Rakaydos

Price within reason, not nessesarally objectives within reason. But if aerocapture is off the table, how much would that add to the required Dv? 1000ms or so? Versus, say a 3 cm square of titanium for an expirimental aerocapture maneuver? If solar cells cant cut it, has anyone looked into "BetaBatts" betavoltaic power cells? We dont have to actually build this thing... we just have to prove it can be done. Solve each problem as it comes up, then solve the next one.

This thread is for one of the popular missions selected by the KSP Cubesat mission poll. While unlikely to be flown on the first launch, I feel that laying the groundwork, the mission profile, and the vehical design will not only be useful for this mission, but give the LEO cubesat team something to practice. The mission has several requirements, most of which are financial bariers. For the purpose of this topic, however, we are ignoring financial concerns. (within reason- no dedicated GTO flight, no RTGs, must fit the u3 cubesat profile, ect) I believe the order of discussion should be: Orbital Profile- the mission as plotted by K2 calls for a GTO launch, moon flyby, an earth flyby, a mars aerobreak, and phobos landing. But it's unlikely that we can find a "perfect" GTO carrier, so figuring out how to loiter to get the best launch angles will tell us D/v requirements and mission duration, which in turn will inform us on how much rad shielding, heat shielding, fuel, and TWR the cubesat will need. It will also inform what science is possible, how powerful the radio will need to be, and other concerns. (For instance, the difference in orbital period between GTO and LTO can fine tune our lunar flyby based on the launch profile without costing us any D/v we wernt already spending) Vehical design- knowing what the craft needs to do, fitting it into a u3 chassis is the next task. Off the shelf components are nice but not nesssary- for the purposes of this thread an eager university student can hand-coil whatever ion drive specs we decide we need, as long as we can give them a solid blueprint. While preliminary studies say 1500 m/s Dv and a 2 year flight plan, that's assuming a best case launch- we should probably allow for some leeway to line up a proper orbit from whatever GTO ride we get on. Science payload- This is what grant money is provided by. The weight and size will be limited by the u3, and by the other essental systems of the craft, but some science can be done by repurposing those essential systems.

I believe it can be useful discussion, as something the LEO mission is practicing for, but not so useful that it merits cloging up the single discussion thread.

I've got a obsolite cell phone... that's got more processing than apollo did, right?

Would anyone mind if I made a separate thread for the "Kerbal 2- Flight to Magic Boulder" theorycraft? That way we can start figuring out what questions we dont know without interfering with the (far more likely) "Kerbal 1- First Orbit" planning.

Figuring out what the price tag would be for a "Magic Boulder" mission sets our "skys the limit" budget. We are unlikely to get it in the first kickstarter, but it lets us ground our expectations.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how that 1.5 KM figure will be affected by less-than-optimum launch timing? The coordination of launch trajectory, Moon, and mars make it unlikely to find an existing carrier that will get us where we want to go in a single orbit. So how much do we have to overengineer it to account for the launch opportunities we're likey to get for GTO?

GTO deployment to LTO to solar orbit, wait a year, earth flyby to get mars intercept, mars aerobreak into phobos transfer orbit, decellerate.

here's the people that did the solar cells for the japaneee solar sail craft: http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/

SCIENCE QUESTION! Can the magnets in an electrostatic thruster be used as an improvised metal detector?

Completed jool 5 challange. Still havnt been to Duna.

Here's a thought... by the time the probe reaches Phobos, the fuel tank will be basically empty. So we're not really going to care if we crumple the fuel tank landing, like the crash zones of an automobile.

Hmmm... for our electrostatic drive, what do we use for reaction mass? Hydrogen? Random thought, but perhaps we could make a Venus Balloon.

a toothpick kerbal flag.

I feel that the kickstarter should be for "we launch something!" and stretch goals decide how far we try to go. However, if we get enough overfunding to pay for a second trip to orbit, by all means, let us send a second ship! This applies equally to the second (and third) kickstarters, as well.

I think we should bill it as "The Kerbal Space Program Space Program." And if we dont get enough to shoot for the moon on the first kickstarter, we send up a basic "Kerbal 1" mission, toot our horns, then immediately set up a SECOND kickstarter, for the Kerbal 2, with a higher minimum accept, but the knowlege, aerospace working relationships, and spare cash left over from the last kickstarter.

