Development of a hybrid onboard diagnostic architecture with lightweight machine learning for resource-constrained CubeSat systems

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2026.358310

Keywords:

CubeSat onboard diagnostics, fault detection, hybrid FDIR, lightweight machine learning

Abstract

The object of the study is the onboard diagnostic process in CubeSat nanosatellite systems, with particular emphasis on fault detection based on real-time analysis of multivariate telemetry data under real-time embedded operating conditions. The problem statement is the gap between the relatively low computational expenses and predictability of classical FDIR approaches and their limited ability to detect complex anomalies, and, conversely, the greater anomaly sensitivity and lower embedded performance of machine-learning models. A hybrid onboard diagnostic architecture that integrates telemetry acquisition, telemetry preprocessing, statistical feature extraction, a deterministic FDIR branch, a lightweight machine-learning branch, and decision fusion into one onboard diagnostics session has been elaborated. The proposed hybrid onboard diagnostic architecture has been evaluated based on hardware-in-the-loop testing using representative telemetry and fault cases for CubeSat systems. The evaluation metrics were the fault-detection accuracy, the detection latency, the CPU consumption, the memory consumption, and the resistance to telemetry noise. The hybrid onboard diagnostic architecture was compared to the conventional threshold-based FDIR system and standalone machine learning algorithms under the same HIL conditions. In the reported experiment setup, the proposed hybrid onboard diagnostic architecture demonstrated the fault-detection accuracy of 94%, while the classical FDIR method provided 71%, and the standalone machine-learning approach provided 88%. The average detection latency was decreased to 83 ms, in contrast to 120 ms and 95 ms, respectively. The embedded solution requires only 17.6% CPU and 58 KB of memory. Under the highest telemetry-noise level, the fault-detection accuracy of the proposed hybrid onboard diagnostic architecture decreases to 80%, whereas the standalone machine-learning and the classical FDIR baselines provide only 65% and 43% fault-detection accuracy, respectively.

Author Biographies

Ainur Kuttybayeva, Satbayev University; Institute of Mechanics and Machine Science named after Academician U.A. Dzholdasbekov

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Electronics, Telecommunications and Space Technologies

Department of Mechanics and Machine Science

Samal Zhamalova, Astana International University

Master of Pedagogical Sciences

Pedagogical Institute

Anargul Boranbayeva, Satbayev University; Institute of Mechanics and Machine Science named after Academician U.A. Dzholdasbekov

Doctoral Student, Senior Lecture

Department of Electronics, Telecommunications and Space Technologies

Department of Mechanics and Machine Science

Zhansaya Myrzayeva, Astana International University

Master of Technical Sciences, Lecture

Pedagogical Institute

Gulnar Imasheva, Satbayev University

Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor

Department of Logistics

School of Transport Engineering and Logistics

Zhanat Kaskatayev, Satbayev University

Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor

DepartmentofLogistics

School of Transport Engineering and Logistics

Yersain Chinibayev, Satbayev University

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Software Engineering

Nurzhamal Ospanova, International IT University

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Radio Engineering, Electronics and Telecommunications

