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.""
This type of initiative is what will lead to the eventual commercialization of space.
Let's face it, it *shouldn't* cost half a billion bucks to build something that will survive in low earth orbit. Inside the magnetopause the hazard to electronics just isn't that huge.
utter rubbish
Realize that they didn't pay for launch costs. They got a free ride. That's significant, because if you're spending $100,000,000 for a launch it doesn't make sense to save $50,000 by using a cheap antenna which is more likely to break. If you're going to pay for your own launch (like most NASA missions), then spending several times as much for the actual satellite hardware to make sure it's triple tested makes sense.
A lot of people frown on cheap satellites because what the expensive ones are paying for is in large part reliability, long life, and accessories like the ability to de-orbit at the end of its working life. If NASA started to put up loads of cheap satellites with an unknown, but short, working life and no ability to deorbit we'd be on their backs in a minute accusing them of creating space junk, so why are we applauding it here? Yes, it's great that the satellite is working, but lets keep the eyes on the ball. Cheap satellites increase the hazard for everyone else, and that's where my patience stops.
Yep, it's another urban legend. The US also used pencils, until the "space pen" was privately developed. Then they bought a handful of pressurised ink pens at the local newsagency like everyone else. Generally NASA's follies lie in other directions, like wanting an all-USA gas and liquid recycling facility, rather than using and upgrading the fully-functional facility used for years on Mir. It's pretty well known that Mir had a funny smell inside, but the recycler _worked_, and has had years of stress testing in a space environment. It's just ego behind the non-adoptance of the russian system. IT's worth noting that the ISS might even be on budget without this problem.
Proof that over the years NASA has not "cut corners" but, has over spent on their projects. If a group of undergraduates can make a space survivable craft then what has NASA been doing for the last 40 years. Although I am bashing their budgeting practices I do give them credit for some of their overspending. They did pratically invent space travel and more then likely they were responsible for putting the Radio Shack advertisment in space anyway.....
It costs an awful lot to blaze trails, and alot less than that to follow the lead.
NASA may have spent quite a bit more money than these folks, but R&D is expensive. Plus, they're about the only people who are actually in the space business right now. Before people get on NASA for overspending, think about it. What would happen if NASA does reduce spending and the growth of the frontier of space travel becomes stunted accordingly?
People like these are worthy of praise because they're helping make space accessible to the more common folk. That can only be a good thing. As more and more people get involved in bridging the gap between where we are now and where NASA is, it will make space that much more accessible.
As one of my friends in college used to say, "I may not be smart enough to be at the boundary of science, but I can help fill in the gap." These people are filling in the gap, but NASA is at the boundary.
Where the wind blows, the tumbleweed goes.
This is all well and good. But I'm pretty sure you can't buy radiation hardened components off the shelf. The satellite will probably function perfectly well until the first decent solar flare. , after that, all bets are off.
A large proportion of the cost of space borne systems is taken up by the radiation hardening. Both the microchips themselves, and the support circuitry, need to be hardened against the random bit changes, and the long term physical degradation caused by radiation.
The lesson that small budgets do not need to restrict your ambitions. Indeed, large budgets seem to constipate ambition. Small disposable satellites are a wonderful idea. Cheap communications can revolutionise societies. On a global scale the potential is... big.
Somewhere there are groups of people figuring out how to lower that launch cost from $100m to $1m.
My blog
Hey, I have an idea:
Fly more rockets using all that computer and electronics skill for cool hacks in guidance and control maybe even with some rocket races and some rocket designs that can use the guys in high performance automotive shops to lower cycle times on design and development.
Seastead this.
Instead of a $50,000 antenna system, the group used a metal tape measure.
This statement is misleading. The metal tape measure is a toy compared to a well designed NASA antenna system. The transmitter on the Cassini space probe uses only 20 watts of power to transmit a signal from Saturn to Earth. This is most likely less than one third of the power used by a single light bulb illuminating the room you are currently in.
Don't get me wrong, the USNA team accomplished an amazing feat with their satellite, but we must keep things in perspective.
