Design and Modeling of Metamaterial-Based

Antenna Arrays for Nanosatellite

Communication Systems

Diseño y Modelado de Arreglos de Antenas basado en Metamateriales para Sistema de

Comunicación de Nanosatélite

Axel Hemsy

#*α1

, Juan Eduardo Ise

, Miguel Ángel Cabrera

, Mariano Fagre

#α4

Laboratorio de Telecomunicaciones, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán

Av. Independencia 1800, Tucumán (4000), Argentina

ahemsy@herrera.unt.edu.ar

jise@herrera.unt.edu.ar

mcabrera@herrera.unt.edu.ar

mfagre@herrera.unt.edu.ar

Laboratorio de Dieléctricos, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán

Av. Independencia 1800, Tucumán (4000), Argentina

Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)

Crisóstomo Álvarez 722, Tucumán (4000), Argentina

Abstract— The design and modeling of compact antenna

arrays based on metamaterials for nanosatellite

communication systems is presented. The main objective is to

optimize performance at 2.45 GHz (S-Band). As a first step, a

single coaxially fed antenna was designed on a Rogers

RO4350B substrate (0.76 mm thick, εᵣ = 3.48). A unit cell with

Minkowski fractal geometry was incorporated into the ground

plane, and two opposite corners of the patch were truncated to

induce right-hand circular polarization.

Different antenna arrays were designed in 1×2 (45 × 185

mm), 1×4 (48 × 155 mm), and 2×2 (75 × 85 mm)

configurations, all with the same thickness of 0.76 mm. The

feeding networks were implemented using Wilkinson power

dividers. These arrays enabled an increase in gain to 5.1 dBi,

5.21 dBi, and 5.8 dBi, as well as an improvement in axial ratio,

while maintaining efficiencies between 71% and 78%. The

useful bandwidths obtained (VSWR < 2, S₁₁ < -10 dB, axial

ratio < 3 dB) were 22 MHz, 39 MHz and 27 MHz. The compact

dimensions allow integration with the structure and

subsystems onboard a CubeSat: the 1×2 and 2×2 arrays are

compatible with a 1U format, while the 1×4 can be integrated

into a 2U format.

Keywords: nanosatellite; antenna array; metamaterial.

Resumen— Se presenta el diseño y modelado de arreglos de

antenas patch compacta basada en metamateriales, destinada a

sistemas de comunicación para nanosatélites. El objetivo

principal es optimizar el desempeño a una frecuencia de 2.45

GHz (Banda S). Como primer paso, se diseñó una antena

individual con alimentación coaxial sobre un sustrato Rogers

RO4350B (espesor de 0.76 mm, εᵣ = 3.48). En el plano de tierra

se incorporó una celda unitaria con geometría fractal tipo

Minkowski, y se truncaron dos esquinas opuestas del parche

para inducir polarización circular derecha.

Se diseñaron diferentes arreglos de antenas en

configuraciones 1×2 (45 × 85 mm), 1×4 (48 × 155 mm) y 2×2

(75 × 85 mm), todos con el mismo espesor de 0.76 mm. La

alimentación se realizó mediante divisores de potencia tipo

Wilkinson. Estos arreglos permitieron aumentar la ganancia a

5.1 dBi, 5.2 dBi y 5.8 dBi, y mejorar la relación axial,

manteniendo eficiencias entre el 71% y el 78%. Los anchos de

banda útiles obtenidos (ROE < 2, S₁₁ < -10 dB, relación axial <

3 dB) fueron de 22 MHz, 39 MHz y 27 MHz. Las dimensiones

compactas permiten su integración con la estructura y los

subsistemas a bordo de un CubeSat: los arreglos 1×2 y 2×2 son

compatibles con un formato de 1U, mientras que el 1×4 puede

integrarse en un formato de 2U.

Palabras clave: nanosatélite; arreglo de antenas; metamaterial.

I. INTRODUCTION

The development of artificial satellites began with the

launch of Sputnik I in 1957, marking the dawn of the space

age. Since then, satellite technology has rapidly evolved

toward smaller, more accessible platforms [1]. Over the past

two decades, nanosatellites have gained significant attention

due to their low cost, modular design, and rapid deployment

capability in low Earth orbit [2]. However, the development

of CubeSats for diverse missions must comply with strict

limitations, including dimensions, mass, and the structure of

the antenna deployment system. Antenna design is one of

the critical factors in the construction of CubeSats, and it

requires careful consideration of mission requirements [3].

