Skip to content

University & Academic Outcomes in the SST Portfolio

How do university-led SST projects perform compared to company-led ones? What determines whether an academic project breaks through to flight or industry adoption? This page synthesizes all ~42 university-led projects across 26 institutions.

Last updated: 2026-04-14 (session 21 — all 26 of 26 universities now have org pages. Session 20 reclassifications: SDSU transitioned (FIGARO-FT HAB flight, SST→FO pipeline), UCLA transitioned (FO flight test follow-on). LunaNet PNT stack discovered. SST→FO pipeline confirmed at n=4)


The Bottom Line

41% of university SST projects produced visible downstream impact (excluding unknowns: 16 of 39 assessable). That's below the overall portfolio rate, but the difference is largely explained by near-zero commercializations from universities. University projects fly (5) and transition (10) at competitive rates. Session 14 found the first university spinout: CISGAM (UC Irvine electrospray → company founded, NSF I-Corps 2023).

Outcome University University % Overall Portfolio Overall %
Flew 5 12% 27 24%
Transitioned 12 29% 20 18%
Commercialized 1 2% 15 14%
No visible outcome 21 50% 45 40%
Unknown / too recent 3 7% 4 4%
Total 42 111

Universities account for 38% of the SST portfolio (42 of 111 projects) but only 30% of positive outcomes (18 of 62). Session 20 reclassified SDSU and UCLA from no-visible-outcome to transitioned (both confirmed SST→FO pipeline). The first university commercialization (CISGAM, suggestive confidence) is early-stage — company founded and I-Corps completed, but no products shipped or revenue confirmed.


What Makes a University Project Succeed?

Four distinct pathways to university-origin impact:

1. People Chain (10 of 15 successes)

The dominant pathway. A PI develops knowledge under SST funding, then carries it to a new context — a startup, a follow-on mission, a different institution. The person is the transfer mechanism, not the project.

PI SST Project Origin Destination Confidence
Paulo Lozano 95548 Electrospray Explorer (MIT) MIT lab, TRL 3→7 Founded Accion Systems → TILE electrospray → MDA SHIELD confirmed
Simone D'Amico 95519 ANS + 94049 GNSS (Stanford) Stanford SLAB, TRL 3→5 Starling StarFOX formation flying algorithms confirmed
Dante Lauretta 95600 ML Asteroid Nav (U Arizona) U Arizona, TRL 3→5 OSIRIS-REx PI (flagship sample return) confirmed
John Christian 91474 MEMS IMU (JSC) + 155359 Opt Nav (GA Tech) JSC → GA Tech, 2 SST projects 11 yrs apart Artemis I Orion OPNAV + Lunar Flashlight LONEStar. AAS Fellow. 6 TechPort projects, 3 programs. Book author confirmed
Brock LaMeres 91661 RadSat FPGA (Montana State/GSFC) Montana State, TRL 5→6 Founded Resilient Computing (2020). $2.78M fed. RadPC on the Moon (Blue Ghost 1, CLPS, March 2025). 5 TechPort projects confirmed
Zachary Manchester 155367 PY4 swarm (CMU) Cornell PhD → Stanford → CMU, KickSat→PyCubed→V-R3x→PY4 lineage PY4 flew Transporter-10 (2024). PyCubed open-source platform. 7 TechPort projects, 5 programs confirmed
Mark Moldwin 94109 Quad-Mag (U Michigan) U Michigan, TRL 3→6 JGR publication (peer-reviewed Earth science) confirmed
Mina Rais-Zadeh 91596 Phonon Clocks (U Michigan) U Michigan, TRL 3→6 Group Supervisor at JPL Advanced MicroSensors (by 2022) confirmed
Scott Palo 106832 Lunar Comms/Nav (CU Boulder/GSFC) GSFC → CU Boulder, 7 years apart Career from LEO radios → lunar PNT infrastructure suggestive
Norman Fitz-Coy Precision ADCS (106813, LaRC-led, UF PI) U Florida, TRL 3→5 SwampSat first CubeSat CMGs in orbit confirmed
Stephen Whitmore 106834 3D Printed Hybrid (USU) USU, TRL 5→5 (target 7) Marshall SFC HLS/PSI testing (30+ firings) confirmed
Farzad Kamalabadi 95523 MAS Imaging (UIUC) UIUC, TRL 3→6 VISORS $4.4M NSF distributed telescope confirmed
John W. Conklin 93925 CHOMPTT + 94153 MOCT (UF) UF PSSL, TRL 4→9 LISA CMD $12.58M flagship mission hardware. Chair NASA PhysCos PAG confirmed
Manuel Gamero-Castaño 106835 Electrospray (UCI) Busek→JPL→UCI, TRL 5→7 Founded CISGAM (first university SST spinout). Also Co-I on JPL SAT colloid life testing suggestive
Alina Alexeenko 91370 + 91591 + 95540 FEMTA (Purdue) Purdue, TRL 3→6 FO suborbital flight 106637 (Blue Origin New Shepard). SST→FO pipeline confirmed

