Slashdot Mirror


Build Your Own Satellite For Less Than $30K

schwit1 writes An industry of new cubesat builders can now build satellites for anyone for any reason for very little money. From the article: "The miniaturization of technology allows people to do more with less hardware, said Chad Anderson, the managing director of Space Angels Network, an investment house specializing in the space industry. That industry, he said, was worth $300bn (£200bn) last year. Constellations of smaller satellites, like those suggested as tracking devices for planes over oceans, are now a possibility. 'The launch costs are coming down and people leveraging today's technology are able to do more with less and launch less mass to orbit. The price point has come down to where start-ups and entrepreneurs can really make an impact on the scene for the first time,' he said." When the first tiny satellite launch companies arrive, expect this industry to blossom at an astonishing rate.

49 comments

  1. Tiny Satellites == Space Junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All this time and money spent worrying about what to do with the problem of space junk and garbage that could be deadly to astronauts, but if you can scap together a few bucks you can get your shiny new junk launched! Because it is intentional, therefore it is not junk?

    1. Re:Tiny Satellites == Space Junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cubesat's have a pretty quickly decaying orbit, if I remember correctly, at around 6 months to a year in most cases.

    2. Re:Tiny Satellites == Space Junk by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      LEO still experiences atmospheric drag. Without engines and fuel, it doesn't stay in orbit for too long.

    3. Re:Tiny Satellites == Space Junk by davester666 · · Score: 1

      $30K! I can start building a satellite for you right now starting at $5.

      Course, actual capabilities, real or imagined, do add to the final cost.

      But I start at $5.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. still seems exorbinant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can build satellites for significantly less money.

    launching them, however, that may take some *real* effort.

    and you want them to orbit the earth, too? shit.

    1. Re:still seems exorbinant. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      The title of the article is "The innovators: build and launch your own satellite ... for £20,000"
      The $30k includes putting it in orbit.

  3. Host your Blog from Orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You know you want to.

    1. Re:Host your Blog from Orbit by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Nuke the entire blogosphere from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    2. Re:Host your Blog from Orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please link the related XKCD? Cannot find it...

    3. Re:Host your Blog from Orbit by spauldo · · Score: 1

      "Bomb the Blogosphere was a t-shirt worn by Martin Reed in the comic Questionable Content.

      Not sure if xkcd ever talked about bombing the blogosphere.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  4. And how much to launch it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A big rock you find for free can be a satellite.

    It's the launching into orbit that's the tough part.

    1. Re:And how much to launch it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean to tell me the $30k doesn't include the launching part of it?

    2. Re:And how much to launch it? by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      There was an article a couple of years ago on /. about a company that would launch something the size of a coke can for $300.

      I think there should be an open source project to design a satellite that is the size of a coke can. Could be fun, maybe some arduino's, a few solar cells, maybe a miniature ion engine that runs on a CO2 canister from a pellet gun. It could be a lot of fun to see just how much you can fit inside a coke can.

    3. Re:And how much to launch it? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Included in your $30k. It's a 5 cubic centimetre satellite, but its still a satellite.

  5. Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What good is a cheap satellite if you can't afford to launch it? If you're gonna launch it in your imagination, you might as well build your own exoplanet sewer cap for less than $50.

    1. Re:Right... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's still twice as expensive as KSP and there you can even see your imaginary sats getting put into orbit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that build or build+launch?

    I could build one for tuppence.

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably the cost includes launch cost. Most likely in a rocket that is deploying many satellites so each individual satellite owner only pays a small share of the cost of the rocket and fuel.

      That's why the miniaturization would be relevant. The smaller and liger you make the individual satellite the more of them you can put on your rocket and the more you spread out the fixed cost.

  7. now just need a boat in International waters to re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rebroadcasting Major League Baseball with implied oral consent, not express written consent

  8. LEO is Not Forever by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Note that most small satellites are launched into low Earth orbit and that the orbit decays quickly. There is not a continuing issue of space junk for such payloads, nor do they cross the Van Allen radiation belts so rad-hardness is not as much of an issue.

    It'll be very nice when we can launch one for $30K, but that day is not here. When I see AMSAT getting launches at that price, I will believe it.

    1. Re:LEO is Not Forever by danlip · · Score: 1

      $30k is the launch cost. Summary sucks, read TFA.

    2. Re:LEO is Not Forever by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Like I said. When AMSAT actually gets something launched for that cost, I will believe it. Until then, it's just advertising. AMSAT has lots of FOX cubesats that it could put up for that price.

    3. Re:LEO is Not Forever by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      They're talking about satellites half the volume of a CubeSat, I'm assuming much less than half the mass.

    4. Re:LEO is Not Forever by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      It'll be very nice when we can launch one for $30K, but that day is not here.

      Now that will be a game changer. Imagine cubesats as common as high altitude amateur radio balloons. Even if Elon cranks out Falcons like sausages and reuses them, LVs are still pretty expensive.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    5. Re:LEO is Not Forever by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Yes. And there is a photo of a 25-year-old guy holding a light aluminum frame that you can use to make a "satellite". Why is he not photographed watching a launch? Because he hasn't gotten any launched yet.

      Why is his radio using the AX.25 protocol with G3RUH modem, which tends to fail as a satellite link, rather than Karn's more recent satellite modem which can stand long fades as your satellite tumbles and its antenna points away from Earth? He and "RadioBro" don't seem to know better.

      Why don't they tell you that you'll need your ham license, when the frequencies the radio is sold for obviously would require that?