Antennas based on metasurface achieve the essential

performance required for a CubeSat mission without

increasing the overall physical size of the final designs,

making them geometrically and mechanically suitable for

Revista elektron, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 94-100 (2025)

ISSN 2525-0159

Recibido: 23/09/25; Aceptado: 17/11/25

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.9.2.217.2025

Original Article

compact CubeSat configurations such as 1U and 1.5U. The

metasurface patch antenna in the S, C, Ku, Ka and W-bands

stand out are low-profile, small, have minimal power

consumption, and do not require any deployment equipment

[4, 5].

In [6] they investigated a UHF antenna for nanosatellite

communication that incorporated a metamaterial-inspired

Epsilon-and-Mu-Near-Zero (EMNZ) structure on the

ground plane, combined with a meander line radiator. Their

study showed that a 3×2 unit-cell metamaterial arrangement

stabilized the resonance frequency against coupling with the

nanosatellite metallic structure, exhibiting EMNZ

characteristics between 385 MHz and 488.5 MHz. This

finding is directly relevant for miniaturized arrays, as it

demonstrates that integration with the metallic CubeSat

body can cause resonance shifts and additional losses if not

explicitly considered.

In [7] they proposed a spiral-shaped metamaterial patch

antenna operating at 2.1 GHz, with a bandwidth of 35.1

MHz and a directivity of 7.4 dBi. In [8] they analyzed the

influence on signal polarization when a metasurface was

placed at a certain distance above a patch antenna. The

designed and fabricated antenna operates at 2.49 GHz with

a gain of 5.7 dB.

In [9] the benefits of using metamaterials in S-band patch

antennas are highlighted. Their work compared a

conventional antenna with a metamaterial-based antenna fed

by a microstrip line, concluding that the inclusion of unit

cells in the ground plane allowed a 21% size reduction, as

well as improved efficiency and reduced axial ratio.

This work presents the design and modeling of a

metamaterial-based patch antenna array operating in the S-

band for nanosatellite communication systems, enabling a

reduction in dimensions compared to a conventional patch

antenna design, compatible with a 1U or 2U format.

II. ANTENNA DESIGN METHODOLOGY

The antenna is intended to provide efficient

communication between small satellites and Earth.

Therefore, it must meet the specifications listed in Table I.

TABLE I

REQUIRED PERFORMANCE

Parameter

Required value

< -10 dB

VSWR

Gain

> 3 dBi

Polarization

Circular

Axial ratio

<3 dB

The work was carried out in two stages. First, a single

antenna was designed and modeled, and subsequently,

arrays were assembled in 1×2, 1×4, and 2×2 configurations.

A. Individual antenna

The patch antenna was designed on a Rogers RO4350B

substrate, whose characteristics are summarized in Table II.

A coaxial feed was selected, as it provides an easier and

more reliable connection to the nanosatellite platform.

TABLE II

ROGERS RO4350B SUBSTRATE

Dielectric constant

(3.48 ± 0.05)

Loss tangent

0.0031 (2.5 GHz)

Dielectric thickness

(0.76 ± 0.05) mm

Copper thickness

0.035 mm

The design consists of a square patch with two opposite

corners truncated by circular cuts. In this work, right-hand

circular polarization is considered. The radius of the

truncated circle was optimized during simulation.

Given the constraints of nanosatellite applications,

maintaining a physical gap between the metamaterial and

the antenna was considered impractical, as it could trap

space debris, potentially degrading performance or causing

structural damage. To overcome this limitation, the

metamaterial unit cell was embedded into the ground plane,

thereby eliminating the need for mechanical separation and

contributing to a reduction in the antenna’s overall volume

[9].

A unit cell was etched into the ground plane directly

beneath the patch to reduce the antenna’s physical

dimensions [10]. The geometry corresponds to a first-

iteration Minkowski fractal structure [11–13]. The unit cell

was simulated using a combination of perfect electric

conductor (PEC) and perfect magnetic conductor (PMC)

boundaries, confirming that its resonance frequency lies

within the S-band. The S11 parameter, shown in Fig. 2,

indicates that the structure resonates at 2.7 GHz. Attempts

to lower the resonance frequency of the metamaterial unit

cell led to a degradation of the antenna radiation parameters,

because the cell became larger than the patch.

