\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{International Coordination and Support for SmallSat-enabled Space
Weather Activities}



\author[1,1]{Teresa Nieves-Chinchilla}%
\author[2,2]{Bhavya Lal}%
\author[3,3]{Robert Robinson}%
\author[4,4]{Amir Caspi}%
\author[5,5]{David Robert Jackson}%
\author[6,6]{Therese Moretto Jorgensen}%
\author[7,7]{James F. Spann}%
\affil[1]{CUA}%
\affil[2]{IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute}%
\affil[3]{NASA GSFC}%
\affil[4]{Southwest Research Institute}%
\affil[5]{Met Office}%
\affil[6]{UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN}%
\affil[7]{NASA Marshall Space Flight Center}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 28, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Advances in space weather science and small satellite (SmallSat)
technology have proceeded in parallel over the past two decades, but
better communication and coordination is needed among the respective
worldwide communities contributing to this rapid progress. We identify
six areas where improved international coordination is especially
desirable, including: (1) orbital debris miti-gation; (2) spectrum
management; (3) export control regulations; (4) access to timely and
low-cost launch opportunities; (5) inclusive data policies; and (6)
education. We argue the need for interna-tionally coordinated policies
and programs to promote the use of SmallSats for space weather re-search
and forecasting while realizing maximum scientific and technical
advances through the inte-gration of these two increasingly important
endeavors.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{International Coordination and Support for SmallSat-enabled
Space Weather Activities}

Teresa Nieves-Chinchilla\textsuperscript{1}, Bhavya
Lal\textsuperscript{2}, Robert Robinson\textsuperscript{3}, Amir
Caspi\textsuperscript{4}, David R. Jackson\textsuperscript{5}, Therese
Moretto J\selectlanguage{ngerman}ørgensen\textsuperscript{6}, and James Spann\textsuperscript{7}

\textsuperscript{1} NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD,
USA.

\textsuperscript{2}IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute,
Washington, DC, USA

\textsuperscript{3}The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC,
USA.

\textsuperscript{4}Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, CO, USA.

\textsuperscript{5}Met Office, Exeter, UK

\textsuperscript{6}University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

\textsuperscript{7}NASA Headquarters, Heliophysics Division, Washington,
DC, USA.

Corresponding author: Teresa Nieves-Chinchilla (teresa.nieves@nasa.gov)

Key Points:

\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  Space weather science and SmallSat technology have matured in
  parallel, but better international communication and coordination is
  needed
\item
  International agreements must address orbital debris, spectrum
  management, export control, launch opportunities, data access, and
  more
\item
  Challenges described in this commentary point to the need for a
  permanent international working group to coordinate efforts
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Abstract}

Advances in space weather science and small satellite (SmallSat)
technology have proceeded in parallel over the past two decades, but
better communication and coordination is needed among the respective
worldwide communities contributing to this rapid progress. We identify
six areas where improved international coordination is especially
desirable, including: (1) orbital debris mitigation; (2) spectrum
management; (3) export control regulations; (4) access to timely and
low-cost launch opportunities; (5) inclusive data policies; and (6)
education. We argue the need for internationally coordinated policies
and programs to promote the use of SmallSats for space weather research
and forecasting while realizing maximum scientific and technical
advances through the integration of these two increasingly important
endeavors.



\textbf{1 Introduction}

Addressing the science and sociatal challenges related to space weather
is a global enterprise, not only because the impacts can be worldwide,
but also because the observations required for effective forecasting and
specification have international implications (National Science and
Technology Council, 2019). This is particularly true as small satellite
(``SmallSat'') technologies are increasingly being applied to the space
weather priorities of many countries. While some international
coordination is happening bilaterally between government agencies of
individual states, and while such initiatives are important in promoting
the utilization of small satellites, there is need for larger,
global-scale, multi-lateral coordination. Just as international
coordination and cooperation have been adopted for maritime and air
transportation systems, similar policies and agreements must now be
formulated for space-based observing platforms.