Key insight: University projects with TRL outcomes as low as 3→4 can still produce outsized impact through People Chains. The SST project develops the researcher, not just the technology. John Christian (TRL 3→5 at JSC, 2013) became an AAS Fellow with algorithms on Artemis I a decade later. Brock LaMeres (TRL 5→6, GSFC-led) founded Resilient Computing and put RadPC on the Moon. Dante Lauretta (TRL 3→5) is an OSIRIS-REx PI — though he inverts the pattern (flagship PI used SST for side tech, not the other way around). The project was the seed; the person was the growth medium.

Session 19 update: With Resilient Computing (Montana State) now identified, there are 2 university SST spinouts: CISGAM (UCI, pre-revenue) and Resilient Computing ($2.78M federal contracts, product on the lunar surface). Resilient Computing is the first university SST spinout with confirmed commercial traction.

2. Direct Flight (5 projects)

University teams that achieved flight demonstrations — the most unambiguous success metric.

Project University PI What Flew When
93925 CHOMPTT U Florida John Conklin Chip-scale atomic clock timing transfer Dec 2018 (ISS deploy)
91661 RadSat Montana State (via GSFC) Brock LaMeres Rad-tolerant COTS FPGA computer July 2018 (ISS deploy)
155367 PY4 Carnegie Mellon Zac Manchester 4×1.5U swarm demo Mar 2024 (SpaceX Transporter-10)
106810 DORA ASU-Tempe Daniel Jacobs 1 Gbps deployable optical receiver (56-day lifetime, partial success) Oct 2024 (ISS deploy)
91603 SSIB Balloon U Arkansas Solid-state inflation balloon deorbiter Apr 2023 (ARKSAT-1, ISS deploy via CRS-27)

CHOMPTT is the portfolio's only TRL 9 project. A university mission achieved the highest TRL in the entire SST portfolio — higher than any commercial project. This contradicts the "academic TRL ceiling" narrative for at least one case.

ARKSAT-1 (session 12 reclassification): The U Arkansas SSIB project [91603] (2015-2017, TRL 3→4) was previously classified as no-visible-outcome. The balloon technology was selected for ARKSAT-1 under NASA's CubeSat Launch Initiative (ELaNa 50), launched March 14, 2023 on SpaceX CRS-27, and deployed from ISS in April 2023. The SSIB demonstrated CubeSat deorbiting by inflating a balloon to increase drag — validated in orbit. Confidence: confirmed (SpaceX launch manifest, University of Arkansas press release, ELaNa 50 manifest).

3. Algorithm/IP Adoption (overlaps with People Chain)

Some university outputs transfer not through people moving but through published algorithms being adopted by flight missions. D'Amico's GNSS relative navigation algorithms were adopted by Starling without D'Amico leaving Stanford. Kamalabadi's super-resolution imaging concepts fed into VISORS. These are closer to traditional technology transfer — the algorithm is the artifact, not the person.