Fig. 1 shows the front and back view of the individual

antenna, while its dimensions are detailed in Table III.

Fig. 1. Front and back view of the individual antenna.

TABLE III

DIMENSIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL ANTENNA

Parameter

Value

Ground width/length (G)

40 mm

Patch width/length (P)

21.5 mm

Truncation radius (R)

2.7 mm

Microstrip line width (ML)

1.1 mm

B. Antenna Arrays

Based on the individual antenna design, arrays were

designed in three different configurations: 1×2, 1×4, and

2×2, with the objective of increasing gain and improving

coverage.

Revista elektron, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 94-100 (2025)

ISSN 2525-0159

http://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Each array was assembled using a symmetric in-phase

branched feeding network with Wilkinson power dividers to

ensure balanced signal distribution. Quarter-wavelength (λ/4)

T-junction transformers were employed for impedance

matching.

Fig. 3 shows the models of the designed arrays, while the

physical dimensions are presented in Table IV.

Due to their compact dimensions, the 1×2 and 2×2 arrays

are compatible with a 1U nanosatellite format (10 cm cube),

while the 1×4 array, due to its larger length, can be

integrated into a 2U format.

Fig. 2. Unit cell simulation. The structure resonates at 2.7 GHz.

TABLE IV

DIMENSIONS OF THE ANTENNA ARRAYS

Parameter

1x2

1x4

2x2

Ground width (GW)

45 mm

48 mm

75 mm

Ground length (GL)

85 mm

155 mm

85 mm

Patch width/ length (P)

22 mm

18 mm

21 mm

Truncation Radius (R)

2.6 mm

2.3 mm

Microstrip line width

(ML)

1.1 mm

Wilkinson divider

width (W)

0.51 mm

Antenna spacing (Z)

20.5 mm

20.75 mm

21.5 mm

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the simulation results obtained with

CST Studio Suite. The main parameters used to analyze the

performance of the different proposed antenna arrays are

presented below.

A. Return Loss – Parameter S

Fig. 4 and Table V show the return loss (S

) results for

the single antenna and the three proposed arrays.

The single antenna exhibits a resonance frequency

centered at 2.442 GHz, with a return loss of –17.7 dB. The

1×2 array resonates at 2.482 GHz, achieving a return loss of

–42.8 dB. The 1×4 array presents a resonance at 2.464 GHz

with a return loss of –29.2 dB. In the case of the 2×2 array,

two resonance peaks are observed: one at 2.422 GHz with a

return loss of –38.9 dB, and another at 2.496 GHz with –

26.5 dB.

The bandwidth, defined by the condition S11 < –10 dB,

is summarized in Table V. Among all configurations, the

2×2 array achieves the widest bandwidth, reaching 160

MHz. The 1×2 array presents an intermediate bandwidth of

124 MHz, while the 1×4 array and the single antenna

exhibit narrower responses of 90 MHz and 82.3 MHz,

respectively.

Fig. 3. Antenna arrays. Top face (white) and bottom face (yellow). (a) 1x2,

(b) 1x4, (c) 2x2.

Fig. 4. S

parameter as a function of frequency for the single antenna and

the three arrays.

Revista elektron, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 94-100 (2025)

ISSN 2525-0159

http://elektron.fi.uba.ar

TABLE V

PARAMETERS AND GAIN OF THE ANTENNAS

Individual

antenna

1x2

1x4

2x2

Frequency

(GHz)

2.442

2.482

2.464

2.422 and

2.496

(dB)

-17.7

-42.8

-29.2

-38.9 and -

26.5

Bandwidth

(S11<-10

dB)

(2.410 –

2.4923)

GHz

82.3 MHz

(2.395 –

2.519) GHz

124 MHz

(2.414 –

2.504) GHz

90 MHz

(2.382 –

2.542) GHz

160 MHz

Gain at

2.45 GHz

3.6 dBi

5.1 dBi

5.2 dBi

5.8 dBi

In addition, Table V includes the gain values obtained at

2.45 GHz for each design. It can be observed that the single

antenna satisfies the requirement of achieving a gain above

3 dBi, reaching 3.6 dBi. The gain increases to 5.1 dBi in the

1×2 array. For the arrays with four elements, the gain also

improves: the 1×4 array achieves 5.2 dBi, and the 2×2 array

reaches 5.8 dBi. The frequency-dependent behavior of the

gain with right-hand circular polarization is depicted in Fig.

