KSP Community CubeSat

[Sky_walker]

I think that is a good idea indeed. But would we still be using ion propulsion for the Jupiter or Saturn missions? That would require insane amounts of solar panels! Though I don't know how much RTGs cost, they're probably not cheap.

Noone will sell you an RTG. Don't be ridiculous.

[Nicholander]

Size of a satellite should depend on what do you want it to do. Not on "what you think".

Do the maths. It's not religion, it's science.

Though the PocketQube is 2X smaller then the CubeSat, i think a structure would be more expensive, because they are not as common. (There's at least 4 places on the internet I've found where you can buy CubeSat structures)

[Sky_walker]

Just fine someone with equipment skill and do it instead of buying from a big company oriented on satellite market. That's how universities often build their cube sats - with home-made frames.

You need to start thinking what YOU can contribute to the project instead of simply hoping for money from the sky / kickstarter that's suppose to solve everything for you.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Sky_walker

[lajoswinkler]

First of all, this reminds me of Terrahawks.

Second, it might be a better idea to start slow, with missions in Earth's atmospheric layers. For example, we could ask Shapeway to donate the one or three Kerbal figurines and put them on a model helicopter, model airplane, meteorological balloon, and then high power ammateur rocket. Camera inside, of course.

We don't have to build the rocket. There are great folks out there who launch these beasts in Nevada. I'm sure they wouldn't mind cooperating. These rockets do reach mesosphere easily.

The rocket and the balloon can have basic instruments for measuring temperature, humidity, pressure, even ionizing radiation.

All that would boost the public interest.

Edited July 15, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[lajoswinkler]

Size of a satellite should depend on what do you want it to do. Not on "what you think".

Do the maths. It's not religion, it's science.

You should scale down your ego.

What you're apparently trying to do here is nothing more than a flying rock with a camera strapped to it. It doesn't have any scientific value and as much value for PR purpose as every other cube sat ever sent to space. If not less (ie. the first satellite of Estonia easily got much more PR value than whatever you can do here).

How exactly are you going to convince Musk to give you even a 1$, yet alone: cover any serious share of expenses? Think about it objectively, cause you're right now so very much hyped on a project that you loose a grasp on reality.

I think you're the one who should calm down the ego. Most of others are thinking about missions well beyond LEO, and I think it's ridiculous, so you should talk to them instead of me.

Who ever said anything about it being a flying rock? We're just speculating. It's a forum thread, calm your tits.

[Kryten]

Though the PocketQube is 2X smaller then the CubeSat, i think a structure would be more expensive, because they are not as common. (There's at least 4 places on the internet I've found where you can buy CubeSat structures

A 1U cubesat flight opportunity is going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars more expensive than one for a 1P pocketqube. A structure isn't exactly going to cost enough to wipe that advantage, and most cubesat operators make their own frames anyway.

[Sky_walker]

high power ammateur rocket. Camera inside, of course.

That's certainly good starting point before you begin to dump other people's money.

Buy yourself one of these pre-build rockets, mount a pocket cube on it, send up, deploy chute, and try to transmit some data / test camera / test orientation systems while it is in a free fall.

You'll learn how difficult and enormous task is ahead of you and perhaps start to be more reasonable with the whole thing instead of doing as nonsensical things as wondering about prices of RTGs.

[Nicholander]

Okay, I see your point that home made stuff is better. But I still belive that the CubeSat is better, it can have a good camera, perhaps do some experiments. And if this is a publicity stunt, then it might as well be a bit larger and grander.

[Aethon]

Wow... It's alive!

I'd kiss you all on the mouth if I could- even sky_walker. I have some novel funding ideas ( Get schools in your area involved- with the sat and KSP EDU. Donation cans at local businesses with a web address : Follow us to space etc.). Tho it's way early, I thinks we can up up with more money than you think we can.

I'm pretty good with people so I also plan to contact the University of Iowa Astrophysics dept. http://astro.physics.uiowa.edu/ and pick the brains of guys who have already done this, then on to feel out NASA with some general stuff (tho I'll prob go into a .24 coma for a week or so) SOOOOON!

I still think we should do a mission in LEO before we try anything bigger so people will be more likely to fund and support us. I would be more likely to fund a mission on kickstarter if the people doing it already had experience with stuff in space even if its only LEO. It would also give us a chance to figure stuff out and learn about how we should do things. It wouldn't be a big loss either if something broke.

This.

So many individual, beautiful brains, coming together in peace, scrambling around- world wide G, world wide, to accomplish the incredible!

Lower your shields and surrender your ships. Your peoples and your cultures will be assimilated into the collective. Resistance is futile.

