Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Satellites on the Cheap

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the now-thats-cool dept.

An anonymous reader writes "At a cost of just $50,000 - including plane tickets to the Alaska launch site - it was constructed using off-the-shelf parts not designed to withstand the rigors of space. Its life span was only expected to be a few months. Six students put together the satellite last year after a three-year research and design project made possible with a grant from Boeing Co. The Department of Defense (news - web sites) Space Test Program approved the project and put it on a launch list"" Beats doing the egg drop.

103 comments

  1. Uncle by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1, Redundant

    How many times must we read about this on /. ???

    1. Re:Uncle by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/08/232920 7

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Uncle by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

      And:
      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/24/165823 8

      --

      Enigma

  2. The $50,000 is a misnomer by PoiBoy · · Score: 5, Informative
    This $50,000 price tag was just for the parts to actually build the satellite. It does not include the value of the grant from Boeing for three years of development time, nor does it reflect the salaries of engineers to do it. Moreover, the article did not give details about how the satellite was in orbit; and I would bet that if a person wanted to shoot his own satellite into space, the price would be prohibitive.

    Sure, a bunch of amateurs being able to develop a satellite on a shoestring budget makes for an interesting story, but to suggest that there will soon be a supply of reliable, ultra-cheap satellites is a stretch.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    1. Re:The $50,000 is a misnomer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like how "the blair witch project" was made for $5000.

    2. Re:The $50,000 is a misnomer by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually they went to Boeing, and said- hey we need $50,000; Boeing looked at the plan, it looked good, so they patted them on the head, and gave them $250,000, figuring they would need it- and then the students came in on their original budget...

      So, the university now has funding for the next 4 years.

      There were no salaries- this satellite was built using student labour.

      The satellite was launched for free of course, there was space on one of the launchers for it, and they weren't charged AFAIK.

      Incidentally, radio hams have put their own satellite up... so its not totally out of the question for privately funded groups.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    3. Re:The $50,000 is a misnomer by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • This $50,000 price tag was just for the parts to actually build the satellite

      Shut up! Everyone knows that engineers work on space stuff for free because it's so cool, and NASA shoots stuff up out of the goodness of its publically funded heart for the same reason. Limitless cheap space exploitatation is coming Real Soon Now, just as it has been for the past 10/20/30/40/50/60/70/80/90/100 (insert your own number) years.

      Seriously, you're quite right. Much of the cost of a satellite goes into testing and redundancy to make sure that once you've added to the massive expense of shooting the thing up there, it damn well works. You can lose the entire cost of a project based on using a ten cent diode rather than a fifty cent diode. Cutting corners is rarely a good gamble.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:The $50,000 is a misnomer by DocDavid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Incidentallly hams have put up over 30 satellites over the years. Most of them have been launched vy AMSAT, a privately funded organization of hams that work to put up satellites for the ham radio community. Also most of the newer satellite technology has come from the success and failures of hams.

      Dave
      KA3TNY

    5. Re:The $50,000 is a misnomer by Overzeetop · · Score: 0, Troll

      This kind of headline really rubs me the wrong way. It compares with building a car for $500. Sure, it can be done. You use the spare parts you've got lying around the house for the chassis and wheels, head down to the local scrapyard for what you don't have. Don't count any minor capital costs such as tools. Count the 18 man years of labor that you and your friends spent as "volunteer" work for $0. Oh, and don't forget that a friend a Ford who thought the project was neat donated the engine. Puh-leeze.

      If you had to count the cost of the project, it would be quite high. It fall into the "college students are free labor" category. Wonder why colleges get grants? 'Cause you get third-world child labor rates for your technical experts. Why spend up to 100 grand a year (burdened labor) for a lab tech, when you can get one free at the local university. If prisoners all had Master's degrees in technical fields, we'd doubtless have high tech grant money going there, too.

      If you think this didn't cost any real money, think again. I'll bet the launch space was "donated" and written off. Congratulations, the US Government just paid (40% corp tax rate * 500,000 secondary payload lauch fee) for this $50,000 satellite.

      Now - don't get me wrong - with the brave 5XX folks we send to D.C. spending two trillion dollars a year this $200,000 is small potatoes, but it's still _our money_. If whomever provided launch services didn't pay it, that money's got to be made up somewhere.