SmallSats are a class of spacecraft with masses typically below 200 kg
(with some exceptions), including CubeSats with masses of
\textasciitilde{}1--10 kg and volumes measured in ``units'' of
\textasciitilde{}10×10×10 cm\textsuperscript{3} cubes. There is rich
literature describing SmallSat capabilities (e.g., National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering and Medicine {[}NASEM{]} 2016; Lal et al., 2017;
Millan et al., 2019). A recent report noted, ``these lower-cost
satellites' expendability, faster refresh, and simultaneous deployment
in large numbers---to enable lower-cost spatially or temporally
distributed data collection---enables greater risk-taking,
experimentation, and creation of new applications not feasible with
larger satellites'' (Lal et al., 2017). As a result, SmallSats have made
forays in almost every area of space, including science and exploration.
Multiple prior missions exemplify the feasibility of using SmallSats for
high-quality space weather-related research (Spence et al., 2020), while
new missions promise to further expand these capabilities (Caspi et al.,
2020).

Per NASEM (2016), one of the most promising potentials for CubeSats in
science is that they enable launching ``low-cost constellations and
swarms comprising hundreds or even thousands of data collection
platforms,'' thereby introducing ``entirely new architectures and ways
to conceptualize space science.'' A COSPAR-sponsored international study
had similar findings (Millan et al., 2019). Because of the vast domain
over which space weather occurs, spanning from the Sun to the Earth's
surface and beyond, extended SmallSat constellations are particularly
desirable for space weather research and monitoring.

Accurate terrestrial weather prediction achieved great advances through
deployment of a comprehensive observation network, and the same strategy
is required to realize significant advances in space weather prediction
capabilities.

Here, we identify several significant challenges posed by the blossoming
deployment of SmallSat constellations that require international
coordination and policy responses. We briefly summarize each challenge
and conclude with recommendations on how the international space weather
community may begin to address them. Whereas we focus here on issues
requiring international coordination, other papers in this special issue
highlight technological challenges and opportunities in applying
SmallSats to achieve space weather goals (e.g., Caspi et al., 2020;
Verkhoglyadova et al., 2020).

\textbf{2 Challenges in SmallSat Development, Launch, and Flight
Operations}

\emph{2.1 Orbital Debris}

SmallSat use is growing quickly: in 2019 alone, almost 250 satellites
with mass under 200~kg were launched, more than 5 times the number of
SmallSats launched during 2012 (Bryce Space, 2020). More than 1,100
CubeSats were launched during 2012--2019. While not all remain in orbit,
they add to the existing 900,000 pieces of orbital debris larger than a
marble, with 34,000 larger than a softball (i.e., about the size of a 1U
CubeSat), tracked by government agencies (ESA, 2020). As the number of
SmallSats in orbit increases, the concern is not just the growing number
of satellites occupying orbital space, but also that (depending on their
altitude) they will likely stay aloft as debris beyond their useful
life, presenting a collision hazard for human spaceflight and for other
satellites and robotic missions (Berger et al., 2020). The growing
number of small objects in orbit can also threaten the integrity of
ground-based astronomical observations (Witze, 2019).

Despite the scientific, economic, and other benefits of SmallSat launch
and use, these threats from the growing number of SmallSat
constellations represent a global problem. Going forward, assuming that
not all SmallSats can maneuver, international policies and restrictions
will be imperative to ensure that all SmallSats: (1) can be tracked,
either actively or passively; (2) cause no radio frequency interference
(see next section); and (3) abide by stricter guidelines to de-orbit
after they stop functioning\textbf{.} For example, the United Nations
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS, 2019; see Annex
II, Guideline B.8) has established policies for tracking and de-orbiting
of small satellites. However, international guidelines have not been
codified into law, and compliance rates remain low.

\emph{2.2 SmallSat Communications}

Communications are a particular bottleneck for space weather operations,
whether from single SmallSats or from constellations (Hapgood, 2008). As
discussed below, frequency licensing for radio communications is a
complicated and lengthy process even for highly-experienced mission
teams. Frequency licensing and coordination is necessarily
international, since many SmallSats transmit telemetry nearly
continuously while crossing over dozens of countries each orbit.
Additionally, spectrum licensing agencies may impose bandwidth
restrictions for certain radio-frequency (RF) bands depending on the
type of mission (e.g., Earth-imaging versus celestial imaging or\emph{in
situ} measurements) regardless of the actual data volume that mission
may require. In low-Earth orbit (LEO), visibility of ground stations
will limit downlink capacity and hence data ``timeliness'' (latency).
Adding ground passes to boost downlink capacity or reduce latency may
not be feasible or affordable, and other solutions must be investigated.