Fig. 5. Gain whit right-hand polarization as a function of frequency.

B. Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR)

Fig. 6 shows the VSWR variation as a function of

frequency for the single antenna and the proposed arrays. In

all cases, the minimum VSWR occurs at the operating

frequency, indicating proper impedance matching between

the radiating element and the feed line.

According to the results, the single antenna presents a

minimum VSWR of 1.3 at 2.442 GHz. The 1×2 array

achieves the lowest value of 1.02, indicating excellent

impedance matching. The 1×4 array maintains good

matching with a minimum of 1.07, while the 2×2 array

exhibits two minima: 1.02 at 2.422 GHz and 1.1 at 2.496

GHz.

In all cases, the values remain below 2 within the

operating range, fulfilling the design criteria.

C. Radiation Efficiency

Fig. 7 shows the radiation efficiency for the single

antenna and the arrays. At their respective operating

frequencies, the single antenna exhibits the highest

efficiency of about 87%. The 1×2 array presents a reduced

efficiency of around 75%, while the 1×4 array reaches

approximately 78%. The 2×2 array presents the minimum

efficiency, close to 71-73%.

Fig. 6. VSWR as a function of frequency.

Fig. 7. Radiation efficiency as a function of frequency.

D. Axial Ratio

A perfectly circularly polarized signal has an axial ratio

equal to 1 (0 dB). Fig. 8 shows the results for the axial ratio

of the different configurations.

The 1×2 array achieves an axial ratio of 0.85 dB at 2.45

GHz, while the 1×4 array provides an even lower value of

0.197 dB at 2.435 GHz. The 2×2 array shows a slightly

higher axial ratio of approximately 1.65 dB at 2.462 GHz.

In contrast, the single antenna exhibits an axial ratio of 2.23

dB, which remains below the 3 dB limit required for

circular polarization and is therefore acceptable.

Fig. 8. Axial ratio as a function of frequency.

E. Useful Bandwidth

The useful bandwidth is defined as the frequency range

that simultaneously satisfies all the technical requirements

specified in Table I. For the antennas in this work, the

Revista elektron, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 94-100 (2025)

ISSN 2525-0159

http://elektron.fi.uba.ar

condition of an axial ratio below 3 dB is met alongside the

other requirements.

According to the results summarized in Table VI, the

individual antenna provides a useful bandwidth of 20 MHz.

The 1×2 array shows a slightly improved bandwidth of 22

MHz, while the 1×4 array achieves the widest range at 39

MHz, representing a significant enhancement in operational

bandwidth. The 2×2 array offers a useful bandwidth of 27

MHz, also outperforming the single antenna configuration.

TABLE VI

USEFUL BANDWIDTH

Array

Useful bandwidth

Individual

antenna

(2.442 - 2.462) GHz

20 MHz

1x2

(2.439 - 2.461) GHz

22 MHz

1x4

(2.415 – 2.454) GHz

39 MHz

2x2

(2.444 – 2.471) GHz

27 MHz

F. Radiation Pattern

Fig. 9 shows the far-field radiation patterns for the four

configurations under study. The single antenna exhibits a

half-power beamwidth (HPBW) of 97°. For the 1×2 array,

the HPBW is reduced to 66.6°, while in the 1×4 array it

decreases more sharply to 34.4°, evidencing the expected

directivity enhancement as the number of radiating elements

increases. The 2×2 array presents a HPBW of 68°, which is

consistent with its balanced distribution of radiating

elements.

In all cases, the direction of maximum radiation remains

close to broadside, with no significant deviations. This

confirms that the proposed array configurations preserve the

desired radiation orientation while improving directivity and

narrowing the beamwidth.

A recent study [12] analyzed a Minkowski fractal

antenna with complementary split ring resonators (CSRRs)

embedded in a modified ground plane. The authors reported

substantial improvements in both bandwidth and gain:

maximum measured gain reached approximately 5.2 dB,

and both simulated and experimental results confirmed

more than 2 GHz of operating bandwidth. These findings

highlight that fractal geometries combined with CSRR

structures can effectively enhance bandwidth without losing

consistency between simulation and measurement.

