The diploma thesis deals with verification and test campaigns of nanosatellites, with practical application to the KOSTKA CubeSat mission developed by the YSpace student team. The topic is highly relevant for university CubeSat projects, where systematic testing is essential for reducing mission risk.

The student worked continuously, consulted the thesis regularly, and provided intermediate versions of the text and outputs for review. He showed a responsible and independent approach and was actively involved in practical integration and verification activities.

The strength of the thesis is its practical contribution. The author participated in selected verification activities, including integration checks, inspections, and the vibration test campaign. The thesis also includes preparation for thermal-vacuum testing, although the full campaign could not be completed due to external limitations related to test equipment availability.

The thesis fulfils the main objectives of the assignment. It provides an overview of relevant CubeSat standards, describes the selected satellite system, discusses environmental testing methods, and applies this knowledge to a real spacecraft verification campaign.

Some parts of the thesis could benefit from deeper technical analysis or description, such as the evaluation of measured vibration data. The text also occasionally introduces technical terms or abbreviations without sufficient explanation or introduction, which reduces clarity for readers less familiar with the topic.

Overall, the student demonstrated a good understanding of CubeSat verification activities and an ability to apply this knowledge. I recommend the thesis for defense with grade 90/A. Points proposed by supervisor: 90

The presented thesis addresses the highly relevant and critical topic of verification and testing campaigns for CubeSat missions. The author focuses on environmental testing methods and demonstrates their practical application on the KOSTKA CubeSat project developed by the YSpace student team.
Overall, the thesis demonstrates that the author has gained valuable hands-on experience in satellite integration and environmental verification. However, the academic text suffers from several structural inconsistencies, imprecise terminology, and a lack of engineering depth in evaluating test data. 

Strengths of the Thesis:
1. Practical Application: The author successfully navigated the complex logistics of preparing and executing a vibration test campaign at an external laboratory. 
2. Integration Experience: The thesis clearly documents the cleanroom integration process, including the identification and resolution of real-world hardware issues, such as the solar cell short-circuit. 
3. Standards Overview: The theoretical section provides a solid baseline overview of established aerospace testing standards (e.g., ECSS, NASA GEVS) and launch provider requirements.

Despite the practical successes, the written thesis contains several technical and formatting flaws that must be addressed:
1. Terminology and Acronyms: The author frequently introduces acronyms without defining them in the text. Terms such as CDS, RBF, UHF, GSE, and DUT appear abruptly. Furthermore, Table 2.1 lists "PMAGCS" as the Attitude Determination and Control System, but the text entirely fails to explain what this specific technology is or how it functions. 
2. Missing Technical Depth:
a. Model Philosophies: The author mentions the Qualification Model (QM), Flight Model (FM), and Protoflight Model (PFM), but omits foundational development models critical to aerospace testing, such as the Breadboard (BB), Engineering Model (EM), or Structural Thermal Model (STM). 
b. Safety Factors: The text frequently references "qualification levels" and "design margins” but fails to provide the numerical safety factors (e.g., standard dB multipliers) that define these test levels.
c. Conceptual Imprecisions: Sine Sweeps: Table 3.1 lists the sweep rate as "1-2 oct/min", but the author never explains what an octave per minute actually means or why the speed of the sweep is critical for accurately identifying resonant frequencies.
d. Outgassing vs. Bake-out: The author categorizes "Outgassing" as a sub-section of thermal vacuum testing, conflating the physical phenomenon (outgassing) with the preparatory engineering process (bake-out). 
e. Radiation Testing: While TID, DD, and SEE are correctly identified, the author ignores the practical impossibility of testing these simultaneously, as they require entirely different facilities (e.g., gamma sources vs. heavy ion accelerators). 
f. Figure Clarity: Figure 5.1 is presented as a "Closeup of the unwanted connection" causing a short circuit, but the image lacks scale, annotations, or sufficient clarity for the reader to identify the described "solder spilling". 
g. Vibration Data Assessment: On page 73, the author notes an intermediate sine sweep amplitude shift of 19.8%, brushing it off because it later settled. This is dangerously close to the standard 20% failure threshold, yet the structural implications of a shift this large are barely analyzed. 
h. Undefined Terminology: The author notes that random vibration tests were performed "without notching", but never defines what notching is or why it is used in aerospace testing.

Conclusion: Despite the analytical and structural critiques outlined above, the author has successfully demonstrated the ability to plan, navigate, and execute complex environmental verification procedures for space hardware. The practical achievements of this work hold undeniable engineering value for the university's satellite program.  I recommend this thesis for defense and propose a preliminary grade of C - Good, 78 points, pending the author's ability to satisfactorily answer the defense questions. Topics for thesis defence:

1. Regarding Vibration Data: You recorded an amplitude shift of 19.8% during an intermediate sine sweep. From a structural engineering perspective, what physical mechanisms could cause an amplitude shift this large, and what would your specific troubleshooting steps have been if it had crossed the 20% limit?
2. Regarding Test Control: In Chapter 6, you mentioned that the random vibration tests were performed "without notching". Could you explain to the committee what notching is, why it is typically used in aerospace vibration testing, and how you determined it was not necessary for KOSTKA?
3. Regarding Terminology: In Chapter 3, you discuss outgassing as a thermal vacuum testing method. Could you clarify the engineering difference between outgassing as a physical phenomenon and a thermal vacuum bake-out as a preparatory engineering process?

Points proposed by reviewer: 78