      So, a lot of stuff not real yet. But perfect fodder for a fluffy "innovator" story.

  9. "You Can Build a CubeSat from the Things You... by davidwr · · Score: 1

    ... Find At Home"

    Waiting for someone to filk this in 3...2...1....

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:"You Can Build a CubeSat from the Things You... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Find At Home"

      Waiting for someone to filk this in 3...2...1....

      What has been seen cannot be unseen...

  10. Regulation by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

    At least in the U.S., the launching of satellites is heavily regulated. That's because the same technology that is used to launch mini toaster satellites into orbit is the same tech used to launch high yield explosives into orbit. It isn't just about space junk. Its about dual use strategic weapons technology. If the FAA won't let people flying heli drones at 250 feet, there is no way they will allow ordinary citizens to put up a different kind of drone at LEO or even GSO.

    1. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minor nitpick: In the US The drone (and R/C Aircraft) maximum altitude has had a "recommended" altitude no higher than 400 feet ... but the FAA technically has no jurisdiction below 700 feet.

    2. Re:Regulation by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      these companies wouldn't launch it themselves... they would likely package a payload for orbital sciences, boeing, etc...

    3. Re:Regulation by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      No one has invented a new launch system.
      They're developing smaller and lighter satellites to cut the cost of piggy-backing on someone else's launch.

  11. $3 by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    I can build by own satellite for under $3. Granted it will be comprised of a solar panel and an LED that blinks once a second, but no one ever said it actually needed to do anything.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:$3 by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      The first artificial satellite didn't do anything but send out a radio beep. Artificial satellites don't necessarily have to be all that sophisticated if they don't need to actually be useful.

    2. Re:$3 by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      So included in that $3 is putting it in orbit? because that's what's including in the $30,000.

    3. Re:$3 by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I think that beep encoded temperature into audio frequency, and you could get its rough ephemerides from receiving horizon crosses at multiple locations, etc.

  12. still a $300B industry? by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

    Is the industry that expensive even with everyone using a $30k satellite? Or does a $300B market rely on satellites costing closer to $1B each?

    1. Re:still a $300B industry? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I would put a camera at the moon's L2 point.

    2. Re:still a $300B industry? by koan · · Score: 1

      I didn't read it but did the price include the launch?

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:still a $300B industry? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      A $30k satellite won't be much good in GEO. They are about $500M each for a modern GEO satellite (launched, including insurance). You can get the cost down to $400M or so, but once you have $400M of funding, another $100M isn't that hard. About 180 GEO slots, about 20 year life, that's about $10B per year just to sustain the GEO services early failures, backups, and other actions make it a higher number. LEO covers the rest. MEO rounds to zero for now. Some funding raised, but nobody actually doing much.

    4. Re:still a $300B industry? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      The cost of the launch isn't changing. The size and weight of the satellites is getting smaller, so more can be put on each rocket.

  13. thepiratebay.space??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long til somebody puts a torrent tracker into orbit. Good luck to the that wants to seize that one. Big court battle? Just deorbit and the evidence is gone.

    1. Re:thepiratebay.space??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Good luck to the law enforcement agency that wants to seize that one.

      (great proofreading, huh? maybe i should post stuff to the front page)

    2. Re:thepiratebay.space??? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Good luck with your ground stations to receive and transmit data.
      Also, good luck hosting a torrent tracker in a few grams and 5cm3 of space.
      Also, be prepared to launch a new one a couple of times a year, since it will de-orbit itself if it's in low-earth-orbit. An orbit further away with zero atmospheric drag will cost a lot more.

  14. Hmmm by koan · · Score: 1

    These sats seem ideal for someone to design a rail gun launching system, the should be able to take the stress and they are small enough that the rail gun size wouldn't break the bank.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Hmmm by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      It's impossible to launch something in to orbit from the surface of the earth by shooting it out of something.
      Too much air resistance.

    2. Re:Hmmm by koan · · Score: 1
      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:Hmmm by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      First link is akin to the slingshot system used on aircraft carriers. It's reducing the fuel required to launch a rocket. Still launching a rocket.

      Second link effectively says no more then "Hey, you could use a rail gun!"

      Third link is the same concept as the first. It's a Railgun to launch a vehicle that has its own engine that doesn't work at low speed.

      The fact is launch something from a gun in to orbit you must make it move much faster than orbital speed, because air resistance and gravity will slow it down on it's several hundred kilometre journey. Orbital speeds are fast enough to burn most things up at surface air densities. You're looking at 28,000kph for LEO.

      There's a reason the space shuttles were covered in a heat shield. Look what happened to Space Shuttle Columbia.

      I'm sure Randall Munroe did a What-If about it but I can't find it.

    4. Re:Hmmm by koan · · Score: 1

      It would work for cargo, it wouldn't work for living things.

      I can't accept that we could never electromagnetically launch something into orbit.

      And off all the reasons I have heard for it not working not a single one was "air resistance".

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    5. Re:Hmmm by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Ok, go and design something that can handle 28,000kph without burning up. Probably more like 100,000kph, since it has to be going at 28,000kph once it reaches orbital altitude, after being slowed down by the atmosphere.

      You've also go the problem of having to fire some kind of rocket once you're at the correct altitude to put it in the correct orbit, or it will continue on its ballistic trajectory and fall right back down to Earth. Maybe there is some kind of precise trajectory that will work out without correction. Good luck finding that, it's not going to be straight up so you've got a hell of a lot more atmosphere to go through.

      You not only need to get it up there, you need to get it going fast enough and in the right direction or it's not going to stay in orbit.