Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Readies For First Ever Conjoined Satellite Launch
Zothecula writes Boeing has successfully joined two of its 702SP satellites in a stacked configuration in preparation for a launch scheduled for early 2015. Aside from being the first involving conjoined satellites, the launch will also put the first satellites to enter service boasting an all-electric propulsion system into orbit. "Designed by Boeing Network & Space Systems and its defense and security advanced prototyping arm, Phantom Works, the 702SP (small platform) satellites are an evolution of the company's 702 satellite. Operating in the low- to mid-power ranges of 3 to 9 kW, instead of chemical propulsion, the satellites boast an all-electric propulsion system that Boeing says minimizes the mass of the spacecraft and maximizes payload capacity."
According to wikipedia the 702SP uses xenon.
Yes, ion thrusters. Used to adjust from the original elliptical orbit to the final circular one (and yea, it takes a long time to do that compared to a conventional booster). They've been using these to maintain position for almost 20 years.
That was a different company all together. Orbital Sciences had a launch failure shortly after it left the pad. This launch is going to performed by Boeing.
Ion engines fire ions at tens of thousands of meters per second, your squirt would have a few meters per second. The momentum change of the ion rocket firing same mass of gas is thus greater by factor of ten thousand or more
good question, the efficiency comes from the speeds achievable
squirting pressurized gas out of a nozzle into space results in an exit velocity of ve = sqrt(C), where C is some clever arrangement of specific heat, R, T, etc (it's been a while since i've study nozzle design)
Basically, the exit velocity is limited by mostly the chemical's temperature; quadrupling the absolute temperature would only double the speed, so a lot of energy would be needed
ions are different (bare with me, I'm not an electrical engineer), because you just need to create them (chemical reaction, heat, etc), and then control them (static field, magnetic field). it's a lot lower power, and a lot greater impulse (over a lot longer time) than what ejecting molecules in to space can provide
TBF, given globalization, part of it, even marginally, was probably actually built in Siam.
Especially because that's where all the hard drive plants were when it flooded three years ago. Or did they set up shop in different countries after the flood? Either way, obligatory We are Siamese if you please.
And it seems to have a 4.5 kW power input, a specific impulse of 34 kNs/kg (insert an anti-Imperial rant here), and gives a thrust of up to 165 mN, which is fairly decent, Dawn has to do with about a half of that.
Ezekiel 23:20
Or Herschel & Planck?
http://orbitalhub.com/?p=475
They don't stay together, but they're large satellites launched in a stack. The Herschel load doesn't go through the Planck structure, so maybe it doesn't count.
It has to do with how quickly you can throw the propellant - how much momentum you can impart to it, which in return imparts a certain change in momentum to the rest of the satellite (delta-v). With conventional satellite propulsion, like fuel+oxidizer rockets or monopropellant thrusters, the energy available to impart that momentum is chemically based. That is, the propellants undergo a chemical reaction, get hot and/or change phase into a gas, and nozzles force that gas to exit at some velocity. Details vary with engine and nozzle design, but there are limits on how much thrust you can get each fuel type. Mass in, reaction energy, mass*velocity (momentum) out. Rocket designers measure this "efficiency" with a quantity called specific impulse (measured in units of seconds) For a given mass of fuel, you can pretty quickly calculate what the total delta-v the satellite has available to it.
Ion engines can impart much higher velocities to the "fuel" than chemical rockets, in part because they are using electrical energy (of which there is an arbitrarily large supply) rather than whatever you can get from chemical reactions. Again, the details vary based on the design, but ion engines tend to have specific impulses much higher than chemical rockets. The actual thrust (i.e., total force) from an ion engine tends to be miniscule, but is provided very efficiently, and can be produced for days or weeks at a time.
Do none of these count as "conjoined" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...? Does SMART1 not count as electric propulsion? Or is that all too European ;-)
Uses far less fuel mass for the same amount of thrust. Like the other poster said, an important component of a rocket engine is not only the amount of mass you can throw out of an engine but also the velocity at which that mass leaves the engine. In fact velocity is far more important (KE = 1/2m v SQUARED). So an ion engine uses tiny, tiny masses at amazingly high speeds. You don't get much kick out of one, but if you're not in a hurry and run it for weeks and months, then you'll get where you need to go eventually. What you do get is a massive savings in fuel, because the mass of fuel you're using per unit time is tiny. Also - GO KERBALS!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Pedant Mode...ON.
"Fuel" is what produces the energy. "Reaction Mass" is what you push out the back to make thrust. In chemical rockets, they're the same thing, but in ion engines (or NERVA engines), they're not.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Or GRAIL.
Or the Orbcomm OG2 constellation that went up in July...
Launching multiple payloads on a single launch isn't exactly new. It sounds like the innovation here is using the satellites themselves as load structures for each other during launch rather than something like an ESPA ring to save weight and payload volume, but launching more than one satellite per mission is pretty common.
This
Wrong. These satellites will not be launched by Lockheed-Martin's russian-powered Atlas V rocket, nor by Orbital Sciences soviet-powered Antares.
These two american-built satellites will launch on the Falcon 9, an all-american rocket, which is powered by 10 american engines.
Also, if any of the 9 first stage engines were to blow up in a mild fashion that didn't cause too much damage, the Falcon 9 would in fact be able to complete the mission using the remaining engines.
Also, bundles of cubesats launched in a P-POD.
Um ... so then what was STEREO? (launched in 2006)
There are pictures of them stacked together
It was even launched from a Boeing Delta II, so they can't claim it was their first conjoined launch. (which caused major launch delays ... due to the Boeing strike, then the batteries in the second stage being de-certified ... then once the strike was over, the Air Force kept cutting in line for launch pads)
Disclaimer : I work for the Solar Data Analysis Center. which operates the STEREO Science Center.
The same is true for the Van Allen Probes (formerly RBSP): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
Perhaps this is just the first time that Boeing has stacked two satellites?