PakledHostage

Another peripherally related and interesting topic is the Apps for Apes program that is being implemented at a number of zoos that house Orangutans. They use iPads to allow the orangutans to interact with keepers and even other orangutans at other zoos. From what I've read about the project, the apes do exhibit sophisticated creativity and behaviors that suggest an understanding of their individuallity.

We had a couple of discussions about this topic last winter. These are the links: [space] My first (blurry) image of Jupiter, zoomed in 6x! [space] I think I saw Jupiter I posted the image below in one of them. Both were taken with a 300 mm lens mounted on a DSLR camera and both are at the same scale. At the time I took the photo, Jupiter's moons were spanning 1/3 of the full moon's diameter.

The article you cited in your earlier post describes how NASA has developed a phonesat using phone hardware including GPS. It does not say how or even if the GPS hardware was used and whether or not it was unlocked. Likewise, GPS signals are encrypted. Developing your own GPS receiver is far from trivial. It can be done (as evidenced by people who have sucessfully developed GPS spoofing and jamming devices), but that doesn't mean it can be done readily. The restrictions that others here are describing are arms trafficking restrictions that GPS hardware must comply with. Depending on the age of the GPS hardware in question, it will likely either comply with COCOM export restrictions or the Waasenaar Arrangement. The Waasenaar requirements are newer and remove the altitude restriction but retain the velocity restriction (albeit a slightly higher velocity restriction than COCOM). - GPSs meeting the COCOM restrictions won't work above 18000 m altitude or 515 m/s. - GPSs meeting the Waasenaar arrangement restrictions won't work above 600 m/s but have no altitude restrictions.

The trouble with this forum is the funny mix of people who participate: everyone between average kids through adults with PhDs in physics and engineering. I can forgive the kids for making foolish suggestions, but this idea isn't going anywhere. Trying to get the community to consolidate on an achievable and realistic goal is like herding cats.

Field goal!

A party balloon and a CO2 cartridge also fit in a cubesat but what's the point? If this project is ever going to happen, it needs realistic and achievable goals and it needs an emotional "hook" that will get people excited enough to support it. PM me when you've got that organized and I'll see what I can do to help out.

We didn't make it. We assembled the radio gear from off the shelf hardware. The overall system involves significant amounts of custom hardware and software but the radio gear itself is off the shelf and it works over the range I mentioned above. Indeed the same radio system has been used in an earlier project by my friend who I worked with, to transmit sensor telemetry over even greater distances (over 100 km). The telemetry allowed us to accurately point the high gain yagi antenna and maintain an RF link over those distances. And while I am beginning to sound like a broken record, my point from yesterday still stands: There are people on this forum who have the talent to make an idea like this actually come together. But the goals have to be realistic and significant logistical problems would have to be worked out before any of them would be willing to invest thousands of their dollars and thousands of hours of their free time in making it happen. Nothing is going to happen if we aim too high or have unrealistic ideas about the kinds of resources that we could draw on. But I don't doubt that a group of us could make this happen if we got organized. Sadly though, I believe that the non technical problems of financing, marketing, project management, etc are what would kill an endeavor such as this.

We've done over 50km using a directional yagi antenna. Transmitting from/to orbit is obviously more challenging but the point is that an RF link that can be used to uplink/downlink data can also be used to transmit images. They won't necessarily be high quality images and, as I wrote earlier, I realise that the devil is in the details. But you can't dismiss the possibility with the wave of a hand.

I am aware of the definition of streaming, thank you. And I am surprised to learn that the ~500 CAD pile of electronics and associated custom firmware on my desk at home that transmit still images over radio telemetry are worth tens of thousands of euros! Maybe I should try to sell them in Europe?

While I agree that live streamed video is probably impossible for the type of budget we'd be likely to be working with, there are off the shelf camera systems that stream still photos (of various resolutions and image file sizes) over serial. The cubesat's onboard processor could packetize that data and downlink it using a low bandwidth protocol. Sure, the devil is in the details but you can't dismiss downlinked images with the wave of a hand. If a project like this is going to ever have a hope of actually coming together, it is going to have to appeal to a large number of people. Photos from space updated regularly and posted on a website may be a necessary component of the project, just from a marketing perspective.