      I applaude the learning experience the cadets got, and I'm glad it worked. I know the rush you get when they flip the switch and your satellite comes to life. I'm not knocking the opportunity these kids had - I'm just asking for a bit of genuine disclosure when you talk about the money involved.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:The $50,000 is a misnomer by Mr.+Eradicator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, it took lots of time to develop this satellite. That's just part of the deal. It's rather ironic that these students actually _paid_ to work on this satellite, if you consider their tuition costs.

      The thing to remember here is that the goal of these satellites is not to produce _one_ lasting satellite. Because these sats are so cheap to build, several universities can design and build them. In some cases, a successful project could be used later on by the government in a larger scale.

      Consider this ... what if some university designed a sturdy, yet cheap high-atmosphere/LEO weather satellite? Their design could be used to create a "Twister-esque" system of satellites. So, rather than sending up one extremely expensive satellite, we could send up thousands of smaller satellites to do the same task, but covering much more area. While these satellites only have lives of a few months to a year, they are so cheap that replacements are "petty change".

      In the end, the cost of the development for this design wasn't nearly as much as it would have been for the single, much-larger satellite. You even get the bonus of giving some college students some very effective experience.

      --

      That's Mr. Eradicator to you.

      trance-port
    7. Re:The $50,000 is a misnomer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the point... Lauching mass into space costs money. IIRC, about $10K/lb. Someone had to pay that cost somewhere. If it's corporate america giving grants out of the goodness of their hearts, it cost the shareholders in better ROI. The thing that I do like about your idea is that with more of these satellites, there is the possibility of greater demand for launchers (assuming that all these "cheap" satellites aren't "hitching" a "free-ride") and ultimately lower cost/lb for insertion into LEO.

    8. Re:The $50,000 is a misnomer by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      >If you think this didn't cost any real money, think again. I'll bet the launch space was "donated" and written off. Congratulations, the US
      >Government just paid (40% corp tax rate * 500,000 secondary payload lauch fee) for this $50,000 satellite.

      Actually, you have this backwards; the launch costs are the cheap bit! The cost of any satellite that gets within five times the launch costs is doing very well, this one is probably about one tenth of the launch costs. Boeing just saved a fist full of money, and it's entirely possible that the launch truly was free- rockets are rarely 100% occupied. The cost of the launch presumably was paid for by the other occupants.

      There's another secret here that few people realise- the main thing that is keeping the cost of launches high is the lack of demand. The reason there is little demand is that the costs are high. Anything, like this, that can reduce the overall costs is going to have a very positive effect on the launch market, price, volume and profit.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    9. Re:The $50,000 is a misnomer by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      First off, that price is for the space shuttle. The space shuttle costs more per pound than any other launch system because it's a manned system. It's saftey must be assured absolutly. A 85% chance of sucess is good enough for an unmanned rocket as building it to 95% might cost more than launching two or three identicle rockets at 85%! But you MUST have that 99.9...% percent chance of sucess on a manned system because of the crew, hence the astronomicle price.

      Secondly, it cost NOTHING (in terms of weight) to launch this satelite. The hitchhiker program is a nice (virtually) costless program, because the weight that the participating satelites take up would have been needed anyway for ballast. (remember, these rockets need to be balanced correctly!) Hence, the only real extra expence of adding a hitchhiker payload is the extra planning involved.

      Boeing (or whoever) needs that weight on theor rockets and they have to pay for it weather it's useful payload or just lead weights. So the hitchhiker program was born. Yes, companies doing these launches *could* charge for space on the launche vehicle even though they would otherwise have to pay for it themselves, but that would then technically be profit, not expence.

      Also, remember that these are MILITARY cadets (Midshipmen actually). And remember that they ARE being paid. (You get paid while going to an academy, not much, but it is something). If these weren't military cadets, if they were active Naval or Air Force officers, how much do you think they'd be making? Not much, I can tell you that. Certainly less than any non-military peers in their field.

      Remember labor is NOT a cost factor unless of course, it is. And in this case, it isn't. ( :

      --
      Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
    10. Re:The $50,000 is a misnomer by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 2
      It's rather ironic that these students actually _paid_ to work on this satellite, if you consider their tuition costs.

