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.""

Comments

NASA adopts innovative procedures

[Alsee]

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.

Innovative=expensive

[tony_gardner]

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.

Re:Innovative=expensive

[tony_gardner]

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.

Re:Innovative=expensive

[Kraft]

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.

Re:Proof

[astrophysics]

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.

Space junk

[tony_gardner]

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.

Re:Proof

[MikeyNg]

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.

Re:Proof

[xX_sticky_Xx]

If a group of undergraduates can make a space survivable craft then what has NASA been doing for the last 40 years.

Oh, not much really.

I'm sure some searching would reveal some details though.

$50000

[mike_g]

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.

Re:$50000

[tony_gardner]

Exactly. Perhaps it should have read that instead of a $50,000 low power, directional, narrowband antenna, they used a high power, broadband, nondirectional antenna, not permitted for commercial use due to the interference it causes, as well as not useful because of the power drain.

Similarly for the solar arrays, they used a commercial array with an efficiency under 5%, compared to a high quality array with an efficiency over 30%.

There's a reason why people spend the money, and its not because they're complete idiots. It's like comparing a 2GHz Pentium to a 200 Mhz Athlon. Oh wait...

Building a cheap sat is kind of easy...

[da5idnetlimit.com]

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)

RadioShack

[Ratbert42]

Yeah, but did they have to give their name & phone number to RadioShack to buy those parts?

Interesting development, but not revolutionary

[f00zbll]

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.