Slashdot Mirror
NASA Builds a Cheap Standardized Space Probe
TangAddict writes "Dr. Alan Weston, who previously invented bungee jumping, led a team of scientists at NASA Ames Research Center to build a $4 million spacecraft in less than two years. The Modular Common Spacecraft Bus is designed to accept payloads of up to 50kg. and can be used for a variety of missions including a rendezvous with asteroids, orbiting Earth or Mars, and landing on the moon. When NASA officials saw the first flight test, they offered Weston and his team $80 million to use their design for the LADEE mission, which will gather dust and atmosphere samples from the moon in 2011."
I was just asking.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
This is the first time I've heard of technology that's DESIGNED to gather dust. Usually that just happens by accident.
.... they offered Weston and his team $80 million to use their design for the LADEE mission, which will gather dust.... Well, if they're just going to let it sit around, I'll take it.How about, lets say, $20M?
"Dr. Alan Weston, who previously invented bungee jumping"
Yeah, and I invented bicycle jumping... and I was a mere 7 years old...
He may have helped (along with some others) re-invent it, or modernize it... but he did not invent it...
Seriously, why didn't they start with this like 20 years ago? Basic platform with propulsion, power and communication, with a few slots for special equipment, like cameras, radars, sample collection, or whatever is needed for that probe?
It's been so long since these guys used common sense in looking at budgets and what they could do with them, it's a damned fine refreshing change.
If only this "lets make the best with what we have while someone else tries to get us more" approach would filter through to more government bodies/groups.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Suppose you were to ask NASA why they don't provide the complete blueprints for their spacecraft to the general public.. not the launch vehicles mind you, the actual spacecraft - there's no national security concerns here. They'll tell you that they don't *own* the blueprints.. the companies they contract to do. So if you ask them why they don't demand the blueprints when they contract for the spacecraft, they'll tell you that this would cost more. So they're saving money by not demanding the blueprints.
This, of course, is crazy. If they were to demand blueprints from the contractor for the first model of a particular spacecraft and then make those blueprints available to the general public then, the next time they want to contract for a similar spacecraft, they'll find there are a whole mess of companies lining up to bid.. and to bid very low indeed - as they don't have to spend all that money designing a basic spacecraft - they don't have to re-invent the wheel.
As the bids are so much lower, NASA could then start asking for more capable spacecraft.. and quickly a publicly owned repository of blueprints would be built up that all the various contractors could work with.
But instead, we get million dollar spacecraft from the same 3 contractors, over and over again. No standardization, no spin-offs for other purposes.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The Russians invented Space travel... with dogs... they were also the first in human orbit/flight...
NASA does have the first human to visit and return from another (tries to find the word)...the moon...
They do have an impressive roster though, the Saturn V, the Shuttle, etc... but most of their accomplishments can't really even be claimed as "American" (as in the 'United States Of') because most of their key employees were/are form other countries... they are kind of like Microsoft (or any other large company) in that way, we'll buy them so we can say its ours...
> a $4 million dollar spacecraft
So what's a square dollar worth these days?
(this _is_ news for nerds)
I'm not sure about the veracity of your statements, but I would conjecture that the blueprints would be nothing more than very cool wallpaper as most craft built to date have been ad hoc creations to house specific instruments with specific needs. The new design will no doubt save money but the instruments will now have to be shoe-horned into that architecture. And that may very well work for the most part.
In addition, here is a site that people should be aware of. It is a database of all the NASA tech that has been spun off into private industry. For instance, JPL developed shake testers to test spacecraft and instruments for their ability to withstand launch stress. Now JPL buys their shake testers from a an outside company.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
- Go to the wiki page in another browser tab.
- click on the address bar, press [ctrl-a] to highlight the entire address, and then [ctrl-c] to copy the URL to your clipboard.
- go back to your Slashdot tab, and type <a href="
- press [ctrl-v] to paste the URL.
- type "> followed by some clever text for the link
- type </a> at the end of the clever text.
- Make sure your slashdot comment type is HTML Formatted
For example, <a href="www.example.com">like this</a> looks like this.When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
True enough, but I consider anyone born in the US, as from the US... even if their parents were born in another country, what I meant was fully grown adults that have already gone through schooling/training/etc in another country and then hired/bought/brought to the US to work for NASA.
Around 30 years ago NASA was messing with the Multimission Modular Spacecraft (MMS), which was in use for 10+ years. Some 10 years ago there was a lot of activity around the highly modular SMEX-Lite bus for smaller missions. On the other side of the pond, Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. has been doing cheap, highly modular spacecraft buses since the early 1980s. The US DoD and its various contractors have played with the idea at various times in the last couple of decades as well, most recently in the guise of "operationally responsive space" and "plug-and-play spacecraft". Needless to say, the concept is not particularly new. It just waxes and wanes in popularity depending on what kind of tradeoffs between mission cost and mission performance are acceptable.
because most of their key employees were/are form other countries
How funny. USSR AND America did have the same group of key ppl; the Germans from WWII. The difference is that USSR forced most of theirs to work as outsiders, while in the US, ALL choose to be American citizens. Big difference there.
With that said, I agree with your first statement. The USSR owns the majority of the firsts. Of course, none of it was by much. In fact, USSR took numerous shortcuts so that they could beat America.
