Slashdot Mirror


Giving CubeSats Electric Propulsion

eldavojohn writes "Thirteen picosatellites were launched back in June of 2006 with the price coming down dramatically in the years since. But the Rubik's cube sized devices have no mobility, meaning once they're put in orbit, they stay in that orbit. The big problem is that traditional chemical propulsion systems are too large for ten-centimeter sided cubes weighing a kilogram. A new electric propulsion system designed by Paulo Lozano of MIT might change that. " "The article explains how it works: 'Lozano's design relies on electrospraying, a physics process that uses electricity to extract positive and negative ions from a liquid salt that is created in a laboratory and serves as the system's propellant. The liquid contains no solvent, such as water, and can be charged electrically with no heat involved. Whereas other electric propulsion systems charge the ions in a chamber on the satellite, the ionic liquid in Lozano's design has already been charged on the ground, which is why his system doesn't need a chamber. Electricity is then converted from the main power source of the CubeSat, typically batteries or a solar panel, and applied to a tiny structure roughly the size of a postage stamp. This thin panel is made of about 1,000 porous metal structures that resemble needles and have several grams of the ionic liquid on them. By applying voltage to the needles, an electric field is created that extracts the ions from the liquid, accelerates them at very high speeds and forces them to fly away. This process creates an ionic force strong enough to produce thrust.'"

28 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. CubeSats are a revolution by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    CubeSats are the "cheap access to space" needed for research and technology risk reduction that's been needed since the dawn of the space age.. and it didn't require some magical new propulsion method or even new economies of scale in launchers, just good standards and a very big customer, the Airforce academy.

    For those of you who find the article a little light on details, here's the scientific paper:

        http://sgc.engin.umich.edu/erps/IEPC_2007/PAPERS/IEPC-2007-145.pdf

    This preliminary work is now being flight tested.. and, if all goes well, it'll soon be commercially available. When's soon? 3 to 5 years. That's what CubeSats give you, a reduction in lab-to-market from 10 years or longer to 6.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:CubeSats are a revolution by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      CubeSats are the "cheap access to space" needed for research and technology risk reduction that's been needed since the dawn of the space age.. and it didn't require some magical new propulsion method or even new economies of scale in launchers, just good standards and a very big customer, the Airforce academy.

      Yeah... Just what we need -- more tiny objects in orbit around Earth. We have enough problems avoiding crashing into the big satellites we can actually see with radar, let alone worrying about a few hundred rubic's cubes up there. -_- Big satellites can be retired from choice orbits and sent to a maintenance orbit, or back plunging into the atmosphere to burn up. Is this tech going to provide enough thrust to de-orbit when they die?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:CubeSats are a revolution by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah... Just what we need -- more tiny objects in orbit around Earth. We have enough problems avoiding crashing into the big satellites we can actually see with radar, let alone worrying about a few hundred rubic's cubes up there.

      That was my first thought, too. My second thought, after reading TFA, was that this guy has slightly modified the basic design of an inkjet printer and figured out a way to avoid having his business cut into by refill vendors.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    3. Re:CubeSats are a revolution by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is where electrodynamic tethers and laser brooms come in handy.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:CubeSats are a revolution by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, despite what the article says, most CubeSats are launched into deteriorating orbits which eventually burn up.

      As for radar, yes, it's nice to be able to get ground confirmation and CubeSats are more than big enough to do that, especially considering they are deployed on-orbit in clusters.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:CubeSats are a revolution by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

      That was my first thought, too. My second thought, after reading TFA, was that this guy has slightly modified the basic design of an inkjet printer and figured out a way to avoid having his business cut into by refill vendors.

      At $6,000+ a gallon, we should consider using rocket fuel in our inkjet printers instead. It'd be cheaper...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:CubeSats are a revolution by xquercus · · Score: 2, Informative

      The cubesat platform has provided a means for quite a few orbiting radio amateur experiments.

    7. Re:CubeSats are a revolution by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 4, Informative
      FTA

      The Air Force and other government agencies are interested in using CubeSats that can move between different orbits in space, and more specifically, that have the propulsion required to reenter Earth’s atmosphere and destroy themselves at the end of their mission (thereby keeping them from becoming “space junk”).

    8. Re:CubeSats are a revolution by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Having propulsion means you can operate it for a long time in an orbit which will decay and still expect it to reenter if it stops working.

    9. Re:CubeSats are a revolution by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      ISP of 3500 s and 5.6 micronewtons of thrust. Not bad for a station keeping device on a 10 cm cube (generates roughly 3 m/s of delta v over a month, if the cube is dense as solid iron), but it's going to be vastly slow (unless, of course, you have an array of them) for other uses.

  2. Pico by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Funny

    What, we've exhausted the marketability of the buzzword nano and have stepped it up to pico? Somehow I doubt that regular satellites mass 10^12 kilograms.

    1. Re:Pico by sakdoctor · · Score: 3, Funny

      Marketing bullshit is currently up to femto.
      See femtocell.

