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.""

13 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Metal tape antennaes already on AMSAT AO-40 by dg1kjd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The metal measurement tape omnidirectional antenna system was already used on the AMSAT AO-40 hamradio satellite slashdot already posted news stories about a couple of times. The interesting part is that both antennaes which used that system failed mysteriously (or alternatively the transmitters did, this is not for sure yet).

  2. Innovative=expensive by tony_gardner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd like to point out to all thos who think that NASA overspends its budget the vast cost difference between developing something new, and buying a consumer product. The rocket engine which cost 20 billion for the first one is available "off the shelf" for 200,000 today. Same for "space rated" electronics, valves, cameras, etc. It's perfectly feasable to get a reliable payload working today for very little. It probably won't, however, do anything very innovative, because doing innovative requires high precision equipment which costs a lot on earth. The equipment also has to survive the takeoff, which is another matter.

    1. Re:Innovative=expensive by ThePilgrim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is true, however it reminds me of this story.

      Apparently NASA wanted a method of being able to write in zero gravity. They spent several million $$'s on research with Parker Pens and came up with the 'space' pen. You can still see them advertised every now and then by Parker Pens.

      The USSR when confronted with the same problem baught a pack of HB pencils.

      --
      Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
  3. Re:Proof by justin_schoeman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I may be completely off the mark here, but I would guess that one of NASAs primary goals at the time was to _spend_ money. Any time a government can get a legitimate reason (that the general populace will actually support) to shove a huge amount of money into the economy, they will do it. This way they get to build both technical superiority, and a stronger econony at the same time.

  4. 1 out of 3 geeks can make it work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well, all I could say is it's a very cool project. I am happy for those who had success.

    To the argument that it could be zapped by a solar flare.. heck man, we already have bigger birds that get fried by the same thing.

    I wonder how much those rockets cost, as that seems to be the method to put em up.

    I remember getting interested in this kind of stuff when I was in elementry school Back then it was all about the future space shuttle and what it would look like and this and that.

    With what at least the first 100 missions being military missions, and me hitting my teen years, I lost all interest in science. (I had it in my blood when I was in diapers eating hamburger and corn watching them land on the moon though.)

    A thing like this could do us good. It could get me interested in science again. I never liked college much, they just don't seem to have common sense about reality and the real world. Maybe the younger generation will get their youthful imaginations inspired by projects like this. Even to teach them about electronics, transmitters, receivers, microwave, and a little common sense physics could do this country some good. For one thing I would hope they start teaching American History again, instead of requiring all these other (I won't say stupid) non-american history. I am sick of the liberals and the tenyear professors who push their agenda on people. (I hated that crap!)

    Remember one day these kids grow up, if they can't think for themselves, engineer a radioshack surface mount CB radio, or at least know how to repair it, or create or fix older stuff (ahh I hated the day surface mount came), I think we are screwed as a country. All the lawyers and laws, and junk that has passed lately is just dumbing down our children and ourselves, and were setting ourselves up to be a brain dead slave society who gives away all our constitutional rights, unless something changes with the education. (There is no accountability in government and that needs to change!)

    At one time I used to spend as much as 500 dollars a week at Radio Shack, for electronic parts (not gear and stereos duh.)
    But you know another person that I agree with (in part) is Wayne Green (I don't agree about the "we haven't been to the moon." part.) I do agree with what he says about getting our children interested in ham. We really as a society need to think, and encourage children to think and create, and stop making them pay for it.(legally) Let them do what they want, guide them, but don't force them into loosing that innocence that spawns the unlimited energy and creativity they have. Seems like I am harping on this a lot, but I already see things I do not like happening in this country.

    So hey Naval Academy midshipmen, Radio Shack, well job done. I come to attention, and I give you an AirForce Salute!

  5. sputnik by tony_gardner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the topic of cutting edge vs everyday.

    Anyone got an estimate of how much it would cost to launch Sputnik today (83kg /184lb, Low earth orbit), compared to what it cost then?

  6. Re:Proof by 4im · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Plus, they're about the only people who are actually in the space business right now.

    So I guess all the others out there don't count? What about ESA, Russia, India, China, Israel etc.? ESA with Ariana has sth. like half of the launcher business.

