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.""
Instead of a $50,000 antenna system, the group used a metal tape measure.
Nasa thought it was such a good idea they have placed a $1,000,000 order for 20 metal tape measures.
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
This has got to be some sort of a record- Radio Shack stuff working!
Username taken, please choose another one.
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
...I've been using a metal coathanger to pick up TV for years :)
proof of Osama's guilt..
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).
a satellite built by Naval Academy midshipmen with off-the-shelf parts from Radio Shack is exceeding all expectations
And it's exceeding mine too. :-) Approximately 3 out of every 5 things that I've gotten at radio shack have either been broken when I got them home or they broke shortly later. I can recall a CD player that *melted*, audio cabling that had breaks in the wires, and broken rj-45 connectors off hand...
If this thing can go another week, i'll be really impressed.
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.
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.
They did pratically invent space travel
*cough* Sure they did.
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.
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.
Oh, not much really.
I'm sure some searching would reveal some details though.
---
I didn't want to leave this space blank.
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.
On the topic of cutting edge vs everyday.
/184lb, Low earth orbit), compared to what it cost then?
Anyone got an estimate of how much it would cost to launch Sputnik today (83kg
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.
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
Think "below the magnetosphere" and all will become clear.
One thing this article fails to mention is how much it actually cost to get this thing into space..
I know the government do some projects, however I don't know the specifics, for schools/education environments.. Saw something on slash a while back on this.. But sure, this device may have cost 1/10th the cost of a full NASA satellite, but the launching costs would have been the same, which in all reality is probably more than the cost of the proper version satellite in the first place!
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..."
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.
Yeah, but did they have to give their name & phone number to RadioShack to buy those parts?
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.
Why don't we get these undergrads, Martha Stewart, and the writers of MacGyver together to improvise a working missile-defense shield?
It'll be done on time and under-budget, it'll coordinate with all the other satellites, and it'll be made solely of a shoe polish tin, duct tape, a foot of rope, and a thumbtack!
Want Linux games? HERE.
There goes the price of metal tape measures...
...is innovative? Yes, they do some innovative stuff. They also do a lot of grunt work (carting satellites up, carrying experiments around, etc). Could the grunt work be done more cheaply?
324006
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
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
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.
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."
PCSAT works. "Survivable"? That depends. The core of the spacecraft electronics are two off-the-shelf Kantronics TNCs. They have reset a few times, and I have no idea if the ROMs were replaced with rad-hard units or not. Time will tell how well they hold up in the space radiation and thermal environment.
There are a number of successful amateur spacecraft using commercial chips and RF components. All operate in LEO where they receive some radiation protection from the Earth's magnetic field.
NASA using similar components and design techniques in a low cost LEO mission may make sense. The same techniques in a high-risk or deep space mission would be foolhardy.
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.
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
Then the designers would have to contend with accelerations in the 100's of G's range. Satellites might be able to be designed to take that but I doubt it.
It might prove useful to send food and other materials into orbit but not much else.
How much of their savings were made by using parts from free CueCats and Flashlights?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
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
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
Interesting article, thanks.
Seems like a sound proposal, since it could be held to cheaper than a single shuttle flight. So even if two valid payloads are launched, we're ahead, and the rest is gravy. In other words, it could wind up being cost-effective even if it got very little use.
D
Then the designers would have to contend with accelerations in the 100's of G's range.
A hundred Gs is diddly-squat for a decent electronic hardware design. You get a lot more than that dropping your hifi onto the floor from desk high.
You won't launch any PEOPLE that way. (You'd have to submerge them in liquid and debubble their lungs, digestive system, and maybe their inner ears.) But for MIL spec electronics it's a walk in the park.
"Proximity fuses" on anti-aircraft shells in world war II were electronics using GLASS TUBES!
This isn't rocket science! B-)
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 >)
So yeah, price would be in pounds (or kilograms, or stones, or whatever).
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Sure, if you wanted to ship inflated balloons or empty cardboard boxes on the shuttle, the costs would probably figure differently. But the NASA engineers would also want to work with you to redesign your cargo to make it better fit within their volumetrics.
Remember that the payload cost on the shuttle isn't computed simply by "Set your satellite on that scale over there, and we'll just fill out an invoice for $5000/pound." That $5000/pound cost is a rate often quoted by the news media. It is simply an average cost, not a shipping rate.
I've also heard $6000/pound before, as well as $1000/pound, so I think these numbers are really made up from whole cloth anyway.
John
John
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.
Is $100M what it costs to launch the Shuttle? (It seems like the right order of magnitude.) But the USNA satellite didn't ride the shuttle, it shared a small single-use rocket with 3 other satellites. Launch cost was much less, maybe around $1M, and since it was sharing a ride with other, larger items, it's share of the launch cost may have been as low as $100K. (Probably the Navy didn't have to pay it.) Note that the most common cost quote is $5000/lb; the satellite was "the size of a TV set", so maybe it was 20 lb weight = $100K cost. And it probably would have made more sense to spend more to get longer lasting electronics, but since the thing was designed by college students maybe expensive parts would not have been that well utilized.
AFAIK, the Shuttle can carry up to 60,000 pounds payload, so if you can load it fully and it costs $100M to launch, this works out to $1667 per pound. However, 60,000 pound loads are pretty rare (maybe major pieces of the ISS), the rest of the time it carries as many smaller satellites and on-board experiments as can be deployed or ran in one flight, the total payload is considerably less, and the cost per pound considerably more. In addition, a significant part of the inflated launch cost comes from keeping the 500 or more people needed to launch it on salary for months between each launch; if you had the shuttles and the payloads to launch every few days, the per launch cost would go down quite a lot. In other words, the Shuttle is too damned big for efficient operations, unless you are building something BIG up there (cough, **starwars, cough).
By the way, a metal tape-measure sounds like a quite good solution when you want a simple quarter-wave-dipole antenna in space. It's cheap and stores compactly. By removing the case and mounting it properly, I think you could get the spring action of the tape to provide the motive power for deployment (uncoiling). It's unlikely anything would bump it in space, but if it did a tape measure would bend and then spring back, where a telescoping antenna would break.
So basically, NASA says "It costs us $X to send up a fully loaded Shuttle and a fully loaded shuttle has Y kilograms of cargo, so it therefore costs $X/Y to send up a single kilo." Point is, it ain't cheap.
Dyolf Knip
I think it's more like $400M a launch, which works out to about $6000 per pound. And you're right, much of that cost is due to salaries of engineers and technicians and whatnot (fuel is comparitively cheap), but they don't spend all their time on their bums. They have to practically rebuild the friggin thing after every launch.
Dyolf Knip