      Nope, they're USNA and we paid them (although not much, especially given the pretty high caliber of student the service academies get).
      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

    11. Re:The $50,000 is a misnomer by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      "... cheap high-atmosphere/LEO weather satellite? Their design could be used to create a "Twister-esque" system of satellites. So, rather than sending up one extremely expensive satellite, we could send up thousands of smaller satellites to do the same task, but covering much more area."
      Well, the three major weather satellites each view about 1/3rd of the Earth. They do have an oblique angle of the poles, but basically view the entire globe. So what does "covering much more area" than the entire globe mean?

      :-)

  3. Off topic, but started on topic. by DoorFrame · · Score: 5, Informative

    I went to look up a few older stories on slashdot which, as I recalled, were the same story as this one. But I recall reading the other one's months ago. I was curious if this was merely a repeat so I scrolled to the bottom of the Slashdot main page and used the SEARCH option.

    Great, I thought, I'll just search for +Boeing +Student +Satelite or something of that sort.

    I tried this.

    And I was once again reminded, when I reviewed the results, that Slashdot, for some reason, doesn't have boolean searches. Now, for a site which champions Google "the home of the AND search" .com, I'm confused as to why this functionality would not have been added to slashdot by now. It makes it next to impossible to find older stories, because instead of stories about Boeing AND students AND satelites, I find stories about Boring OR students OR satelites.

    This, as you can imagine, is not terribly helpful. It turns out that there are an awful lot of stories about Boeing or students or satlelites.

    So, to recap, I'm pretty sure this story is a repeat (I'm sure someone else will go to the trouble of posting the exact references), but I'm damned positive that the Slashdot/Slash search feature is only marginally useful at its best, and outright useless at its worse.

    Begin the down-modding if you must.

    --

    --
    RumorsDaily
    1. Re:Off topic, but started on topic. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      The Slashdot search is incredibly weak and should be removed, or something.

      Just go to google and search for "site:slashdot.org" stuck on your search terms.

      That's the way I search /.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Off topic, but started on topic. by Spunk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hmm. Can't find anything.

    3. Re:Off topic, but started on topic. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/08/232920 7
      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/24/1658 23 8

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:Off topic, but started on topic. by rute_1 · · Score: 1

      Here's the Link to the old story.

    5. Re:Off topic, but started on topic. by mrv · · Score: 1
      Great, I thought, I'll just search for +Boeing +Student +Satelite or something of that sort.

      There's your problem. I did a search using /.'s search engine for "satellite" and found the previous story pretty quickly (albiet on the second page (30+) of results)...

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/24/165823 8&mode=nested

      --
      -mrv
    6. Re:Off topic, but started on topic. by br0ck · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would also like to see more advanced search options, but in this case if you spell satellite correctly you'll find exactly what you wanted on the first two pages of results. Using your search terms, the Slashdot search results are actually more relavant than the Google AND search results.

    7. Re:Off topic, but started on topic. by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Well, if you don't like the slashcode then download it and fix it...

  4. first satellite by mgblst · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how much the very first satellite, sputnik would have cost? Surely it wouldnt be
    that expensive to build the thing, just costs
    alot to get it up there?

    1. Re:first satellite by jonerik · · Score: 1

      Brooklyn artist Gregory Green built a replica of Sputnik 1 a few years ago, though I'm fairly certain that he never managed to find the money it would have taken to launch the thing into orbit.

    2. Re:first satellite by Cerrian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In regards to sputnik, it was essentially only a simple reciever and transmitter, built with parts that we could probably obtain today at Radio Shack.

      Launching that sucker is a whole other financial issue. Materials alone for the rocket must have taken a nice gouge out of their alloted budget. Then you consider the years of R&D, Support and Logistics, and prior failed launches. At the time nobody really cared what the payload did once in space (except for military purposes) all they wanted to know was how high can we the bloody thing in the sky before it starts come crashing down (aka ballistic missile)

      Hell, lauching from a Pegasus rocket today still costs a handful of million of dollars and it's one of the cheaper rockets in terms of cost per mass.

    3. Re:first satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building? Cheap as hell; it was just a giant homing beacon that beeped a couple times a second, no ability to recieve or send real signals IIRC.