While spectrum-related issues are qualitatively similar for SmallSats as
for larger spacecraft, the speed with which SmallSats, especially
CubeSats, can be developed and launched is outpacing current
coordination processes for spectrum allocation and management.
Procedures for receiving permission for spectrum use are long,
complicated, and in many countries, spread across multiple agencies.
Many researchers deploying science-related CubeSats are unfamiliar with
these rules and regulations, and sometimes discover them late in the
development process, risking denial of a license or, worse, launching
without a license, as was the case with the American startup Swarm
Technologies (Harris, 2018). CubeSat developers have historically
favored lower frequencies (e.g., UHF or S-band), where equipment is less
expensive and more readily available, but these are also the most
congested parts of the radio spectrum. The growing use of CubeSats and
the accompanying explosion in data volume increases the need for higher
bandwidth, which has its own set of costs and challenges (as discussed
earlier). Regulatory authorities also prefer to know details of
satellite orbits when spectrum filings are made, but these parameters
may be uncertain until late in the process, particularly for SmallSats
launched as secondary payloads where the primary may not be known until
only \textasciitilde{}12 months before launch. This challenge is
exacerbated for international and joint projects where spectrum
allocations of multiple countries may need to be aligned.

In the next decade, if all proposed constellations are launched (an
unlikely scenario but worth considering), up to 20,000 satellites could
be launched into LEO, most of them under 500 kg (Maclay et al., 2019).
This rapid proliferation of SmallSats places increasing pressure on
coordination in UHF, S, and X bands as well as other space-allocated
bands, since many commercial operators use the same spectral bands as
university or federal government agencies. As more satellites are
launched, the competition for bandwidth will intensify, not just among
satellites in LEO but also in GEO, and in some situations between GEO
and LEO satellites. As RF interference becomes more of a problem,
enforcement of national and international regulations to prevent
interferences will increase, challenging the science community to
continually stay apprised of changes. The International
Telecommunications Union (ITU) has implemented procedures specifically
aimed at regulating bandwidth for SmallSat communication and telemetry
(von der Ohe, 2020).

Optical laser communication is an emerging technology with over 100,000
times more frequency bands than traditional RF, operates at lower power
levels, can achieve much higher data rates, and can potentially be
lighter and smaller (Klumpar et al., 2020). The main problem for laser
communication is cloud cover that can block transmissions, but it may
also be a valuable capability for communications between spacecraft.

\emph{2.3 Export Controls}

Recent advances in miniaturization of critical spacecraft systems enable
SmallSats as viable and cost-effective platforms for space weather
research. These include high-precision attitude determination and
control systems (ADCSs) for accurate three-axis stabilized pointing;
high-powered and resilient processors for on-board data processing and
sophisticated command handling; increased mission lifetime; and
high-speed, high-bandwidth communications using S- and X-band radio
frequencies. Improved efficiency of space-rated multi-junction
photovoltaic solar cells and innovations in miniature panel deployment
and articulation enable high power generation from a relatively small
footprint.

New technologies are under development to enable large SmallSat
constellations, particularly ones requiring interaction between
spacecraft, and to improve both data speeds and latency. Some of these
are discussed in the companion paper by Klumpar et al. (2020). For
example, miniaturized propulsion technology provides station-keeping
capabilities for SmallSats, whether to combat orbital decay to improve
mission lifetime or to enable large constellations whose constituent
spacecraft must maintain a known and constant configuration/separation.
Many options are becoming commercially available, including cold gas
thrusters and ion propulsion, but have not yet been commonly adopted.
These innovative technologies represent intellectual property subject to
control by individual nations, potentially impeding the international
partnering that is the hallmark of many SmallSat missions.

While export control regulations typically exclude general scientific,
mathematical, or engineering principles in the public domain (e.g.,
basic and applied research), they are often hard to interpret by
scientists. In some countries, concepts such as ``deemed exports'' --
items or information provided to a foreign individual -- are often
difficult to understand and follow, and responsibility for complying
with these laws often resides with researchers and students not trained
in such matters. There is ongoing debate between government and academia
regulated by export controls regarding the extent to which these
restrictions harm scientific activity. Institutions of higher education
in the United States argue that overly hawkish export control
regulations inhibit the best international students from studying in the
U.S. and prevent cooperation on international projects. Over time,
export control-related laws and regulations have become more complicated
and more aggressively enforced by government agencies. In the U.S.,
where enforcement information is publicly available, university
personnel have been prosecuted for breaches. Despite recent changes to
U.S. policy that now place many export controls for ``pure research''
missions under the Department of Commerce rather than the State
Department, this remains a driving concern. Harmonizing international
collaborations while ensuring export control compliance of their
research has become a precarious balancing act for scientists.