4. Institution-to-Institution Transfer

Whitmore's hybrid propulsion is the clearest case: USU → Marshall SFC. No company intermediary, no startup. NASA directly adopted university technology for its own program (HLS). This pathway bypasses the commercialization gap entirely.


The VISORS Convergence (Session 12 Discovery)

Expectation: Kamalabadi's MAS Imaging [95523] (UIUC, 2018-2022, TRL 3→6) was classified as no-visible-outcome.

Reality: Kamalabadi leads VISORS (Virtual Super-Resolution Optics with Reconfigurable Swarms), a $4.4M NSF-funded distributed telescope mission targeting 2025 launch. VISORS is a 2-CubeSat formation-flying telescope for solar corona imaging at unprecedented resolution.

The SST convergence is extraordinary. VISORS team includes: - Farzad Kamalabadi (UIUC) — PI, super-resolution imaging ← SST 95523 - Simone D'Amico (Stanford SLAB) — formation flying control ← SST 95519, 94049 - Georgia Tech SSDL — bus design ← SST connection via Glenn Lightsey - Montana State — team member ← SST 91661 RadSat - Purdue — team member ← SST 91370, 91591, 95540 (Alexeenko) - CU Boulder — team member ← SST 106832 (Palo)

At least 4 SST People Chains converge on a single downstream mission. VISORS is not an SST project, but it could not exist without the university research capacity that SST built across a decade. This is the strongest evidence that SST's academic investments compound — not through individual project outcomes, but through the network of researchers and institutions the program cultivated.

Confidence: confirmed (NSF award 1936663, SLAB project page, SSDL project page, EurekAlert press release)

Status update (session 14): VISORS planned for 2026 launch (Gunter's Space Page, updated Dec 2025). Not yet launched as of April 2026.


The BeaverCube Convergence (Session 14 Discovery)

BeaverCube (MIT, launched June 2021, 3U CubeSat) carries two SST technology lines on a single spacecraft:

  1. Accion Systems TILE 2 electrospray thruster (SST 106827, PI: Paulo Lozano) — donated by Accion to the student mission
  2. PI: Kerri Cahoy (SST 94065 CLICK) — Cahoy leads MIT STAR Lab, is PI of both BeaverCube and CLICK

This is the third convergence after VISORS and SWARM-EX, but a different pattern: instead of people chains flowing to an external NSF mission, two SST technology lines converge internally at MIT. The TILE 2 thruster on BeaverCube is a physical hardware contribution from one SST project to a mission led by another SST PI.

Confidence: confirmed (eoPortal BeaverCube page, Accion Systems press release July 2022, MIT News Nov 2020)


The SWARM-EX Convergence (Session 13 Discovery)

See SWARM-EX surprise. 3 SST PIs (Palo, D'Amico, Lightsey) converge on a 3-CubeSat formation flying mission for ionosphere research. D'Amico is the connective tissue: his Stanford SLAB provides GNC for both VISORS and SWARM-EX.

Status update (session 14): SWARM-EX planned for December 2026 on ELaNa 59. Not yet launched.


The Network Effect — Quantified

Session 14 systematically cross-referenced SST PIs against recent CubeSat missions. Results:

Convergence Type SST chains Launch status
VISORS NSF distributed telescope 4+ (Kamalabadi, D'Amico, Lightsey/SSDL, Montana State, Purdue, CU Boulder) Planned 2026, not yet launched
SWARM-EX NSF formation flying 3 (Palo, D'Amico, Lightsey) Planned Dec 2026 (ELaNa 59)
BeaverCube MIT student mission 2 (Cahoy, Accion/Lozano TILE 2) Launched June 2021

Hub node: Simone D'Amico (Stanford SLAB). D'Amico appears in 2 of 3 convergences (VISORS + SWARM-EX), providing formation flying GNC for both. His SST-funded work (95519 ANS, 94049 GNSS) directly produced the algorithms used. D'Amico is the highest-leverage PI in the SST university portfolio.

