
- A NASA analysis of small satellites launched between 2000 and 2016 found about 41% experienced total or partial mission failure(1).
- More recent data (2009–2018) suggests that 87% of small satellites that completed their missions were successful, reflecting improved designs and greater operator experience(2).
- In contrast, large, traditional satellites often achieve >90% mission success rates thanks to extensive testing and redundancy.
These statistics highlight a key point: reliability is improving, but risk remains higher than for large, well-funded missions.
Common causes of small satellite failures
1. Communication subsystem failures
A large fraction of small satellite losses occur because the spacecraft never establishes contact after launch. Causes include antenna deployment failures, incorrect radio configurations and ground station issues.
2. Power system issues
Small satellites have limited surface area for solar panels and small batteries. A power system failure — whether from poor integration or unexpected thermal conditions — can permanently disable a mission.
3. Attitude control and propulsion problems
Lightweight satellites are more sensitive to environmental forces. Faulty sensors or actuators can leave a spacecraft tumbling or unable to point instruments.
4. Software and integration challenges
Software sits at the heart of every subsystem. Inadequate on-board flight software or poor integration between modules can cause cascading faults in orbit. Our post on “Building long-term space software expertise” explains how robust software design mitigates these risks.
Trends improving small satellite reliability
Despite the challenges, several trends are pushing smallsat reliability upward:
- Flight-proven components: More commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) subsystems have actual space heritage.
- Standardised platforms: CubeSat standards simplify integration.
- Improved testing practices: Even small budgets now allocate for vibration, thermal and functional tests.
- Mature software frameworks: Proven flight and ground software platforms reduce custom coding effort and bugs.
Our scalable solutions, for example, are designed to help teams manage complexity as they grow from a single satellite to an entire constellation.
How failure rates affect mission planning
Knowing the small satellite failure rate influences:
- Insurance premiums: Underwriters set higher rates for missions with less proven technology.
- Investor confidence: A realistic reliability estimate can help secure funding.
- Design margins: Teams can budget more for testing or redundancy where it matters most.
For early-stage missions, adopting a conservative approach to subsystem selection and testing can dramatically improve odds of success.
Software’s role in reducing risk
Hardware reliability is only half the equation. Software controls communications, power, payload scheduling and anomaly detection. By using a proven flight software architecture and an integrated ground operations system, operators can:
- Shorten development timelines.
- Reduce integration issues.
- Ensure graceful degradation if something goes wrong.
Learn more about what makes Bright Ascension’s space software engineering approach exceptional.
Case examples
- University CubeSat: Launched successfully but never phoned home due to a misconfigured radio. Lesson: verify ground-to-space comms thoroughly.
- Commercial microsatellite: Lost partial payload capability after a battery cell failure. Lesson: test power systems under realistic thermal conditions.
These examples underline how common failure modes can be and how planning ahead reduces risk.
Reducing failure rates of small satellite missions
The failure rate of small satellite missions remains higher than that of larger spacecraft but is trending downward thanks to better hardware, software and processes. By understanding the main causes of failure and addressing them proactively — especially in software and integration — small satellite teams can significantly improve their chance of mission success.
Resources
| 1. Jacklin 2019, NASA (ntrs.nasa.gov) |
| 2. O’Donnell & Richardson 2020, Aerospace Corp (digitalcommons.usu.edu) |