Mukhit Abdullayev, Satbayev University

Candidate of Technical Sciences

Department of Electronics, Telecommunications, and Space Technologies

Kalmukhamed Tazhen, Satbayev University

Master Student

Department of Electronics, Telecommunications and Space Technologies

References

  1. Isermann, R. (2006). Fault-Diagnosis Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-30368-5
  2. Patton, R. J., Frank, P. M., Clark, R. N. (Eds.) (2000). Issues of Fault Diagnosis for Dynamic Systems. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3644-6
  3. Venkatasubramanian, V., Rengaswamy, R., Kavuri, S. N., Yin, K. (2003). A review of process fault detection and diagnosis. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 27 (3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0098-1354(02)00162-x
  4. Oche, P. A., Ewa, G. A., Ibekwe, N. (2024). Applications and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Space Missions. IEEE Access, 12, 44481–44509. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3132500
  5. Cratere, A., Gagliardi, L., Sanca, G. A., Golmar, F., Dell’Olio, F. (2024). On-Board Computer for CubeSats: State-of-the-Art and Future Trends. IEEE Access, 12, 99537–99569. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3428388
  6. Obied, M. A., Ghaleb, F. F. M., Hassanien, A. E., Abdelfattah, A. M. H., Zakaria, W. (2023). Deep Clustering-Based Anomaly Detection and Health Monitoring for Satellite Telemetry. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 7 (1), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7010039
  7. Li, Z., Zhang, Y., Ai, J., Zhao, Y., Yu, Y., Dong, Y. (2023). A Lightweight and Explainable Data-Driven Scheme for Fault Detection of Aerospace Sensors. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 59 (6), 8392–8410. https://doi.org/10.1109/taes.2023.3303855
  8. Fejjari, A., Delavault, A., Camilleri, R., Valentino, G. (2025). A Review of Anomaly Detection in Spacecraft Telemetry Data. Applied Sciences, 15 (10), 5653. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15105653
  9. Xu, Z., Cheng, Z., Guo, B. (2023). A hybrid data-driven framework for satellite telemetry data anomaly detection. Acta Astronautica, 205, 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.02.009
  10. Nalepa, J., Myller, M., Andrzejewski, J., Benecki, P., Piechaczek, S., Kostrzewa, D. (2022). Evaluating algorithms for anomaly detection in satellite telemetry data. Acta Astronautica, 198, 689–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.06.026
  11. Hodge, V., Austin, J. (2004). A Survey of Outlier Detection Methodologies. Artificial Intelligence Review, 22 (2), 85–126. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:aire.0000045502.10941.a9
  12. Shon, T., Moon, J. (2007). A hybrid machine learning approach to network anomaly detection. Information Sciences, 177 (18), 3799–3821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.03.025
  13. He, J., Cheng, Z., Guo, B. (2024). Anomaly detection in telemetry data using a jointly optimal one-class support vector machine with dictionary learning. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 242, 109717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2023.109717
  14. Hedayati, M., Rahimi, A. (2025). A hybrid framework for real-time satellite fault diagnosis using Markov jump-adjusted models and 1D sliding window Residual Networks. Acta Astronautica, 228, 1066–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2024.12.057
  15. Crotti, E., Colagrossi, A. (2025). Machine Learning Approaches for Data-Driven Self-Diagnosis and Fault Detection in Spacecraft Systems. Applied Sciences, 15 (14), 7761. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147761
  16. Lai, Y., Zhu, Y., Li, L., Lan, Q., Zuo, Y. (2025). STGLR: A Spacecraft Anomaly Detection Method Based on Spatio-Temporal Graph Learning. Sensors, 25 (2), 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25020310
  17. Liang, H., Liu, C., Liu, W., Li, W., Zhang, Y. (2025). Spacecraft Health Status Monitoring Method Based on Multidimensional Data Fusion. Machines, 13 (12), 1136. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines13121136
  18. Liu, M., Xia, Q., Qiu, S. (2024). A new data-driven framework for progressive anomaly event alerts in spacecraft based on reconstruction discrepancy. Advances in Space Research, 74 (11), 5890–5905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2024.08.054
Development of a hybrid onboard diagnostic architecture with lightweight machine learning for resource-constrained CubeSat systems

Downloads

Published

2026-04-30

How to Cite

Kuttybayeva, A., Zhamalova, S., Boranbayeva, A., Myrzayeva, Z., Imasheva, G., Kaskatayev, Z., Chinibayev, Y., Ospanova, N., Abdullayev, M., & Tazhen, K. (2026). Development of a hybrid onboard diagnostic architecture with lightweight machine learning for resource-constrained CubeSat systems. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 2(9 (140), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2026.358310

Issue

Section

Information and controlling system