PIs checked with no new convergences found: Alexeenko (Purdue), Fitz-Coy (U Florida), Christian (GA Tech), Moldwin (U Michigan). The network effect is real but concentrated — it flows through a small number of hub nodes (D'Amico, Lightsey, Palo, Cahoy).


The Academic TRL Ceiling

23 of 42 university projects (55%) produced no visible downstream impact. The failure mode is remarkably consistent: reach TRL 5-6, produce publications, then stop. No industry partner, no flight opportunity, no follow-on funding.

Where the ceiling hits hardest

Domain Projects No-visible-outcome Ceiling rate
Thermal / Power / Sensors ~12 10 83%
Propulsion ~5 3 60%
GN&C / Autonomy ~12 5 42%
Communications ~8 3 38%

Thermal/power/sensors is the dead zone. Of ~12 university projects in this domain, only Moldwin's Quad-Mag (JGR publication) and Rais-Zadeh's phonon clocks (JPL transfer) showed downstream impact. Swenson (USU) ran three sequential SST thermal projects over 7 years with no visible outcome. Alexeenko (Purdue) ran three sequential MEMS propulsion/attitude projects with no visible outcome. The domain itself appears to resist university-scale development — these components need industrial manufacturing and space qualification that universities can't provide.

Persistent investigators who didn't break through

PI University SST Projects Total SST Span Outcome
Charles Swenson USU 3 ([91561], [95587], [155363]) 2015–2025 (10 years) TRL 5 ceiling, pivot to edge computing (TRL 3)
Alina Alexeenko Purdue (via GSFC) 3 ([91370], [91591], [95540]) 2013–2020 (7 years) TRL 5 ceiling across FEMTA/MEMS RCS/distributed attitude
Reyhan Baktur USU 1 ([91602]) 2015–2017 TRL 5, no follow-on

Pattern: Serial funding doesn't guarantee breakthrough. Swenson and Alexeenko each received 3 SST grants but couldn't cross the TRL 5→6 gap. The grants sustained research programs but didn't produce flight hardware or commercial products. Contrast with Lozano (MIT), who received 1 SST academic grant and parlayed it into a company (Accion) that won a second SST grant for the commercial product.

The domain trap

Dead-zone projects (thermal/power/sensors, no outcome)
[91561] Active CryoCubeSat — USU Swenson (TRL 3→5)
[95587] ATACOI cryo thermal — USU Swenson (TRL 3→5)
[91380] Integrated Power+Thermal — UIUC Ghosh (TRL 3→5)
[90693] Nano-Enabled Power — RIT Raffaelle (TRL 4→5)
[94116] Structural Battery — U Miami (TRL 3→5)
[94030] THz Receiver — ASU Groppi (TRL 3→5)
[106830] AMDROHP radiator — Cal State LA (TRL 3→5, MSI)
[155366] Radial Radiator — U Dayton (unknown, too recent)
[155365] SMA Heat Pipes — Penn State (unknown, too recent)
[155361] Microphotonic Clocks — Caltech (TRL 3→4)

Every single thermal/power project follows the same trajectory: TRL 3→5, publications, done. The technologies may be sound, but there's no pathway from university lab to smallsat integrator. Companies like BCT and Tyvak, which build the buses, don't source thermal or power subsystems from university labs.


University Profiles by Outcome

Tier 1: Multiple SST projects with visible impact

University Projects Outcomes Key PIs
Stanford 2 2 transitioned (D'Amico → Starling) Simone D'Amico
U Florida 2 1 flew (CHOMPTT TRL 9), 1 transitioned (MOCT → CLICK) John Conklin, —
U Michigan 3 2 transitioned (Quad-Mag JGR, Phonon → JPL), 1 no-outcome Moldwin, Rais-Zadeh