I love this game!

Edited July 15, 2014 by Aethon

[Sky_walker]

Okay, I see your point that home made stuff is better.

Cheaper and shows you're dedicated to the project with something else than your mouth.

I never said it's better.

But I still belive that the CubeSat is better, it can have a good camera, perhaps do some experiments.

Good camera would either not survive longer than a few moments in space or is too expensive for what you can possibly provide.

You need rugged camera, not a good one. Even if it's not rad-hard - it still needs to survive vacuum.

And if this is a publicity stunt, then it might as well be a bit larger and grander.

And more reasonable. For any stunt to succeed - people need to see that you actually can achieve it.

I'd kiss you all on the mouth if I could- even sky_walker.

What you you mean "even" me? I'm trying to be useful here and provide tons of important information that you shouldn't ignore if you want this project to ever succeed.

As someone once said: "Do not seek praise, seek criticism".

Edited July 15, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Error404brain]

For LEO we should try new propulsion system. Like for exemple we launch our cube into LEO it separate in 2 piece, one with a sail the other one who fire something (the same way the solar sail work but in a way more controled way). The sailed probe after a flyby on the moon is lost in the interplanetary.

We can maybe get founding for this or even a free ride.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion

If we don't do science we won't get anything free and I doubt about the ability of kickstarter for the amount we are talkin' about.

We could also try in situ the E-sail ?

Or using some condensater, charge them in orbit and fire the energy back to earth. For uh, Science and maybe a low comsuption light ?

We could also, using plants make some rocket fuel. For show once again.

Or launch ra drawing of a colomb from orbit to wars (need thermal shield tough) And ONU could give money for that.

There is plenty of studies to get done in space. And many university would love that their studies get into space.

We could even do docking by using the magnetic field of earth for to slow a craft and speed the other one. (kinda come up with that idea writing it so dunno if feasible or anything.)

[Nicholander]

And more reasonable. For any stunt to succeed - people need to see that you actually can achieve it.

Chances are, we can get a 1U CubeSat up there, people have KickStarted CubeSats before. (SkyCube, ArduSat, KickSat, CAT, etc.) So it is feasible, and I think it'd be wonderful if we could do more then just a downgraded version of something that has already been done before.

[Aethon]

You're right. I should kiss you first.(??) As I said in the other thread... the voice of reason and sanity (hopefully). You seem to be coming around a bit.

Agreed Nick. This should be more than just a publicity stunt. We need to demonstrate that good, interesting, exciting, innovative Science, can be done- by normal people, for reasonable amounts of 'funds'.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Aethon

[lajoswinkler]

That's certainly good starting point before you begin to dump other people's money.

Buy yourself one of these pre-build rockets, mount a pocket cube on it, send up, deploy chute, and try to transmit some data / test camera / test orientation systems while it is in a free fall.

You'll learn how difficult and enormous task is ahead of you and perhaps start to be more reasonable with the whole thing instead of doing as nonsensical things as wondering about prices of RTGs.

Dude, calm down.

No one is talking about building a rocket for launching a CubeSat or anything like that. CubeSats are deployed, not launched. The costs are for preparation, launch and the rest.

I did not mention any RTGs, and yes, I do have experience in amateur rocket building. I've made and tweaked engines and rockets. Not high power, but not tiny kiddie rockets either. I know how hard all that is. You're barking up the wrong tree.

[Sky_walker]

Dude, calm down.

No one is talking about building a rocket for launching a CubeSat or anything like that. CubeSats are deployed, not launched. The costs are for preparation, launch and the rest.

Read carefully. I never said anything about building a launchers. Just that building a small pocketcube-sized sat and mounting it on an atmospheric off-the-market model rocket would a good point to start learning and gaining an experience - experience that they'll need to gain support and by this: money.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not barking at anything - just supporting your own idea. You're the one who said "it might be a better idea to start slow" - and I wanted to fully support you with my post. No idea why the aggression and all this talk about "calming down" and "barking".

[Aethon]

Ok guys. Please. Sky_walker and laijos- you are both valuable parts of this equation. We don't want a mod to lock us out here. Shake hands and move on.

[EpicRootHairCell]

I think a Phobos landing would be a appropriate target for a ksp forums mission. Yes it might (probably)fail, but that is the spirit of KSP and thus the spirit our mission should be in. Anyway a failed mission would be more spectacular than a successful one any day. Yes it is plagued by technical difficulties but so is a Eve or Tylo return mission. Yes it will be expensive, but we have one of the best communities to be found anywhere, bright, intellectual, engaged and helpful, we will certainly contribute, NASA is already involved in KSP (23.5) and i'm sure they would do a free launch if we were going to Phobos.