Also, I think peole may be missing the point of having a "Fire an Estes engine in LEO" level to this project. Sure, we'll need a lot more money in order to do the fun stuff like shoot for the moon, but if we dont have enough for that, having a lesser project that we can do on a shoestring lets us go, "Alright, we did something in LEO! Now give us more money to try something harder!" for a second kickstarter.

The problem with putting nukes on the lander is that it was designed as a single stage Tylo lander. After I proved it could get back into tylo orbit and refueled, however, I looked at what else I could do with 6km of D/v. adding nukes would have given it even more space D/v, and made it harder to land and return from Tylo and laythe. With the stock rebalance mod, the new parts are heavier and not as efficent as they are in stock... but they get even more thrust to make up for it. And the Mk 55 I used on the lander got buffed, while the rocomax 48 got nerfed. It also adds fuel to nose cones, making aerodynamic parts useful beyond FAR. (also, as for the "mixed engines", the KL2 never got used at all- I probably should turn it into an extra fuel tank, butI had stares in my eyes about the possibility of aa powered landing on kerbin with the hitchhiker capsule. That didnt pan out.)

It sounds like destination is really a matter of funding. A "Basic funding" will be limited to LEO, and payload limited to an Estes SRB. Advanced funding is a GEO transfer ride and a decent camera, with a list of possible targets in SRB range "All the funding" shoots for the moon... and beyond. (List of possible places the electric drive can go)

If we can get a flyby of an earth- flyby debree with an SRB, I say go for it! It's not the sort of thing we need maneuvering for, just reaction wheels to point a camera. Heck, if we get enough funding, we can send multiple sats.

So, it looks like for stretch goals... Basic funding: A LEO cubesat with an SRB Basic funding +: An SRB and a reaction wheel, try to hit a specific target. Basic funding ++: Stretch cube, larger engine (aerotek? I havnt followed the scene in awhile), Geo Transfer flight, shoot for the moon. Advanced Funding: Electro drive sat, plant a "flag" at L2 Advanced Funding +: Extra power radio, aim for a Solar orbit->Earth flyby->Mars flyby-> Try to get to jupiter ->Try to do an Oberth-Kuiper. Bonus points if we aim for Voyager/Alpha Centauri/Barnard Star

Didnt the Rosetta probe use an interplanetary launch followed by a solar-orbit earth flyby to increase it's D/V? Possible mission (low funding) send the sat to LEO and fire an esties engine, and have a transmitter to track the results. Possible missions (High funding) Moon flyby! Slingshot chain! how far can we go with (X) D/V save ICEE 3! "plant" the Kerbal flag in the L2 lagrange halo orbit. lithobreak a kerbal flag into the moon.

Jool 5 Level 2 Complete! (Mods are Mechjeb, FAR, and Stock Rebalance v2, restrictions are Single Launch, Single Lander, no Jets, no Ions, no parachutes, only Jeb can use Mechjeb, all moons and back. If I was to do this again, I think the biggest thing would be Action Groups. I was toggling engines and solar panels everywhere, and being able to do them all at once would have lowered my personal anxiety level. Also, might as well have used Stock Rebalance v3- compared to V2, it nerfs reaction wheels but buffs RCS- I had plenty of RCS fuel and being able to use it for propulsion would have stretched my Dv a little furthur. I enjoyed the challange and probably wont be touching KSP till .24 now.

Jool 5 Level 2 Complete! (Mods are Mechjeb, FAR, and Stock Rebalance v2, restrictions are Single Launch, Single Lander, no Jets, no Ions, no parachutes, only Jeb can use Mechjeb, all moons and back. If I was to do this again, I think the biggest thing would be Action Groups. I was toggling engines and solar panels everywhere, and being able to do them all at once would have lowered my personal anxiety level. Also, might as well have used Stock Rebalance v3- compared to V2, it nerfs reaction wheels but buffs RCS- I had plenty of RCS fuel and being able to use it for propulsion would have stretched my Dv a little furthur. I enjoyed the challange and probably wont be touching KSP till .24 now.

Survived Laythe, after many many attempts. now for the hardest part of all... a powered landing back at kerbin.