Tier 2: Single high-impact project

University Projects Outcomes Key PIs
MIT 4 1 transitioned (Lozano → Accion), 1 unknown (CLICK Active), 2 no-outcome Lozano, Cahoy
U Arizona 1 1 transitioned (Lauretta → OSIRIS-REx) Dante Lauretta
GA Tech 1 1 transitioned (Christian autonomous nav) John Christian
CMU 1 1 flew (PY4 swarm) Zac Manchester
ASU-Tempe 2 1 flew (DORA), 1 no-outcome (THz)
Montana State 1 (via GSFC) 1 flew (RadSat) Brock LaMeres
UIUC 3 1 transitioned (Kamalabadi → VISORS), 2 no-outcome Kamalabadi
U Arkansas 1 1 flew (ARKSAT-1 SSIB)

Tier 3: Multiple projects, no breakthrough

University Projects Outcomes Key PIs
USU 5 1 transitioned (Whitmore → HLS), 4 no-outcome Whitmore, Swenson, Baktur
Purdue 3 (via GSFC) 3 no-outcome (TRL 5 ceiling × 3) Alina Alexeenko
UIUC (see Tier 2 — Kamalabadi reclassified)
UC Irvine 2 1 unknown, 1 no-outcome

Tier 2.5: Single project, transitioned (session 20 reclassifications)

University Projects Outcomes Key PIs
SDSU 1 1 transitioned (SST→FO: FIGARO-FT HAB flight Sep 2024) Satish Sharma (IEEE Fellow)
UCLA 1 1 transitioned (SST→FO: optomechanical accelerometer → FO flight test) Chee Wei Wong
U Maryland 1 STRG→SST confirmed (TechPort Advanced_To). Nature Comms 2024 Jeremy Munday

Tier 4: Single project, no visible outcome

U Vermont, RIT, Cal State LA (HSI), U Miami, CO Mines, U Dayton, Penn State, Caltech, U Minnesota — each with 1 project, none showing downstream impact. These are primarily thermal/power/sensor projects or advanced concept projects (x-ray pulsar nav, microphotonic clocks) that hit TRL 3-5 and stopped.


The GSFC University Bridge

Goddard Space Flight Center served as the institutional home for 4 SST projects with university PIs:

Project University PI Outcome
91661 RadSat Brock LaMeres, Montana State Flew (ISS 2018)
91378 X/S-band Radio Scott Palo, CU Boulder Transitioned (Palo → MAXWELL CubeSat)
91370 FEMTA Alina Alexeenko, Purdue No visible outcome
91591 MEMS RCS Alina Alexeenko, Purdue No visible outcome
95540 Distributed Attitude Alina Alexeenko, Purdue No visible outcome

GSFC's university bridge had a 40% success rate (2 of 5). The successes (RadSat, Palo radio) involved PIs who connected to flight missions through NASA networks. The failures (all Alexeenko) were in the thermal/power/sensor dead zone.


Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs)

Four SST projects went to MSIs or HSIs: - 106823 5G Ka-band Phased Array — SDSU (Hispanic-Serving Institution), Satish Sharma (IEEE Fellow). TRANSITIONED: FIGARO-FT HAB flight Sep 2024 (SST→FO pipeline confirmed). Founded 5GAntennaTech LLC. Only MSI with confirmed flight in SST. See SDSU org page - 106810 DORA — ASU-Tempe (Hispanic-Serving Institution), deployed ISS Oct 2024 (56-day lifetime). Flew (partial success) - 106830 AMDROHP — Cal State LA (Hispanic-Serving Institution), 3D-printed radiator with heat pipes, TRL 3→5, no visible outcome - 94030 THz Receiver — ASU-Tempe, TRL 3→5, no visible outcome

MSI/HSI representation in SST: ~4 of 42 university projects (10%). Session 20 revealed SDSU as a standout — the only MSI with a confirmed flight-test transition, and an IEEE Fellow PI with a spinout company. DORA (ASU) also flew, though with curtailed on-orbit lifetime. The sample remains small, but the SDSU outcome challenges the assumption that MSI projects uniformly hit the TRL ceiling.


