Excuse me, but don't you think Aerospace technology has advanced a little bit since the 60's? We were just starting to make them since then. You simply cannot come close to the quality of commercial satellites with Radio Shack components, regardless of how smart you are. I acknowledge that it was a learning process, and I respect that (I would've wanted to be a part of it!), but the satellite they produced will probably not even work, let alone come close to the quality of multi-million dollar satellites.
We're acting like it'll fail because it [STRONG]will[/STRONG] fail. Anyone who knows about building satellites will agree; you can't use solar cells that are designed for Earth in space, they just don't work. That's like trying to use a motor cycle to drive across the ocean.
The main thing that annoys me is the attitude of the article. It represents current Aerospace as a bunch of troglodytes that are stuck in the past, spending $1400 on a toilet seat. Aerospace is one of the most tech-driven industries in the world. Furthermore, price [strong]is[/strong] a major issue, and satellites are made as cheaply as they can be while still staying reliable; using a $20 solar tile guarantees that the satellite will not function -- you need the expensive tiles because they actually work. The article acts like all that "expensive" stuff is superfluous, showing clearly that the author doesn't know what he's talking about. As for the students themselves, good for them. It would be really cool to send something you worked on into space, even if it did fail, but don't represent it as some genius, forward-looking thing when it isn't. Making things so cheaply they don't function isn't new.
Well, what I meant to say is cheaper. Cheaper is better. You seem to think I represent Boeing? And besides, the satellite -won't- work, based on what I understand in that article. Space is a -much- more hostile environment than most people know. Solar tiles don't cost $20,000 because they're overpriced, they cost $20,000 because they work. A $20 solar panel will not function in space.
"Who needs a $50,000 antenna system when a metal tape measure might do the job? Solar panels costing $20,000 apiece? The students used the panels that power emergency phones in deserts and national parks. Cost: $25 each."
There are reasons that these components cost so much. The antennas must be extremely well made and grounded or they'll be worthless with the background radiation. The clear plastic used to cover the solar tile in emergency phones would turn black in the radiation blocking the sun from the tile, and the cells would fail within a few hours in the heat and cold and radiation - these are not the same cells used in space by any measure. Their electronics, if I follow their 'budget cutting' methods of going to Radio Shack, would rip themselves apart from the thermal differences on different sides of the satellite, and would be fried from the radiation at the same time. The air pockets left between the solar panel's cover and its cells would pop in the heat, causing the cells to in turn shatter. I'd be very surprised if this satellite does more than orbit the earth the day after they launched it. Seems like a waste of $50k to me, even if it was a comparatively cheap $50k.
I further find it insulting that these Naval students think they can do aerospace better than the smartest people at Boeing, who have been in the business for fifty years. It's like someone saying, "Bah! Open-heart surgery costs $150,000? All you need is a knife and a sewing needle. I'll go pick those up at the drug store and perform it myself!"
"Who needs a $50,000 antenna system when a metal tape measure might do the job? Solar panels costing $20,000 apiece? The students used the panels that power emergency phones in deserts and national parks. Cost: $25 each."
There are reasons that these components cost so much. The antennas must be extremely well made and grounded or they'll be worthless with the background radiation. The clear plastic used to cover the solar tile in emergency phones would turn black in the radiation blocking the sun from the tile, and the cells would fail within a few hours in the heat and cold and radiation - these are not the same cells used in space by any measure. Their electronics, if I follow their 'budget cutting' methods of going to Radio Shack, would rip themselves apart from the thermal differences on different sides of the satellite, and would be fried from the radiation at the same time. The air pockets left between the solar panel's cover and its cells would pop in the heat, causing the cells to in turn shatter. I'd be very surprised if this satellite does more than orbit the earth the day after they launched it. Seems like a waste of $50k to me, even if it was a comparatively cheap $50k.
I further find it insulting that these Naval students think they can do aerospace better than the smartest people at Boeing, who have been in the business for fifty years. It's like someone saying, "Bah! Open-heart surgery costs $150,000? All you need is a knife and a sewing needle. I'll go pick those up at the drug store and perform it myself!"
