The title’s publication context
Cem Özkaptan and Ozan Tekinalp examine small-satellite classes alongside the cost components of a space mission. Readers can follow the cost assumptions while distinguishing satellite mass from mission requirements. The classifications and schedules belong to the article’s 2003 context; they are not a quotation for a new mission.
Preserved issue document
Open the complete preserved PDF · PiVOLKA 07 — PDF, 20 pages, 2.08 MB.
Original Turkish document; this is not an English translation. Some historical fonts may not copy or search correctly. The historical text has not been updated as current scientific guidance.
University-mirror archive source
Document access restored: 16 October 2026. This is not the document’s original publication date.
Reading it today
Before repeating an old claim as a current fact, check its first source and publication date. Examine separately whether a historical example can be generalised to another population. The research-reading guide offers a starting point for notes on sources, methods and limitations.
Sources and provenance
Source check / web edition: 14 October 2026. Historical documents retain their own original dates.
Publication details and reading questions
Özkaptan, C. ve Tekinalp, O. (2003). Uzay uygulamalarında küçük uyduların yeri ve maliyet etkenleri. PiVOLKA, 2 (7), 3-13.
Is satellite mass alone enough for a cost comparison? Which assumptions need revisiting when the mission’s scope changes?