With that much enthusiasm and skill at writing passionately, I think you may have just volunteered yourself for writing the Kickstarter campaign blurb! But seriously, I'd be willing to kick in time and money to help this actually come together too if the goals are realistic. But there are a lot of logistics that would need to be sorted out first: Financial, marketing, technical, project management, etc. And we need a "hook" to capture people's imaginations. Maybe something as simple as sending a Bill, Bob and Jeb figurine into orbit with a camera showing the view outside, plus little inset images of our heros?

I wasn't offended. But I felt that you were quoting me out of context. I believe that, had you included my last sentence, it would have weakened your retort. I feel that you should have included it and argued the point you made above instead: That the KSP community has a higher percentage of "talent" than the population at large. I would have agreed with you then. But my point would still stand that talent alone won't get you anywhere. And so would my point that real life space flight isn't easy just because you are/were the smartest kid in your class. You need talent, hard work and luck to stand out, and you need a realistic plan to deal with the very significant technical problems involved in a project like this. So far, this idea doesn't stand out. That doesn't mean it won't ever stand out, but it doesn't stand out yet.

It was relevant because it puts the passage you were quoting in proper context. Quoting someone out of context is poor form. Just because politicians and journalists do it doesn't make it acceptable.

Interesting that you chose to delete the last sentence of the passage that you chose to respond to from my post... You know, the one where I said "great things are only possible with a lot of hard work, luck and talent"? Everything I use may well have once been "a throw of youth", but you're arguing with the benefit of hindsight. For every idea that seems half baked but turns out to be brilliant, there are millions more that don't amount to anything. Convince me that you're not one of the millions. So far, I am not convinced.

Kennedy was a great speaker and inspired a nation, but he also had a lot of luck to help him out. Like getting shot... (if you'll excuse the dark humor). The Apollo program retained its momentum in large part because Kennedy was assassinated.

This is a key point. In almost three years of hanging around this community, I've observed that playing KSP gives players the mistaken impression that spaceflight is easy. It isn't. When you're 16, 18 or even 22, anything can seem possible, but the sad reality is that it isn't. Great things are only possible with a lot of hard work, luck and talent. The chorus of voices on this thread (some more polite than others) trying to quell the enthusiasm should be listened to. You'll need to come up with a proposal for an achievable goal with an emotional "hook" if you're ever going to convince people to get behind this project with thousands of their own dollars and/or thousands of hours of their free time. A cubesat in LEO is achievable but not very interesting and won't fire people's imaginations. A cubesat landing on Phobos is interesting but would sound (to anyone with the real means to make it happen) like the delusions of a dreamer. You'll need a well thought out goal that lies between boring and impossible to inspire people to commit any time and/or money to the project. And your kickstarter campaign has to be infectious. Good luck with it. I'm happy to help in any way that I can. But someone needs to sell me (and people like me who have the skills, professional experience and/or money to make a significant contribution) on the belief that their contributions won't be wasted before the idea will go anywhere.

He did redeem himself quite well once he started talking about the things he knows. I've been watching to the extent that I can while I am supposed to be working. We're lucky that we still have this opportunity. And I think the hosts are partly to blame when he doesn't come across well. A skilled interviewer would know how to spotlight Buzz in the best possible light (or the worst possible, depending on the interviewer's bias). The hosts here seem a bit amateurish though.

They were running a bit late but they've started now. Edit: I'm sorry but he sounds a bit like Grandpa Simpson... Prattling on about hash tags, the internet and stuff.

Thanks. I missed seeing it live but I'll watch the replay.

Thanks. I've got the page open and am waiting for it to start in about 15 minutes.

Although skeptical, I googled "nanorockets". It seems that they are a proposed method of delivering drugs to very precise targets within the body... Have you, maybe, been partaking?

Those two are pretty good. I like the raw quality of them. The only thing I could add would be this one:

So I guess we're in trouble if Scotius' space hipsters want our PBR?

But it worked for the Pakleds... Maybe that should be our message to the stars? "It is broken..."

You seem to have missed my point. In the 66 years from 1903 - 1969 we went from first flight to landing on the moon, but what has been accomplished in the past 45 years since 1969? There's been a plateau. Clearly progress doesn't always accelerate... The majority of the progress in space over the past 45 years has been in the robotics that control unmanned missions and guidance systems, not in propulsion. Indeed, the majority of the progress in aerospace period during those same years has been in electronics rather than propulsion. Sure there's been some progress in propulsion technology but nothing that's going to get us to the stars. I don't see that changing any time soon. There's simply no motivation to spend the money.