G. Surface Currents

Fig. 10 shows the surface current distribution for the 2×2

array. As observed, the highest intensity is concentrated

along the edges of the radiating patches, a typical behavior

due to edge effects, where charge accumulation is greater.

On the ground plane, the highest current density is

located around the unit cells. This introduced fractal design

modifies the electromagnetic response of the system,

contributing both to the frequency shift of the antenna

resonance and to the generation of circular polarization [9].

The corresponding plots for the other configurations are

not included, as they exhibit qualitatively similar current

distributions.

Fig. 9. Farfield gain with right-hand circular polarization (φ = 0°). (a)

Single antenna. (b) 1×2 array. (c) 1×4 array. (d) 2×2 array.

Fig. 10. Surface currents in the 2×2 array, top and bottom view.

H. Comparison with Literature

The incorporation of a unit cell in the ground planes of

the designed antennas allowed for a reduction of the

resonance frequency through the addition of series or shunt

inductive and capacitive elements, leading to a decrease in

the electrical size of the structure.

The results obtained in this work were compared with

those reported in previous publications and commercial

datasheets. It should be noted that no references of

metamaterial-based arrays were found to enable a direct

comparison.

Table VII presents a comparison of 1×4 configurations.

The design proposed in this work shows a significantly

smaller volume compared to the arrays developed by [14]

and [15]. Although the obtained gain is somewhat lower, the

axial ratio is considerably smaller, indicating purer circular

polarization.

Table VIII compares the proposed 2×2 array with

commercial antenna catalogs. The proposed design operates

at a higher frequency (2.45 GHz), with a considerably

smaller volume and an acceptable axial ratio, although with

lower gain than commercial antennas.

Revista elektron, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 94-100 (2025)

ISSN 2525-0159

http://elektron.fi.uba.ar

TABLE VII

COMPARISON OF THE 1X4 ARRANGEMENT WITH THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reference

Frequency

(GHZ)

Dimensions (mm)

Surface (cm

)

Useful

Bandwidth

Gain

Axial ratio

Gain/ surface

(dBi/ cm

)

[14]

2.25 GHz

300 x 160 (3U X 2U)

480

37.3 MHz

9.281 dBi

0.6426 dB

0.019

[15]

2.30 GHz

280 x 65 (2U)

182

152 MHz

10.56 dBi

1.745 dB

0.058

This work

2.464 GHz

48 x 155 (2U)

74.4

39 MHz

5.2 dBi

0.2 dB

0.07

TABLE VIII

COMPARISON OF THE 2X2 ARRANGEMENT WITH THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reference

Frequency

(GHZ)

Dimensions (mm)

Surface

(cm

)

Useful

Bandwidth

Gain

Axial ratio

Gain/ surface

(dBi/ cm

)

[16]

1.98 – 2.20

170 x 170 (2U X 2U)

289

9 dBi

0.5 dB

0.031

[17]

2.220

160 x 160 (2U X 2U)

256

50 MHz

11.5 dBi

0.045

[18]

2.200 – 2.290

172.7 x 172.7 (2U X 2U)

298.3

90 MHz

11 dBic

2 dB

0.038

This work

2.422 and 2.496

75 x 85 (1U)

63.7

27 MHz

5.8 dBi

1.65 dB

0.091

Additionally, Tables VII and VIII report the gain-to-

surface ratio. This metric highlights that the proposed

antennas provide the highest gain per unit area among the

compared designs. For instance, the 1×4 configuration of

this work reaches a ratio of 0.07 dBi/cm², surpassing the

designs of [14] and [15]. Similarly, the proposed 2×2 array

presents a ratio of 0.091 dBi/cm², more than doubling the

values reported for commercial antennas. This underlines

the trade-off between miniaturization and performance,

which is a critical aspect in nanosatellite antenna design due

to the stringent constraints in available size.

An additional observation arising from the review of the

literature is that none of the 2×2 array designs reported in

commercial catalogs are compatible with the geometric

constraints of a 1U nanosatellite. As shown in Table VIII,

all referenced antennas require surfaces on the order of 160

x 160 mm or larger, corresponding to 2U x 2U (≈4U)

configurations, making their integration unfeasible for 1U

platforms. In contrast, the 2 x 2 array proposed in this work

fits entirely within a 1U footprint (75 x 85 mm),

representing a significant advancement toward compact

circularly polarized arrays suitable for CubeSat-class

spacecraft with strict size limitations.