Yes, obviously, because no matter what anyone else claims, the US of A is naturally the best. The scientists in Russia was of course FORCED to work, and the scientists in USA were happy to do it! And yeah well, maybe some other countries are technically better, but that's because USA didn't want to be better. And also it only looks like they are better, but they did it in the wrong way, and if USA would have done it the same way, USA would have been even better!
c++;
Otherwise they wouldn't be able to manufacture highly complex microchips, lasers etc simply because western companies were too mean to build the stuff in the west. Naturally all the knowledge the chinese gain from making this stuff will reach the chinese military so who frankly is surprised they're building a GPS rival? And if they're anything like the japanese it'll probably be *better* than the orginal.
In general, it's poor economy.
You see you have the fixed cost of the rocket, launchpad, and launch team. Many tens of millions of dollars. Even if you drove the spacecraft cost down to zero, it won't affect the total very much.
Meanwhile all the cost is at risk if the spacecraft fails.
In general it's penny wise and pound foolish to economize on the spacecraft.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Look up the launch mass of small satellite. Bringing it up 1 mile with a balloon would be a non trivial endeavor, and then you are a whole 0.0045% closer to geosynchronous orbit.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
A common satellite bus is a good thing, but it does not constitute a viable spacecraft. Like a transit bus that never carries passengers, it serves no useful purpose. The payload has always been the driving element in any satellite or probe, in schedule, budget and trade-offs. And rightfully so IMHO. I believe that's why a common bus hasn't been succesful in the past. Both NASA and the DoD have tried, but the needs of the payload outweigh the needs of the bus.
The Space Ground Link System, SGLS (note to self: submit wikipedia page in copious spare time) is analagous to a common satellite bus protocol at the physical to network layers and provides some commonality of bus structure for DoD satellites. The upper protocol layers vary but the foundation is the same.
Ask anyone who's worked in the essential, but unglamorous world of satellite control. Their biggest problem is upgrading the control network quickly enough to satisfy all the new requirements of the next big launch. New datalink frequencies, stronger encryption, faster throughput rates, etc. All the while, they have to maintain the capability to control and pamper the oldest bird flying and monitor everything in between.
It's not a bad thing that satellites outlive their design life, but it has to be considered when operating and budgeting for the control network.
Invenio via vel creo
I hope the probe is spherical, because a globe-shaped space device designed to suck up dust would logically be called ... a Dyson Sphere.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
And yes, many German scientists were seeking out American soldiers toward the end of WWII because they feared what the Russians would make them do.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
At least by 1990, NASA, DOD and Fairchild/Orbital used to run a system called "Multi Mission Modular Satellite".
So what have they done? For 4 million they built a prototype that will never work in space? Notice that when they were added to some other project the total real project price was $80M - and I'm not so sure that includes launch vehicle (ie the rocket).
Back in the day, the radio receiver (arguably the most critical part of a satellite) was $2 million all by itself. It had to be radiation hardened (cosmic rays) and work flawlessly for 5+ years. If something really went wrong, the receiver would send the pulses that actually re-booted or reset the other on board computers.
Also satellites that have instruments, like the hubble, need to point very precisely at stars - the instruments to do this are very expensive, the controls that orient the satellites are relatively cheap - but you have to buy extra (redundancy).
Imagine this, the Hubble Space Telescope has to point at a spot in space for long time - once for 1 million seconds ( Hubble Site ) During that period of time, the solar arrays, antennas etc. couldn't move because even the ultra smooth stepper motors they use would have shaken the spacecraft enough to blur the image.
That being said, there are 100s, if not 1000s of neat little projects that potentially save NASA money - like using standard Internet protocols to talk to spacecraft (tweak the timeouts a bit) - which would mean ground stations would use pretty much standard router hardware vs. custom stuff. It good to see some of these ideas get the exposure they deserve.
However, most satellites are designed with requirements for the instrumentation. The rest of the satellite is designed around those requirements. Unless you have a very flexible design in your spacecraft bus, the scientific part of the mission might be compromised.
So this lander might work - how many g's on impact? (err... landing). What is the success chance? Do I take my $50million instrument and put it on a $10 million lander that has a 30% chance of success? Or do I build a $20 million lander that has an 80% chance? or a $30 Million that has 95% chance? If I pick wrong, I'm sure that I will not get another $100 million to fly the mission again. Perhaps a lifetime of research goes down the toilet...
TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
The problem if modular spacecraft has aways been the same: If you build a general purpose bus then almaost alwas you find that it is over-built for any one specific mission. If you build a bus the is mission specifi it will always be lighter and cheaper. The modular bus has to support all kinds of payloads and hande the worst case of power and mass. It is kind of like saying the "Standard car" will now by a full size pickup truck with an extended cab. It will seat six people and haul 1,000 pounds of cargo. But what if the mission is to drive one person to work? OK so you change the standard an make it a mini-copper. Put now what if you really do need to deliver some lumber to a construction site.
Now imagine that gas cost not $4 per galon but $100,000 per galon. At that price it would be worth building a special car for every trip and then throwing the car away after just one trip. This is what NASA does because the operational and luach cost is so much higher than any other cost
NASA also works off a fix mass budget. If the bus is 1 pound to heavy that means one pound less fuel can be loaded which translates into reduced lifetime in space or maybe the one pound saved could be used in improve an instrument.
In effect NASA is payinf more then $100K per galon for gas. I think it costs about a million dollors a mile to get to space, at those prices it pays to custom design each spacecraft to it s optimized for each mission