\emph{2.4 SmallSat Launch Opportunities}

SmallSat developers globally are increasingly looking for low-cost
launch opportunities wherever they can find them (e.g., Frick \&
Niederstrasser, 2018). Nearly 150 small launchers either already exist
or are being developed for launching SmallSats (Niederstrasser \& Madry,
2020). Historically, however, it has been more economical for SmallSats
to launch as rideshares on larger rockets. In 2017, India's PSLV rocket
launched over 100 satellites developed by the U.S., the Netherlands,
Israel, Kazakhstan, and Switzerland. International cooperation and
coordination will facilitate future efforts and expand available options
for SmallSat deployment and operation. For instance, the Access to Space
for All initiative of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs
(UNOOSA) connects established and emerging space actors to ensure the
benefits of space are available to non-spacefaring and emerging
space-faring nations.

\emph{2.5 Data Policies}

An open data policy is desirable to maximize the scientific and
operational impact of new SmallSat data (e.g., on space weather
forecasts). For operational applications, it may be worthwhile to follow
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and other bodies (e.g.,
European Organisation for exploitation of Meteorological Satellites
{[}EUMETSAT{]}) in defining a list of ``essential'' data and products
that would be made available world-wide on a free and unrestricted
basis. UNCOPUOS has also established policies for sharing of space
weather data (UNCOPUOS, 2019, Annex II). Standardization of space
weather data products will facilitate data exchange and ease of use.
However, data sharing should allow researchers to retain preferential
access to more innovative observations and ample opportunity to exploit
those data via peer-reviewed publications. As with most missions, there
should be a period immediately after launch reserved for calibration
when data need not be shared and, clearly, the instrument developers
should own Intellectual Property Rights for the data they create. To
provide further incentive for this open data policy, funding agencies
should require a meaningful ``pathway to impact'' for SmallSat data and
can develop frameworks to facilitate these pathways by, for example,
funding near-real-time downlinks for operational use, or supporting
missions that are demonstrators for future operational missions.

\emph{2.6 SmallSat Educational Efforts}

The educational aspects of SmallSats (particularly CubeSats) are an
intrinsic part of their heritage. CubeSats, with their concomitant
philosophy of standardization and containerization, were created in 1999
at California Polytechnic State University (CalPoly) and the Space
Systems Development Lab at Stanford University to facilitate access to
space for university students at low cost (see
https://www.cubesat.org/). The U.S. National Science Foundation (through
the ``CubeSat-based Science Missions for Geospace and Atmospheric
Research'' program) advocated for this concept and served as a trigger
to motivate the flow of new ideas from academia to the scientific
community (Moretto \& Robinson, 2008).

In the last few years, the scientific community has been actively
working to prepare our technologically advanced societies to reduce
vulnerabilities to space weather hazards. Among other roles, the
community advances knowledge of the fundamental nature of space weather,
contributes to developing a reliable space weather prediction and
forecast system, and evaluates space weather effects on human and
technological assets. Long-term planning requires a multidisciplinary
approach, with efforts to promote the flow of knowledge from the
scientific community towards academia. SmallSat capabilities and legacy
are key pieces in both requirements.

Currently, there is a significant lack of space weather programs within
U.S. colleges and universities and lack of a critical mass of students
and faculty within relevant departments. Space weather is inherently
interdisciplinary, but researchers interested in space weather are
typically trained in academic departments that lack the breadth and
depth that the field demands. The cost to create a space weather program
in universities is very high and the number of potential students is
likely low. This scenario has created challenges in overcoming the
scientific and technical complexities of space weather research, and in
the practical problem of sustaining support for space weather-related
infrastructure and human resources. Although significant effort is being
made by the scientific community (e.g., the Community Coordinated
Modeling Center), ensuring the transfer of knowledge requires creating
an international collaboration between academia, industry, government
agencies, and international organizations to promote cooperative
academic programs that minimize the cost and maximize the number of
end-users.