No references were found in the literature regarding 1×2

arrays with circular polarization operating near 2.45 GHz.

The literature consistently emphasizes that

miniaturization through fractal or metamaterial structures

involves a trade-off: while it reduces physical size and can

improve properties such as circular polarization or

resonance stability, efficiency or gain often suffers. For

instance, in [6] it was showed that the metamaterial array

enhanced resonance stability and efficiency when integrated

with the nanosatellite metallic structure, but the absolute

bandwidth achieved was only ~14.9 MHz in the UHF band.

This illustrates the practical performance limitations when

miniaturization and robustness for space environments are

simultaneously required.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

In this work, different configurations of microstrip

antenna arrays were designed and analyzed with the

incorporation of metamaterial-inspired unit cells etched on

the ground plane. The results obtained highlight the

following points:

- Effective miniaturization: The inclusion of the unit cell

allowed the resonance frequency to be reduced without

increasing the physical size of the antenna, achieving a

significantly smaller volume compared to designs reported

in the literature and commercial antennas.

- Improved circular polarization: All array configurations

achieved axial ratios below 3 dB in the 2.45 GHz band,

fulfilling the requirements for satellite communications. The

arrays exhibited substantially lower axial ratio values than

the single-element antenna, confirming the contribution of

the unit-cell structure to circular polarization generation.

- Trade-off between gain and size: Although the gain of

the proposed arrays is lower than that reported for certain

commercial designs, the achieved balance between

miniaturization, acceptable axial ratio, and reduced volume

positions them as a viable alternative for space-constrained

platforms such as nanosatellites.

- Surface current distribution: The current analysis

showed intensity concentration along the edges of the

radiating patches and around the unit cells in the ground

plane. This behavior confirms the role of the fractal design

in modifying the electromagnetic response of the system.

In summary, the results demonstrate that the use of

metamaterial-based antenna arrays is an efficient technique

for the design of miniaturized antennas with circular

polarization, suitable for low-cost, small-sized space

communication applications. Considering the results of the

simulations shown in Table IX, it can be seen that the 2×2

array offers the highest useful bandwidth and gain while

fitting within the footprint of a 1U CubeSat. Therefore, the

next step of this work is to fabricate a prototype of the

antenna and carry out measurements to experimentally

validate the simulation results.

To strengthen the proposed design, it would be beneficial

to follow the approach of [12], who fabricated physical

prototypes of fractal antennas with CSRRs and

demonstrated good agreement between simulated and

measured results. Accordingly, fabricating at least a single-

element antenna or a module of the proposed array would

allow anechoic chamber measurements of real gain,

Revista elektron, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 94-100 (2025)

ISSN 2525-0159

http://elektron.fi.uba.ar

efficiency, and axial ratio, as well as an evaluation of

frequency shifts due to fabrication tolerances or mechanical

integration. Moreover, carrying out sensitivity analyses with

±5% variations in dielectric constant or substrate thickness

could help anticipate impedance mismatches or bandwidth

degradation in practical CubeSat implementations.

TABLE IX

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON AT 2.45 GHZ

1x2

1x4

2x2

Useful

bandwidth

22 MHz

39 MHz

27 MHz

Gain

5.1 dBi

5.2 dBi

5.8 dBi

Size

45 x 85 x 0.76

48 x 155 x

0.76 mm

75 x 85 x 0.76

REFERENCES

[1] B. Peraza-Acosta, J. I. Grageda-Arellano, C. Couder-Castañeda, J.

Meléndez-Martinez, D. A. Padilla-Pérez, and A. Solis-Santome,

“Design and manufacture of CubeSat-type nanosatellite thermal

subsystem”, Scientific Reports, vol. 15, 3695, January 2025.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-86688-3

[2] S. Abulgasem, F. Tubbal, R. Raad, P. I. Theoharis, S. Lu, and S.

