Slashdot Mirror
USNA "Budget" Satellite Launched and Functioning
Arpad Korossy writes: "Hey, you ran a story on this earlier, and some people expressed doubt whether a sattelite made for a tenth of the usual cost using mostly components from Radio Shack would work; well, it has. The best line in the whole article has to be 'Instead of a $50,000 antenna system, the group used a metal tape measure.""
They did pratically invent space travel
*cough* Sure they did.
Oh, not much really.
I'm sure some searching would reveal some details though.
---
I didn't want to leave this space blank.
Dam another myth exploded. It wasn't even Parker it was Fisher.
Hears the link
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
You will also find that the russians now use those pens.
You can't use pencils in space for a prolonged period of time because of the graphite powder that is given off while writing. This is not a problem on earth because gravity gets it out of the way, but in space it lingers in the air and gets in the lungs, very bad for you.
Paul Leader
Because of physics, and some economics.
You can only launch at certain planets at certain times if you want to be able to slow the space ship down enougth to get into orbit at the far end.
If you get out side tht launch window the cost/mass of carrying extra fuel becomes prohibative.
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
The metaphor is closer to comparing a group that builds an XT from spare parts and having it boot up in DOS compared to a new P-4 out of the box from a store running SETI@home. Would anyone claim the P-4 user was crazy when he could have cobbled together the XT for so much less?
Besides the fact that without the research that went into producing the 30% efficiency panels, the 5% panels would not be as cheap as they are. Show me a group that launches a same technology/capability/longevity bird for reduced price and then we're talking.
While this is true, a few things must be taken into account. 1st, electromagnetic waves can travel an infinite distance in an area that has zero air loss to account for. So, while 10 watts may get you 15 to 20 nautical miles in an omni-directional antenna, at approximately -97.5 dbm, in space, the same power level can literally travel MILLIONS of miles and achieve a higher dbm level. Using a directional antenna compounds the benefits of an airless medium, just as it does here on earth.
The Cassini spacecraft is capable of doing what it does with the power level it transmits at because those signals are either picked up by DEDICATED dishes specifically tuned to said frequency, or because they are picked up by orbiting re-trans sattelites in orbit around earth. The second option takes ANY airloss out of the question.
I worked at an uplink station once that transmitted off of a geo-synchronous sattelite. To saturate the transponder with a directional, wideband signal, with minimal bit errors, we had a set output level of 75 watts. That allowed for any air loss, with 100% signal reception. If a thunderstorm or heavy clouds were in the area, we would have to jack up our signal strength to reach saturation.
Cassini doesn't have that problem. The Ham Radio sattelite (aka budget sattelite) does.
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
Yep, it's another urban legend
correct. See snopes for full details on the myth:
NASA spent millions of dollars developing an "astronaut pen" that would work in outer space; the Soviets solved the same problem by simply using pencils. . Status: false.
-Kraft
Live and let live
Exactly. Also, the 30% efficiency of NASA panels vs the 5% efficiency of the Radio Shack ones also makes a difference.
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," said Rep. Billy Tauzin. Gore - 50,999,897 Bush - 50,456,002
Take a look at the history of AMSAT and Amateur Radio satellites. This whole concept (tape measure, off-the shelf components, hitch-hiking on the boosters) was done by amateur radio operators in the 60's. Many of those satellites were operational for years.
Gulp. Air loss?
The physicist in me cringes at krystal_blade's message and it's rating.
OK, what problems do we have in communicating with deep space probes? Ones that come to mind include:
Air loss? Please.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
Following the link "proof of Osama's guilt. [mmm.com.au]" in the previous posting casts a vote in an online poll.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The project's page here has pictures and links.
For the curious, here's Lockheed' page about the Athena rocket.
karma is for the weak >)
Let's not forget about PANSAT, an earlier success by the Navy. And it, too, uses Amateur Radio frequencies to communicate. It went up in 1998 on STS-95 with John Glenn.