\textbf{3 Conclusions and Recommendations}

As the market and demand for SmallSats grow and their use becomes more
commonplace, these platforms become more capable for implementing space
weather research and operations in regions of parameter space that can
be entirely inaccessible by traditional larger missions, and at lower
cost. Much of this advancement has, to date, been driven by the
commercial market, but is typically sponsored by grants or contracts
from government agencies. These agencies should continue to recognize
the need for innovation and sponsorship of opportunities in this growing
market. However, sharing technological advancements between different
nations is complicated by the challenges outlined above. These will need
to be overcome to enable increased international collaborations in
SmallSat-driven space weather research and operations.

The challenges described in this commentary point to the need for a
permanent international working group to coordinate efforts, produce and
maintain a list of best practices for SmallSat developers, and recommend
regulations that will guide future SmallSat operations. Schrijver et al.
(2015) developed a space weather roadmap including recommendations for
future Smallsat-based space weather observations. Following from this,
COSPAR commissioned an international study group to construct a SmallSat
Roadmap (Millan et al., 2019). Recommendations were aimed at scientists,
industry, space agencies, policy makers, and COSPAR, with an
underpinning aim of increasing exploitation of SmallSats, and increasing
flexibility to ensure their application to space weather. They suggest
COSPAR could facilitate international teams to come together like in the
QB50 project (e.g., Gill et al., 2013) to meet large-scale science goals
via SmallSat constellation missions. This is not inconsistent with our
recommendation for an international working group, but misses our
further aim of enabling SmallSats to ultimately benefit providers of
operational space weather services and the end users of such services.

As discussed in the companion paper by Verkhoglyadova et al. (2020), the
WMO produces requirements for space weather observations with an
emphasis on near-real-time operations. The existing observational
network is regularly assessed against these requirements to identify
gaps in provision and to advocate for developments in the network. These
efforts need to be better coordinated with other groups of observation
providers, such as the Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites
(CGMS), and the SmallSat community, especially since the gaps between
provision and requirements are currently often very large.

Another goal of this improved coordination is to better publicize
operational space weather observational needs. A longer-term aim is to
strike a balance between the WMO requirements -- designed to meet the
needs of the users of operational space weather services rather than
necessarily being linked to upcoming observational developments -- and
research into new observational methods being carried out by the
SmallSat community and other researchers. This balance is essential to
ensure a strong connection between research and operations, to enable a
pathway for continual research-to-operations developments, and to
minimize the risk of lack of engagement (e.g., via the researchers
dismissing the WMO requirements as being too challenging). An effective
way of achieving this connection is for our proposed working group to
organize a research-to-operations observations workshop, jointly
sponsored by stakeholder agencies worldwide.

\textbf{Acknowledgements}

A.C. was partially supported by NASA grants NNX14AH54G, NNX15AQ68G,
NNX17AI71G, and 80NSSC19K0287. The authors thank the organizers of the
1\textsuperscript{st} International Workshop on Small Satellites for
Space Weather Research \& Forecasting (SSWRF). No new data were used in
preparing this manuscript.

\textbf{References}

Berger, T. E., Holzinger, M. J., Sutton, E. K., \& Thayer, J. P. (2020).
Flying Through Uncertainty. \emph{Space Weather} , 18(1), e2019SW002373.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019SW002373

Bryce Space and Technology (2020). Smallsats by the Numbers, 2020.
Retrieved from
https://brycetech.com/reports/report-documents/Bryce\_Smallsats\_2020.pdf

Caspi, A., Barthelemy, M., Bussy-Virat, C. D., Cohen, I. J., DeForest,
C. E., Jackson, D. R., Vourlidas, A., \& Nieves-Chinchilla, T. (2020).
Small Satellite Mission Concepts for Space Weather Research and
Operations. \emph{Space Weather} , submitted (this issue)

Crisp, N., Smith, K., \& Hollingsworth, P. (2019). An integrated design
methodology for the deployment of constellations of small
satellites.~\emph{The Aeronautical Journal,} ~123(1266), 1193--1215.
https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2019.57

ESA Space Debris Office (2020). Space debris by the numbers. Retrieved
from
https://www.esa.int/Safety\_Security/Space\_Debris/Space\_debris\_by\_the\_numbers