    2. Re:Pico by lastchance_000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, it's a typo. It should have read pikasatellites, from Pikachu. They fit in your hand, send out bursts of highly charged particles...it makes sense, no?

    3. Re:Pico by twostar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Picosatellite is just a general classification in the satellite community of 1kg. "Small" satellites are anything from 500kg down. Notice it's not Pico- kg but pico-satellite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_satellite

    4. Re:Pico by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, Yoda would have said "Sense it makes, no?"

    5. Re:Pico by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What, we've exhausted the marketability of the buzzword nano and have stepped it up to pico? Somehow I doubt that regular satellites mass 10^12 kilograms.

      Small to the eXtreme!!!

      The mass of the moon is 7.36 × 1022 kilograms so maybe 10^12 is normal for natural satellites.

  3. Launched, yes. Orbited, not so much. by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Informative

    The engines on the the DNEPR-1 launched on 26 July 2006 shut down 86 seconds into the flight. It crashed approximately 25 km downrange. So, quite a bit of "bang" for your buck.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Launched, yes. Orbited, not so much. by Avacar · · Score: 3, Informative

      This should be part of the intro - none of these satellites currently exist. They were all blown up during their failed launch.

      Actually that's incorrect. My predecessors had a cubesat on the DNEPR-1 launch; yes it blew up. That said, it was neither the first rocket to carry cubesats, nor by any means the last. TFA is correct in saying there are at least a dozen of these satellites in orbit right now, although many are now past their operation a life, and are waiting to naturally burn up. Saying that "none of these exist" is a bit of a misnomer as well, since there are cubesats waiting for launch in labs all around the world; I myself have two that will likely be going up in about three years from now.

      TFA is correct, however, in saying that no cubesat currently has a propulsion system. It is wrong, however, in saying that no one else is working on this problem; in fact that is the very topic of my own research. I'd be much more impressed, however, if we could see simulations of the corrected orbits, estimated increases in lifetime, and, best yet, a working prototype. Claiming you can do this is bold; it is not an easy problem. Chemical rockets, and even 'standard' electric propulsion are become well-characterized solutions. Cubesat propulsion is on a completely different level, based on both the weakness of the thrusters, and the relatively low masses of the satellites. I feel this is a bit premature to be posted on the front of slashdot; this should have gone up in the 4-5 months TFA claims it will take to get a working prototype. That said, I applaud the novel approach. I hope it works, 'cause I know I'd buy one.

  4. Re:why even use propelant ? by DarthBart · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Larger satellite use magnetorquers to orient themselves in orbit. To use magnetics as a drive system, your spacecraft would have to be long so you could pulse a magnetic field down the length of it (think of it as a rail gun in reverse).

  5. A physics process? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lozano's design relies on electrospraying, a physics process...

    No way! I thought it would be a magic fairy magic process! (So magic, they used the word twice!) With glitter and unicorns!

    </sarcasm>

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  6. Ion drive by l00sr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds like a variant of an ion drive, which have been around since the 50's.

    1. Re:Ion drive by blair1q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A variant, yes, but without the high energy cost of ionizing the fuel during thrusting. Also not much need for accelerating structures. if the article is accurate, the reaction mass is pre-ionized and locked into the structure. When you need thrust you pretty much just release it and it pushes you away. Neat trick, if the article is accurate.

    2. Re:Ion drive by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Looking at the author's site, the research group has 3 peer reviewed journal articles, 6 conference papers, some ground tests and experimentation, and flight experiments by the summer -- and quite frankly as someone with a bit of experience in electric propulsion and satellite design (grad student in AERO, did some undergrad EP work), it sounds reasonable.

      This doesn't sound like vaporware or pseudo-science -- I'd imagine the article is pretty accurate.

  7. Re:why even use propelant ? by hguorbray · · Score: 2, Funny

    You silly SCA types.

    Just because you have a trebuchet that doesn't mean that anything that fits in the bucket is payload. -or maybe it does...

    -I'm Just Sayin'

  8. Re:PACKING RATIO by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cubesats are never the primary payload. They're individually tiny, so they're launched in bunches as a secondary payload along with something else much bigger. Their cubical shape makes for easy fabrication of both the satellite itself and the spring-loaded launcher that they're packed in for the launch. Since they're basically freeloading on some other launch, using empty space that would otherwise be completely wasted, their own form factor doesn't really matter much. They fit in the odd bits of leftover space that a typical satellite leaves inside a rocket faring.

  9. Re:why even use propelant ? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And the usual answer to that is to unreel a tether after achieving orbit. In theory a picosatellite could contain a tether on a small spool. Admittedly getting such a thin tether to unwind properly might be difficult...

  10. Too large for a Rubik's cube by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Each edge of a Rubik's cube is 5.7 cm long. The cubesats are 5.5 times as large.

  11. Re:why even use propelant ? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not anything that fits in the bucket is payload, but anything that IS in the bucket is payload... note to self: stay away from flingy end of trebuchets with SCA people in attendance.