      Launching would cost $10,000 per pound with today's systems, and back then I don't even wanna think of how expensive it would be, with inefficient rockets, explosions, etcetera.

    4. Re:first satellite by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

      The cost of the parts for the first amateur satellite (OSCAR-1) is widely quoted at $26.00. This excludes labour costs. The launch was free - Uncle Sam (i.e. taxpayers) picked up the tab. Even today the going rate is on the order of 5 figures per kilo to low Earth orbit. That's in U.S. dollars, by the way...

      The most expensive component of modern satellites is usually the solar panels. Because of this, many low-end projects use batteries, run for a few weeks, and then they die.

      The Powers That Be look favourably on such satellites, since they will automatically turn themselves off. when the batteries run down. No human intervention required.

      ...laura

  5. I knew... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

    you could get everything you need at home depot... I can see the commercials now.... "Excuse me, do you have an antennae for a satellite?" "Yes sir, follow me to hardware" Announcer's voice: Come on into Home Depot, we have everything for your Orbital needs... Seriously though, this is awesome. NASA could maybe learn something from these "kids" eh?

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:I knew... by irlbinky · · Score: 1

      How many satellites could these 'kids' build for the same amount of money that NASA pays per satellite?

    2. Re:I knew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that the "tape measure antennas" are always mentioned in articles about amateur satellites...
      This material has been used for decades, and it has always worked well. It is a clean, simple solution for deployment of antenna rods in space.
      What is so spectacular about it?

  6. The article shows it... by nikolas · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...there`s no such thing as a free launch!

    Bruuuuhahahah...

  7. Ohboyohboyohboy, I love Karma by rbeattie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can find a picture of the satelite and a bunch of info about the project here. http://www.ew.usna.edu/~bruninga/pcsat.html

    -Russ

    --
    Me
  8. Don't we have enough junk in space? by swagr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Somewhere (maybe here) scientists predicted that with the vast ammount of crap zipping about up there, the right type of collision (say bewteen a chunk of solar panel and a sattelite) could cause a chain reaction that would destroy every sattelite in orbit, and make it impossible to launch more.

    --

    -... --- .-. . -.. ..--..
    1. Re:Don't we have enough junk in space? by Arimus · · Score: 1

      Trouble is NASA themselves and the Russian space program even with all the professionals developing their equipment has put enough crap which has died either during or just after launch.
      What we need is a satellite like the one of that Bond film which can capture other space objects and return them to earth...

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    2. Re:Don't we have enough junk in space? by alnapp · · Score: 1

      Could be a cool, regular firework display tho'

      --
      Get the EULA T-shirt
  9. life span by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Funny
    ``If we get lucky with radiation, it could last three years,'' said Darrell Boden, a professor in the aerospace engineering department.

    Watch, it will be up there still working ten or twenty years from now when it finally falls into the atmosphere.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:life span by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I wonder what brand repeater they used. The article didn't say. The manufacturer should exploit this.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  10. Welcome the Space Carbage Truck... by Quazion · · Score: 1

    It will do its round every first monday of the month, and clean up all our space mess after us, why should we care if we can pay someone to clean up after us, thats what most of us get teached when they are young, mom will clean up and its getting worse every year.

    Quazion.

  11. Can't wait by rmadmin · · Score: 1

    I wonder if technology will progress enough that by the time my son is in high school (Yes, I realize this was a bunch of university students), he'll be designing and building RF(something better?) controlled selfpowered jets and the whatnot with hacked guidance systems. The coolest things I ever did in high school were with computers, and they weren't exactly part of any class. But When it comes down to it, I almost want to go back to school JUST for all of the cool projects I could be involved in! Regardless, way to go to the students who got to do this, and succeeded!

    --


    Can all fish swim?
  12. blah? by perky · · Score: 1

    Seen this one before

    --
    "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
  13. Repeat!!! by Kr3m3Puff · · Score: 1
    History Repeats it self on /.

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/08/232920 7

    --
    D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
  14. Accuracy by hendridm · · Score: 1

    > because instead of stories about Boeing AND students AND satelites, I find stories about Boring OR students OR satelites.