Iranmanesh, "Antenna Designs for CubeSats: A Review”, IEEE

Access, vol. 9, pp. 45289-45324, March 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3066632

[3] M. R. Ghaderi, and N. Amiri, “CubeSat Antenna Designs in the Last

2 Decades (2002–2023): A Survey”, International Journal of

Aeronautical and Space Sciences, vol. 26, pp. 327–375, January

2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42405-024-00800-x

[4] B. Benhmimou, F. Omari, N. Gupta, K. El Khadiri, R. A. Laamara,

and M. El Bakkali, “A survey on metasurface-based antennas for

CubeSat spacecrafts”, Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering

(MJEE), vol. 19(2), pp. 192542 (1-17), June 2025.

https://doi.org/10.57647/j.mjee.2025.1902.42

[5] A. K. Singh, M. P. Abegaonkar, and S. K. Koul. (2022).

Metamaterials for Antenna Applications. CRC Press Taylor &

Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003045885

[6] T. Alam, M. T. Islam, and M. Cho. “Near-zero metamaterial

inspired UHF antenna for nanosatellite communication system”,

Scientific Reports, vol. 9, 3441, March 2019.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40207-3

[7] R. K. Prajapati, V. S. Jadaun, D. Patidar, and H. K. Gupta,

“Improvement in Parameters of Patch Antenna by Using "Spiral

Shapes" Metamaterial Structure”, in National Conference on Recent

Trends on Microwave Techniques and Application (Microwave

2012), 2012.

[8] J. L. da Silva Paiva, J. P. da Silva, A. L. Pereira de Siqueira Campos,

and H. D. de Andrade, “Using metasurface structures as signal

polarisers in microstrip antennas”, IET Microwaves, Antennas &

Propagation, vol. 13(1), pp. 23-27, January 2019.

https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-map.2018.5112

[9] A. Hemsy, J. E. Ise, M. A. Cabrera, J. Scandaliaris, and M. Fagre,

“Metamaterial S-band Patch Antenna Design and Modeling for

Nanosatellite Communications” in 1st International Conference on

Radio Frequency Communication and Networks (RFCoN), IEEE

Xplore, 2025, pp. 1-6.

https://doi.org/10.1109/RFCoN62306.2025.11085349

[10] M. Mirazur Rahman, Y. Yang, and S. Dey, "Application of

Metamaterials in Antennas for Gain Improvement: A Study on

Integration Techniques and Performance”, IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp.

49489-49503, March 2025.

https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3552023

[11] S. Sankaralingam, S. Dhar, A. K. Bag, A. Kundu, and B. Gupta,

“Use of Minkowski Fractal Geometry for the Design of Wearable

Fully Fabric Compact Antenna”, Journal of Physical Sciences, vol.

18, pp. 7-13, March 2014.

[12] M. A. R. Ohi, Z. Hasan, S. F. B. Faruquee, A. A. M. Kawsar, and A.

Ahmed, “Wideband Minkowski fractal antenna using

complementary split ring resonator in modified ground plane for 5G

wireless communications”, Engineering Reports, vol. 3(9), e12388,

September 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/eng2.12388

[13] A. Hemsy, J. E. Ise, F. A. Miranda Bonomi, M. A. Cabrera, and M.

Fagre, “Miniaturization with Metamaterial of a Triple Band PIFA

Antenna for Wi-Fi Communication”, Revista Elektron, vol. 8(2), pp.

77-81, December 2024.

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.8.2.192.2024

[14] M. Darsono, and E. Wijaya, “Circularly Polarized Proximity-Fed

Microstrip Array Antenna for Micro Satellite”, TELKOMNIKA, vol.

11(4), pp. 803-810, December 2013.

http://doi.org/10.12928/telkomnika.v11i4.1204

[15] S. Alam, E. Wijanto, B. Harsono, F. Samandatu, M. Upa, and I.

Surjati, “Design of Array and Circular Polarization Microstrip

Antenna for LTE Communication”, in MATEC Web Conf.: The 1st

International Conference on Industrial, Electrical and Electronics

(ICIEE 2018), 2018, paper 03006, p. 1-8.

https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201821803006

[16] Commercial Antenna TechApp Consultants Ltd. Datasheet available

in https://www.techappconsultants.com/copy-2-of-satraka-antenna-1

[17] Commercial Antenna IQ spacecom. Datasheet available in

https://www.iq-spacecom.com/products/antennas#s-band_high_gain

[18] Commercial Antenna PlaneWave Inc. Datasheet available in

https://planewaveinc.com/products/antennas/space-

antennas/pw2222-101-s-band-rhcp-tx-2x2-antenna/

Revista elektron, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 94-100 (2025)

ISSN 2525-0159

100

http://elektron.fi.uba.ar