So to misquote Kennedy, "We choice to go to Phobos and do the other things with a cube sat not because they are easy but because they are hard"

[shynung]

building a small pocketcube-sized sat and mounting it on an atmospheric off-the-market model rocket

Why bother with a pocketcube spacecraft if it's not going to space? Just slap the sensors and computers to the model rocket, and launch it as usual.

That said, I think we should go further than LEO. If we can somehow get a ride to GTO, we're halfway to anywhere.

BTW, more badass version of (misquoted) Kennedy speech: <--might be good for Kickstarter frontpage

We choose to go to Phobos in this decade , not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.

Edited July 15, 2014 by shynung

[lajoswinkler]

Read carefully. I never said anything about building a launchers. Just that building a small pocketcube-sized sat and mounting it on an atmospheric off-the-market model rocket would a good point to start learning and gaining an experience - experience that they'll need to gain support and by this: money.

I'm not barking at anything - just supporting your own idea. You're the one who said "it might be a better idea to start slow" - and I wanted to fully support you with my post. No idea why the aggression and all this talk about "calming down" and "barking".

OK, high five, I kiss you.

One question - why launching a suborbital satellite? Why not just launching a Kerbal figurine with a radiosonde or whatever and save the money for the actual CubeSat or whatever?

For others who mention Phobos, etc., that would require a solar sail. Even the astronomical society has difficulties with it. Not gonna happen, guys. LEO or nothing.

[Sky_walker]

Why bother with a pocketcube spacecraft if it's not going to space? Just slap the sensors and computers to the model rocket, and launch it as usual.

That said, I think we should go further than LEO. If we can somehow get a ride to GTO, we're halfway to anywhere.

To learn. Test communication equipment, test if all of the systems respond, test if control mechanisms work fine, test if you can reliably execute commands, etc. It's not an art to send a rock into space, and as far as I see: none you have even slightest idea about the topic and K^2 is so far the only person I seen who actually have some skills that could contribute to the project success.

That's why you'd need to learn. And experimentation is a necessary step in education, especially when it comes to things as complex as that.

OK, high five, I kiss you.

One question - why launching a suborbital satellite? Why not just launching a Kerbal figurine with a radiosonde or whatever and save the money for the actual CubeSat or whatever?

cool

As to answer your question - well, apparently people want to do... stuff.... with that satellite (I'm not sure what though, just heard about taking photos and transmitting them which is challenging enough in it's own way). If it'd be just a figurine in a box then there is no need to spend money on a rockets, I agree.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Nicholander]

So anyway, back on track! What should we discus, Phobos lander, LV options, GTO or Lunar feasibility, price of the first (probably LEO or GTO) mission?

[shynung]

Test communication equipment, test if all of the systems respond, test if control mechanisms work fine, test if you can reliably execute commands, etc.

No need for a rocket for that; we can test these on the ground. If specific testing requirements are needed, then make a rig to test it on, or find someone who has such a device and ask to use theirs.

[SolarLiner]

One of the most mysterious planets around here is probably Venus. The fact that she's rotating retrograde, that she could probably have a nicer atmosphere but doesn't ... And it has not been visited since a long time !

Phobos is also a good target, too, by the fact that it might have been captured by Mars back on the solar system's young age.

In any case, getting back pictures would be a great achievement, especially where no other CubeSats has gone before.

100% in favour of that, I'll follow and support !

[Kryten]

So anyway, back on track! What should we discus, Phobos lander, LV options, GTO or Lunar feasibility, price of the first (probably LEO or GTO) mission?

You tend not to get a choice of LV or orbit. You pay the middleman a price, they get you a launch; any launch.

[Nicholander]

One of the most mysterious planets around here is probably Venus. The fact that she's rotating retrograde, that she could probably have a nicer atmosphere but doesn't ... And it has not been visited since a long time !

Phobos is also a good target, too, by the fact that it might have been captured by Mars back on the solar system's young age.

In any case, getting back pictures would be a great achievement, especially where no other CubeSats has gone before.

100% in favour of that, I'll follow and support !

I see... So should our missions be like:

First mission is a 1U or 2U to LEO, tests some equipment and has a camera. It could possibly be a debris de-orbit tech demo.

2nd mission could be a Lunar fly-by or impactor, and possibly an orbiter.

3rd mission is to either L1/2, or "dips" into the venusian atmosphere to get some science.

4th mission is to land on phobos.

How is that as a long term plan?