    Wow, you searched for "Boeing" and ended up with "Boring". I think the boolean search is the least of your problems ;)

    Seriously, though, perhaps Slashdot/OSDN should consider Google's search technology. It might be cost prohibitive for Slashdot, though.

  15. cost fo getting it into geo-stationary orbit by the+cleaner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wolud just love to sell my wifes car to get myself a sattelite of my own. I could even convince my buddies to sell their wifes/girlfriends cars to get that system built. :)

    The big question is: How much higher is the price to get that thing up into an orbit where we constantly have access to it. I reccon, this might be a lot more expensive, but I would just love to have a communications-channel on my own...

    Dont wake me up, please...

    --
    Could be worse. Could be raining.
    1. Re:cost fo getting it into geo-stationary orbit by Arimus · · Score: 2, Funny

      (At this risk of losing most of my karma)
      Given the time this task would consume we'd probably need to keep the cars and sell the wives/girlfriends.

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
  16. Nice going! by GdoL · · Score: 1

    It's nice to know that a good team of inventive and resourcefull guys can do a test sattelitte. But the $50,000 seems to be a minus figure: minus the cost of putting it in orbit, minus the human resources, minus the grant money, minus ...
    br Thought, nice going folks!

    --

    ------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
  17. Light on info by dohcvtec · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Neither this article, nor the previous one posted on /. mention what the USNA plans to do with the satellite. Many of us geeks would like to do something like this just to do it, but surely they must be doing something interesting with the satellite now that it is in orbit. What exactly is the fruit of $50,000 + 3 yrs. work + Boeing's grant?

    --
    -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
    1. Re:Light on info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This satellite is open to all licensed amateur radio operators to use. It is really fun. Feel free to get a license and check it out.

    2. Re:Light on info by InitZero · · Score: 5, Informative

      Neither this article, nor the previous one posted on /. mention what the USNA plans to do with the satellite.

      Ham radio operators all over the world (please view with Netscape; it doesn't load right with IE) use a nifty packet application, APRS through PCSat.

      APRS is short for Automatic Position Reporting System. Basically, the satellite allows hams to send GPS reports (such as mine), short text messages, weather reports, etc. to a large number of users. The satellite acts as a 'digital repeater'. Any packet it hears, it send back to earth.

      To hit the satellite, all you need is a hand held radio running less than five watts of power into the stock 'rubber duck' antenna. If you're a boater, hiker or whatnot that isn't in range of land communications, you can easily send your data through the satellite and have it relayed to a huge earthly footprint.

      Over much of the populated world, there are land based digital repeaters that will relay these packets for hams. Many even gate the information to the internet where it can be viewed by anyone.

      If you're the least bit technically and electronically minded, you can probably get the base level ham license (Technician) without any difficulty. It doesn't require a knowledge of Morse Code (CW) anymore. You can take the sample Tech test online. The sample test uses real questions right off the FCC exam. The test costs under $10 in most areas.

      Using more than a dozen ham radio satellites for free isn't the only reason to get your ham license, of course. There's also that you can modify those 2.4 gHz network cards to run up to 1,500 watts of power legally instead of under half a watt as sold. Think what kind of distance you could extend your network! (And how many birds flying nearby will be microwaved!)

      If nothing else, a ham radio license will get you another punch in your 'biggest geek' card. Who doesn't want that?

      Matt (k4mls)

  18. /. needs.... by C_nemo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...a modding system down to -oo, you page lenghtening bastards!!!...

    when wil the space-DIY-HOWTO be out?

  19. Why launch in Alaska? by redelm · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Launching a satellite from Alaska? Why? There's free delta-V available from the Earth's rotation if you launch from further south. You don't need to be on the equator.


    Is it on some really wierd polar orbit where you don't want eastward velocity? They'd better really map out the space junk then, because most of it will be coming at them fast.

    1. Re:Why launch in Alaska? by egdull · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They were most likely borrowing space on someone else's booster.

      If a commercial communications sat was launching into a polar low earth orbit from a pad in Alaska, and had room, a free ride is the right price for this project. :-).

    2. Re:Why launch in Alaska? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That only holds for GEO sattelites, for polar (probably this one) the extra V is in the wrong direction and thus a disadvantage.