    And there are quite some private companies also in the business (Sea Launch...); even in the US (if you don't check beyond your borders) there's more than just NASA. Indeed, some say that NASA has actually stifled private competition (Delta-X, Rotary etc.). Maybe it's even a good thing if NASA tunes down some, provided private companies pick up where NASA left off, and are allowed to actually do business. Leave NASA with the basic scientific research stuff... that's what they're supposed to do anyway.

  7. Interesting development, but not revolutionary by f00zbll · · Score: 5, Interesting
    First off I am pretty impressed such a cheap satellite is able to stay up for a month. Although it shows it is possible to build a functional satellite from off-the-shelf parts, it isn't going to revolutionize the space industry. More likely than not, it will drastically change how schools teach engineering, physics and astronomy. As others have mentioned, big expensive satellites are engineered to a different reliability standard. If our national telecommunications infrastructure was built with a bunch of small cheap satellites, I doubt our phones and television would be as reliable.

    Where all this really matters is with the next generation of engineers, scientists and inventors entering college in the next few years. They are the ones that will benefit from this type of experimentation. Not only will students be able to get valuable hands on experience about real world engineering, but they will get others interested in the field. Developments like these bring exotic technologies down to earth and show students they can do something really challenging. With so many posts on /. about burning out, boring classes, and disillusionment, this may bring in a breath of fresh air.

    The down side of having a lot of students launching small satellites is it polutes space and makes the job of tracking dangerous objects more difficult for NASA. All of these developments aren't free, because there are a lot of other financial, political and environmental concerns attached to satellites.

  8. Re:$50000 by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...not permitted for commercial use due to the interference it causes...

    Huh? Antennas don't cause interference. You must use the proper antenna for the task at hand. There are plenty of commercial uses for omnidirectional antennas.

    Comparing a $50,000 narrowbeam antenna to a tape measure quarter- or half-wave whip is illogical in the first place. Those $50,000 arrays are made to communicate from a spacecraft very far away to a tiny little speck of dirt called earth using as little power as possible due to the extreme distance from the sun. The tape measure variety are made to pick up signals from earth while in earth orbit - necessitating a wide receive and transmit pattern. Apples and oranges, and all that.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  9. graphite isnt just bad for lungs. by gimpboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    it's also not good for computer equipment. there was a graphite company in the city where i grew up. i used to work in the local computer store there. they would bring in these computers that were doing odd things. when you took them apart you could see plack paths where the fans had been pusing the air. since graphite is a conductor (although weak) it would short out misc stuff in the boxes.

    --
    -- john
  10. Re:Radiation hardening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm unclear as to what you suggestion is.

    There is a radiation hardened version of the Pentium being produced, but it is pathetic (IMO)...75 MHz? Plus it will cost about $1M AFAIK a piece.

    As for packaging it in lead casing, that is effective against most protons and electrons, but not Galactic Cosmic Ray heavy ions, so you will still see upsets.

    The best approach, IMO, is to use a good system engineering approach and attempt to mitigate your potential problems: latch-up protection circuits, voting perhaps, redundant EDACed code...it costs a lot less in terms of weight and space than lead, plus it is much more configurable than a single processor and provides the potential for much more horse-power.

  11. Tape measures as anetnnas by brassrat77 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hams and researchers have been using the material used in tape measures (including sometimes using tape measures from the local hardware store) since at least the AMSAT Microsats (1991, IIRC).

    For low gain end-fed whips and dipoles for HF up to 70cm, they make great antennas - self deploying, keep the correct shape, and CHEAP.

    NASA has used similar materials WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE. I would not, for example, use a tape measure dipole for an S-band system for high data-rate communications from Mars. I might use it as a UHF ground-link antenna on a surface rover.

  12. Re:Actually what about... by mcolin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Launch Vehicle: Babylon Gun.
    From March of 1988 until the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Iraq contracted with Gerard Bull to build three superguns: two full sized 'Project Babylon' 1000 mm guns and one 'Baby Babylon' 350 mm prototype. Nine tonnes of special supergun propellant could fire a 600 kg projectile over a range of 1,000 kilometres, or a 2,000 kg rocket-assisted projectile. The 2,000 kg projectile would place a net payload of about 200 kg into orbit at a cost of $ 600 per kg. The 1000 mm guns were never completed. After the war UN teams destroyed the guns and gun components in Iraqi possession.

    Courtesy of astronautix.com