Frick, W., \& Niederstrasser, C. (2018). Small Launch Vehicles -- A 2018
State of the Industry Survey. \emph{Proceedings of the 32nd Annual
AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites} , Space Access, SSC18-IX-01.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2018/all2018/306/

Gill, E., Sundaramoorthy, P., Bouwmeester, J., Zandbergen, B., \&
Reinhard, R. (2013). Formation flying within a constellation of
nano-satellites: The QB50 mission. \emph{Acta Astronautica,} 82(1),
110--117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.04.029

Hapgood, M. (2008). Nano Satellite Beacons for Space Weather Monitoring:
Final Report. SWNS-RAL-RP-0001, Issue 1.1. Retrieved from
https://epubs.stfc.ac.uk/work/42988

Harris, M. (2018). FCC Accuses Stealthy Startup of Launching Rogue
Satellites. \emph{IEEE Spectrum} . Retrieved from
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/fcc-accuses-stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites

Klumpar, D. et al. (2020), Emerging Technologies that Advance Space
Weather Research and Operations using Small Satellites. \emph{Space
Weather} , submitted (this issue).

Lal, B., de la Rosa Blanco, E., Behrens, J. R., Corbin, B. A., Green, E.
K., Picard, A. J., \& Balakrishnan, A. (2017). Global trends in small
satellites. \emph{Institute for Defense Analyses} , IDA Paper P-8638.
Retrieved from
https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/g/gl/global-trends-in-small-satellites/p-8638.ashx

Maclay, T., Everetts, W., \& Engelhardt, D. (2019). Op-ed \textbar{}
Responsible satellite operations in the era of large
constellations.\emph{SpaceNews} . Retrieved from
https://spacenews.com/op-ed-responsible-satellite-operations-in-the-era-of-large-constellations/

Millan, R. M., von Steiger, R., Ariel, M., Bartalev, S., Borgeaud, M.,
Campagnola, S., et al. (2019). Small satellites for space science. A
COSPAR scientific roadmap. \emph{Advances in Space Research} , 64(8),
1466--1517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2019.07.035

Moretto, T., \& Robinson, R. M. (2008). Small Satellites for Space
Weather Research. \emph{Space Weather} , 6(5), 05007.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008SW000392

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(2016).\emph{Achieving science with CubeSats: Thinking inside the box} .
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/23503

National Science and Technology Council (2019). \emph{National Space
Weather Strategy and Action Plan} . Washington, DC: Executive Office of
the President (EOP). Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/National-Space-Weather-Strategy-and-Action-Plan-2019.pdf

Niederstrasser, C., \& Madry, S. (2020). New Launchers for Small
Satellite Systems. In: J. Pelton (Eds.), \emph{Handbook of Small
Satellites} . Cham: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20707-6\_21-1

Schrijver, C. J., Kauristie, K., Aylward, A. D., Denardini, C. M.,
Gibson, S. E., Glover, A., et al. (2015). Understanding space weather to
shield society: A global road map for 2015-2025 commissioned by COSPAR
and ILWS. \emph{Advances in Space Research} , 55(12), 2745--2807.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2015.03.023

Spence, H. E., Caspi, A., Bahcivan, H., Nieves-Chinchilla, J., Crowley,
G., Cutler, J., et al. (2020), Recent Achievements and Lessons Learned
from Small Satellite Missions for Space Weather-Oriented
Research.\emph{Space Weather,} submitted (this issue).

United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (2019).
Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, 62nd
Session (12--21 June 2019). In: General Assembly, Official Records, 74th
Session, Supplement No. 20 (UN document A/74/20). New York: United
Nations. Retrieved from
https://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2019/a/a7420\_0\_html/V1906077.pdf

Verkhoglyadova, O. P., Bussy-Virat, C. D., Caspi, A., Jackson, D. R.,
Kalegaev, V., Klenzing, J., et al. (2020). Addressing Gaps in Space
Weather Operations with Small Satellites. \emph{Space Weather} ,
submitted (this issue).

von der Ohe, M. (2020). Small satellite TT\&C allocations below 1~GHz:
outcome of ITU WRC-19. \emph{CEAS Space Journal} , 12, 565--571.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12567-020-00310-y

Witze, A. (2019). SpaceX launch highlights threat to autonomy from
`megaconstellations'. \emph{Nature} , 575, 268--269.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03446-y

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