    3. Re:Why launch in Alaska? by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Polar orbit launches don't get much help from Earth's rotation, but they still have range safety issues: if the rocket blows up, will the wreckage land on anybody?

      The U.S. launches almost all of its polar orbit satellites from Vandenberg AFB in California. By launching to the south there are no people for a very long way, should anything go wrong. The situation is similar for Alaska.

      ...laura

  20. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IDG books has announced "Satellites for dummies":
    building your own satellite from garage sale parts for housekeepers.

  21. web page with pictures by kaas · · Score: 2, Redundant

    http://www.ew.usna.edu/~bruninga/pcsat.html

  22. The bigger problem with this type of thing... by technopinion · · Score: 1

    Is that it shows that just about anyone with a couple hundred grand can put some junk in orbit. Where will it end? If I can't watch TV because a "real" satellite gets knocked out of orbit by a collision with some university's space-junk, I'll be mighty peeved. Will the $50,000 cover the lawsuit when the thing de-orbits and crashes through my house?

    1. Re:The bigger problem with this type of thing... by radrich449 · · Score: 1

      yes, good point. you being able to watch television is defiently more important then students getting good science education.

  23. In a related story.... by technopinion · · Score: 5, Funny

    A team of 4 students from Devry Technical Institute cobbled together a nuclear submarine using parts scavenged from the set of Junkyard Wars, and a $300 grant from Kmart. Said the leader of the project, "We expected this thing to immediately sink to the bottom and begin its cycle of ocean-killing, but amazingly enough, it went down at a 30-degree angle, taking almost 3 times longer to sink, and it looks like it might pollute the ocean for many more years than we expected. It's quite incredible!"

    This truly is a great day for amateur scientists.

    1. Re:In a related story.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sadly enough, that's probably what you'd get from DeVry students building any sub (much less a nuclear one). There are a few smart people at my campus, but the vast majority can't find the power button on the computer or think that you "change your screensaver" to modify the desktop background.

      And then there's the students in my history class that have no clue what the Cold War was. Sheesh.

      (Anon, because I've seen DeVry crack down on criticism before..)

    2. Re:In a related story.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      weeeeeel... this is a test. obvious, huh?

  24. taco bell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hey, they could make back their cash if it hits that taco bell target!

  25. $50,000.00 by Zillatron · · Score: 1
    Wow! I've seen ten-year-old Ferraris you couldn't buy with that money. There's no chance you'd get up to Alaska and have them say "reserve not yet met" is there?

    O.K. out of date joke given the current selling price but I couldn't resist. 8^)

    --
    Hey!!! the parentheses are good for something
  26. Sheesh...another repeat of OLD news by HardCase · · Score: 3, Informative
    Zowie, we read about this last November!


    Oh, and how about in August?

  27. Lots of similar projects by Mr.+Eradicator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I spent some time working on a similar project at the University of Washington in the Aero-Astro department. It was part of a group of nanosats funded by the AFOSR and DARPA.

    These small satellite projects are good for design classes because they are small enough that one year's class can complete the design and the simplicity of the satellites makes for cheap overall costs. Thus, the university can usually afford to fund the construction of the satellite. Actually seeing your hard work being launched on a mission is quite fullfilling.

    --

    That's Mr. Eradicator to you.

    trance-port
  28. Kudos to them! by Merconium · · Score: 1, Informative
    I think this is a great story, for two reasons: 1) many of my 8th graders are actually doing an egg drop next week, so it's funny to see that others think it is as lame as I do (although they have to drop two eggs that touch, so that is much more of a challenge), and 2) some of my students are trying to get money from Intel to build a small solar car, so I understand how difficult it is to actually go through with something like this.

    The reality remains, however, that I don't see Ball Aerospace suddenly dumping their expensive test facilities.

    One wonderful thing about Ball is that they do work very closely with the University of Colorado and NASA to support student designed sats. They aren't, however, cheap.

  29. No risk to GEOsats by isdnip · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's no risk at all to broadcast sats. The TV stations use geostationary (GEO) satellites, in orbit 23k miles above the equator. They all orbit the earth synchronously, so there are no collisions in that belt.

    This and the other amateur (OSCAR) sats are in low earth orbit (LEO), 200-300 miles up. They fly around for a few years and eventually fall back and burn up. They don't come within >22,000 miles of your precious TV broadcast relay.