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, but don't you think Aerospace technology has advanced a little bit since the 60's? We were just starting to make them since then. You simply cannot come close to the quality of commercial satellites with Radio Shack components, regardless of how smart you are. I acknowledge that it was a learning process, and I respect that (I would've wanted to be a part of it!), but the satellite they produced will probably not even work, let alone come close to the quality of multi-million dollar satellites.
We're acting like it'll fail because it [STRONG]will[/STRONG] fail. Anyone who knows about building satellites will agree; you can't use solar cells that are designed for Earth in space, they just don't work. That's like trying to use a motor cycle to drive across the ocean.
The main thing that annoys me is the attitude of the article. It represents current Aerospace as a bunch of troglodytes that are stuck in the past, spending $1400 on a toilet seat. Aerospace is one of the most tech-driven industries in the world. Furthermore, price [strong]is[/strong] a major issue, and satellites are made as cheaply as they can be while still staying reliable; using a $20 solar tile guarantees that the satellite will not function -- you need the expensive tiles because they actually work. The article acts like all that "expensive" stuff is superfluous, showing clearly that the author doesn't know what he's talking about. As for the students themselves, good for them. It would be really cool to send something you worked on into space, even if it did fail, but don't represent it as some genius, forward-looking thing when it isn't. Making things so cheaply they don't function isn't new.
Well, what I meant to say is cheaper. Cheaper is better. You seem to think I represent Boeing? And besides, the satellite -won't- work, based on what I understand in that article. Space is a -much- more hostile environment than most people know. Solar tiles don't cost $20,000 because they're overpriced, they cost $20,000 because they work. A $20 solar panel will not function in space.
"Who needs a $50,000 antenna system when a metal tape measure might do the job? Solar panels costing $20,000 apiece? The students used the panels that power emergency phones in deserts and national parks. Cost: $25 each."
There are reasons that these components cost so much. The antennas must be extremely well made and grounded or they'll be worthless with the background radiation. The clear plastic used to cover the solar tile in emergency phones would turn black in the radiation blocking the sun from the tile, and the cells would fail within a few hours in the heat and cold and radiation - these are not the same cells used in space by any measure. Their electronics, if I follow their 'budget cutting' methods of going to Radio Shack, would rip themselves apart from the thermal differences on different sides of the satellite, and would be fried from the radiation at the same time. The air pockets left between the solar panel's cover and its cells would pop in the heat, causing the cells to in turn shatter. I'd be very surprised if this satellite does more than orbit the earth the day after they launched it. Seems like a waste of $50k to me, even if it was a comparatively cheap $50k.
I further find it insulting that these Naval students think they can do aerospace better than the smartest people at Boeing, who have been in the business for fifty years. It's like someone saying, "Bah! Open-heart surgery costs $150,000? All you need is a knife and a sewing needle. I'll go pick those up at the drug store and perform it myself!"
"Who needs a $50,000 antenna system when a metal tape measure might do the job? Solar panels costing $20,000 apiece? The students used the panels that power emergency phones in deserts and national parks. Cost: $25 each." There are reasons that these components cost so much. The antennas must be extremely well made and grounded or they'll be worthless with the background radiation. The clear plastic used to cover the solar tile in emergency phones would turn black in the radiation blocking the sun from the tile, and the cells would fail within a few hours in the heat and cold and radiation - these are not the same cells used in space by any measure. Their electronics, if I follow their 'budget cutting' methods of going to Radio Shack, would rip themselves apart from the thermal differences on different sides of the satellite, and would be fried from the radiation at the same time. The air pockets left between the solar panel's cover and its cells would pop in the heat, causing the cells to in turn shatter. I'd be very surprised if this satellite does more than orbit the earth the day after they launched it. Seems like a waste of $50k to me, even if it was a comparatively cheap $50k. I further find it insulting that these Naval students think they can do aerospace better than the smartest people at Boeing, who have been in the business for fifty years. It's like someone saying, "Bah! Open-heart surgery costs $150,000? All you need is a knife and a sewing needle. I'll go pick those up at the drug store and perform it myself!"