The real problem is 2fold :
How long will it work ? (1-5-10 years ?)
Will it work long enough to compensate the shipping price (1K$ / pound...)
But I haven't seen anything on shielding this sat...
which means the first Solar blast will fry it into oblivion...
So maybe it shouldn't cost 500K$, but for the price you are certain it WILL work...
Now, if this design proves faithfull, we can put some more Energy in "Cheap" Orbital rockets 8)
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Why? Because these guys were amateurs/academics who only stood to lose their pride if the entire thing screwed up. When NASA sends a sattelite up, there are usually several million dollars worth of of R&D/net equipment costs associated with it that just can't be wasted. In short, while its cool that the midshipmen managed to do this, the chances of the entire thing blowing up in their faces (figuratively) are far too high for NASA to be able to use "radio shack" materials, or as they have often been accused, to 'cut corners' like this group were able to.
Right, but these guys did not put together the type of reliable system that a lot of other uses requires. If NASA launches a satellite that costs $50,000 and it fails too early on orbit, they really lost a lot more. Launch costs, ground station costs, support costs, public opinion to name a few.
Cheap satellites are quite possible, but too cheap is worse than too expensive in most applications. The real key though is to drive down launch costs. And the key to that is A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away
Let's be honest with ourselves here... NASA is not as costly as it is because of the innovations it comes up with but rather because at its heart NASA is a political beast. I give you the Space Shuttle as evidence. This 30 year old technology costs about $470 millon dollars to launch one shuttle, one time. That cost skyrockets to 1.7 BILLON dollars if you factor in R&D (although R&D costs are spread out over subsequent missions). There are _far_ more cost effective means of getting things into space so why doesn't NASA use them? Easy... The shuttle program is popular and very well known by the public.
Does anyone else remember all the savings that we were told were going to be realized because of the shuttle's ability to reuse it's solid rocket boosters and the orbiter? Unfortunately, quite the inverse occurred. Costs ballooned and NASA didn't even blink. In fact until relatively recently (the past 10 years or so) NASA hasn't even seriously tried to find a replacement for the aging shuttle fleet. In the eyes of congress NASA is just another special interest looking for their turn at the budgetary feeding trough and quite frankly that's how NASA acts. This makes NASA do things that doesn't make sense economically but make lots of sense politically. While this does explain their behaivor it does not change the fact that NASA is wasteful with the money that they are given. NASA does cool geeky stuff and has come up with a lot of innovations but given the amount of cash they're given one would think they could do more. Looking at where we are technologically and watching how NASA burns through cash I'd say there is a pretty compelling arguement for pushing efforts for privatized space flight even harder than we have until now.
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
What would happen if NASA does reduce spending and the growth of the frontier of space travel becomes stunted accordingly?
A decade or so back, when several startups were trying to develop private enterprise launch systems, they couldn't get the aerospace manufacturers to sell them components (space-rated cryogenic-liquid valving, guidance components, etc.). One manufacturer's rep said (in confidence) that they had been told by NASA administrators that if they sold to the private launch companies they wouldn't sell to NASA again.
So they made do with NON-space rated components and other kludges.
Some of this worked really well. (For instance: The virtual control panel hacked up on a Mac was a LOT cheaper and more functional than the roomfull of one-of control equipment it replaced, much to the amazement of the NASA engineers who watched the engine test.)
But some of it was a disaster. (For instance: The liquid oxygen valve on a hybrid engine failed in a mode that created the second worst possible disaster {behind guidance failure} for a hybrid engine vehicle: It stuck at 10% during engine startup. Too little thrust to get off the pad, but they couldn't turn it off so the rocket burned itself up. The test was a failure and the company was unable to raise money for a second try and folded, taking the safest known rocket technology down with it.)
"What would happen if NASA does reduce spending...?" Well, for starters they wouldn't HAVE the kind of clout with suppliers to deny components to the private market, while the suppliers would have a big drop in sales until they found other customers.
It could be the best thing ever to happen to space technology.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way