    1. Re:No risk to GEOsats by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      Well, theoretically, a couple pieces of LEO junk could hit each other in just the right way so as to speed one out to 23k miles, where it might hit something. But I think the odds against that are rather staggering.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  30. Everything that goes up comes down? by HerbieStone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As stated in the article, the satilite will work for 3 years if they are lucky. What I'd like to known is what happens after the thing stops working.
    Will it end as some more orbiting trash or is there a way to bring the satilite down again?

    1. Re:Everything that goes up comes down? by Mr.+Eradicator · · Score: 2

      Very rarely to engineers plan to leave a non-operative satellite in precious orbit space. With these small satellites, they are usually in low orbits to begin with and after a few months to a year, the orbit continually decays until a critical point at which the satellite begins its fiery re-entry. This is just the passive way of ending a mission.

      With larger sats, engineers will have some sort of end-of-life system onboard which puts it into a de-orbit trajectory.

      I'm not sure what the threshold is for how large a satellite can be (and of what materials it is made) before it will not completely burn up before "hitting some poor soul". I imagine few satellites are this large, and if they are they probably make special arrangements for their end-of-life.

      --

      That's Mr. Eradicator to you.

      trance-port
    2. Re:Everything that goes up comes down? by HerbieStone · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply.

  31. Redundant by bish · · Score: 0, Redundant

    HERE

    HERE

    and HERE

  32. Just goes to show you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't have to read /. to run it.
    This is old news.

  33. sats in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ham have been doing this for years.
    http://www.amsat.org/ for info.

    Currently 26 or so satellites in orbit offering various digital and analog services.

  34. My grandmother could build a better satellite.... by supernova87a · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is great, just what we need -- more space junk floating up there. It would be nice if people thought as hard about how to get junk out of space as they do about putting junk into space. It's really getting pretty crowded up there. We have a whole Air Force division dedicated to tracking space junk:
    • http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/associate_units/14a f/ links/mission.htm


    What's next, Cletus and friends sending the dishwasher from the front yard into space?
  35. Amsat/OSCAR by phr2 · · Score: 1

    are more cheap satellites (built by the amateur radio community since the 1960's) that are almost certainly part of the inspiration of this project. They spawned the whole field of microsatellites.

  36. You paid way to much! by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    My Satellite only cost about $1500 and that's with an 8x DVD/CDRW/CDR! People will buy anything nowadays...

  37. egg drop by realkiwi · · Score: 1

    My egg drop at design school was more of an egg fly. A small gust of wind at the drop made the egg lift quite a bit and instead of floating down 10 floors went up 2 then softly down to the ground.

    INTACT

    Yessssss!!!!

    --
    realkiwi
  38. Build your own satellite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Stanford has plans to launch multiple 4-inch cube micro satellites ("CubeSat's") for about $ 25,000 per satellite to cover the launch costs.
    (Stanford University CubeSat program)

    A bunch of Universities and several amateur groups are currently building cube satellites as part of this project. At least one company has investigated selling cubesat kits. Here is an amateur group that is interested in producing cubesat kits that would sell for well under 5K per satellite (StenSat Group)

    Micro satellites can be built with COTS discrete electronics. Microcontrollers such as the PIC processor have been radiation tested and should work fine in LEO orbits. High efficiency solar cells are the probably the most expensive items and if necessary they can probably be scrounged from various sources (surplus, rejects,etc...)

  39. Other hidden costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people are not aware that the US Naval Academcy is minutes from the Naval Research Labs and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

    In addition, the spacecraft development team used these facilities heavily for testing. These are VERY expensive facilities to use but which were free to the Naval Academy to use.

    Just remember, the $50,000 is the price tag on the parts (and ok maybe some cheap plane tickets). It is not the price of labor, does not include grants for facilities, does not include testing facilities, and nor the launch.

  40. Pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any more spatial garbage?

  41. Re:History of amateur space exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut up, PLEASE!

  42. Cheap sattellittes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of THESE!!!

  43. Comprehensive SPACE.com article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like the AP simply read a more comprehensive SPACE.com article and did a mini-spin on it.

    http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technolo gy /cheap_sats_020116-1.html