The SST→FO Pipeline (Session 20-21 Finding)

Four university SST projects have confirmed transitions to Flight Opportunities (FO), making SST→FO the most common university transition pathway:

PI SST Project FO Follow-on Flight Status Confidence
Alina Alexeenko 91370 FEMTA (Purdue) 106637 Blue Origin suborbital Completed confirmed
Brock LaMeres 91661 RadSat (Montana State) FO suborbital testing Completed confirmed
Satish Sharma 106823 5G Phased Array (SDSU) FIGARO-FT HAB flight Sep 2024 Completed confirmed
Chee Wei Wong 106828 LunaNet PNT (UCLA) 145005 FO flight test In progress confirmed

Pattern: SST matures the core technology (TRL 3→5/6); FO provides spaceflight environment testing. The two programs work as a sequential pipeline. However, FO is still a NASA program — crossing from FO to a commercial customer is a separate (and often unachieved) step. Alexeenko's FEMTA completed both SST and FO without producing a product or customer. LaMeres is the exception — his RadPC went from SST to FO to Resilient Computing to the lunar surface.

The LunaNet PNT Stack (Session 20 Discovery)

Four SST projects from the same 2020 funding cycle build complementary layers of a cislunar PNT architecture:

Layer Project PI University
Positioning 106826 Surface Feature Nav Brandon Jones UT Austin
Sensing 106828 Optomechanical Accelerometer Chee Wei Wong UCLA
Timing 155361 Microphotonic Clocks Kerry Vahala Caltech
Communications 106823 5G Ka-Band Phased Array Satish Sharma SDSU

Andrey Matsko (JPL) appears as Co-I on both UCLA and Caltech projects, bridging sensing and timing. Two of four (SDSU, UCLA) transitioned to FO. This looks like an emergent technology stack — not coordinated top-down, but informally connected through JPL. See LunaNet PNT Stack surprise.


Comparison to Commercial Portfolio

Metric University (42 projects) Company (69 projects)
Hit rate (excl. unknown) 46% (18/39) 64% (44/69)
Flew 5 (12%) 22 (32%)
Commercialized 1 (2%) 14 (20%)
Transitioned 12 (29%) 8 (12%)
No visible outcome 21 (50%) 24 (35%)

Universities transition at 2.4× the rate of companies (29% vs 12%). Session 20 reinforced this: SDSU and UCLA reclassifications were both transitions (SST→FO pipeline). University research is designed to transition — to follow-on programs, other institutions, or commercial entities. Companies are designed to commercialize.

Companies fly at 2.7× the university rate (32% vs 12%). Companies have access to Tipping Point awards, PTD flight slots, and ACO facility testing — pathways that lead to orbit. Universities mostly lack these pathways unless a NASA center (GSFC, ARC) provides the flight opportunity, or the SST→FO pipeline provides suborbital/HAB testing.


Open Questions

  1. Is the VISORS convergence reproducible? One NSF mission catalyzing 4+ SST People Chains might be an outlier or a template. Are there other non-SST missions that unknowingly depend on SST-trained researchers?
  2. Could SST improve university outcomes by pairing every academic grant with an industry bridge? The Lozano model (academic grant + commercial grant for same PI) worked. The Swenson model (3 sequential academic grants, no industry partner) didn't.
  3. Why does thermal/power/sensors fail so consistently? Is it the technology domain, the funding level, or the absence of commercial pull? SmallSat propulsion companies exist; SmallSat thermal companies don't.
  4. What happened to the PIs whose projects produced no visible outcome? Some (Swenson, Alexeenko) kept getting SST grants. Others disappeared from the SmallSat ecosystem entirely. Tracking PI career outcomes beyond SST would reveal whether the "People Chain" pathway is broader than the 10 confirmed cases.

All 26 University Org Pages

MIT | Stanford | UF | UIUC | U Michigan | Purdue | ASU Tempe | UC Irvine | USU | GA Tech | Montana State | CMU | U Arizona | U Arkansas | UT Austin | Caltech | U Maryland | SDSU | UCLA | CO Mines | U Vermont | U Miami | RIT | Cal State LA | U Minnesota | Penn State | U Dayton