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.
...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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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
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