Pocket SpaceCraft

[Aethon]

Well here's NASAs' GMAT ( General Mission Analysis Tool) : http://gmat.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Here's some (used to be free??) modeling software : http://www.agi.com/products/

Edited July 14, 2014 by Aethon

[K^2]

Didnt the Rosetta probe use an interplanetary launch followed by a solar-orbit earth flyby to increase it's D/V?

Hm... That can be used to double the interplanetary delta-V, at least. I'm having hard time coming up with a way to improve on it further. But that's a neat idea. I'll have to look at the mission they did and see how much can be scraped out of that. If that can be modified to push us to Venus/Mars fly-by, then we could try for some really crazy mission ideas. These would be high risk, but seeing how any of these missions would open with a Moon fly-by, I doubt it'd be a total loss in any outcome.

Edit: Oh... Yeah... I think I'm starting to get that. Yes, with an Earth fly-by, it's possible to change both aphelion and perihelion, using energy from lowering the later to raise the former and get to a Mars fly-by. From there on, it's smooth sailing.

It's an insanely challenging mission profile for something like this, but it can be done.

"plant" the Kerbal flag in the L2 lagrange halo orbit.

I like that. For 3U + GTO launch, L1/L2 are definitely legitimate targets we can try for. GTO -> LTO -> fly-by, correction -> L1/L2 transfer -> circularize and park. About 800m/s total.

Edited July 14, 2014 by K^2

[Aethon]

I'd prefer to leave no debris, but am a very flexible, agreeable partner.

All the Kickstarter needs for complete success is a three minute Nassault video enactment of the mission, and one text screen. It'll look better than a NASA computer generated production.

[K^2]

If we can't find someone here, I know some 3D artists that can help getting visuals for a video.

[Aethon]

Aw c'mon. We gotta use KSP for that.

[K^2]

Oh... Yeah. That's a great idea. Like, make custom mod parts and use the Solar System mod to show off flight path etc?

[Aethon]

Yep. Perhaps you're not familiar with Nassault?

[Rakaydos]

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

[Aethon]

Or a flyby of 1991VG?? (lol kinda).

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=80

edit- A low science value but would sure stir up positive world wide hype for KSP and Squad!

Edited July 14, 2014 by Aethon

[Rakaydos]

Or a flyby of 1991VG?? (lol kinda).

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=80

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.

[ecat]

Exciting idea k^2, so much so that I had a quick look around for space qualified electronics - expensive when ready assembled but doable.

I have no affiliation with the following site, it has prices - competitive?- and a shopping cart so may be of interest to the passing reader:

http://www.clyde-space.com/

[K^2]

Looking at some other numbers, with successful gravity assists, aerobreaking on Mars, and another 600m/s of delta-V, it'd be possible to land on Phobos. That would be pushing 3U to the limit, but it's the most insane, most Kerbalest thing I can imagine doing with the cubesat. I think, that should be the ultimate goal, with Mars fly-by/orbiter being one tier down.

The sat would need some ability to adjust attitude, so that has to be in there at the base level. But I like the general progression. Getting an SRB burn seems kind of silly, but it fits with the KSP theme. If we can get funding for something more complicated, we try to get as much delta-V out of it as we can, trying to shoot for the Moon. Ideally, from a GTO insertion, so that there would be an actual chance of doing a fly-by. And if we have fly-by in the pocket, try to figure out what to do with the craft once it's orbiting the Sun.

I have no affiliation with the following site, it has prices - competitive?

Some of these things can definitely be acquired cheaper, but with "some assembly required". I'm not entirely sure exactly where quality/weight are going to be critical. So what I'm going to do next is try to come up with hardware requirements for the above basic options, and then see how much of required assembly can be done by well-informed amateurs, and how much of it would have to go to the professionals.

I'll probably start a dedicated thread, perhaps with some poll options, once I have some basic figures on costs/etc.

The Six Words

Heh. I don't think I can run NASA-quality simulation on trajectories, but I should be able to write code that gets me close enough for maneuvering thrusters to make up the difference in transit. There will absolutely have to be a way to do proper tracking and send instructions for corrections in flight if we hope to go past the Moon.

Edit: This is the sort of propulsion system that I'd be looking for ideally. It will fit in the 3U unit along with the payload and have enough dV to do Phobos landing mission. It's at the prototype stage, however.

Edited July 14, 2014 by K^2

[Nicholander]

I'll definitely be a backer in the kickstarter! And as i was reading the posts, i've been thinking of some things we could do for the kickstarter...

for a gift/reward for backing it, one of the things for (I dunno, 40$-150$ or something) could be engraving the backers name somewhere on the spacecraft.

And a related idea would be for, i dunno, 60$-250$ (More expensive then the previous one) would be to engrave a small sentence onto the spacecraft.

Also, i think it should be a Lunar fly-by and be 2U or 3U(Maybe if we have like ALL THE FUNDING we could do a Lunar orbiter, but if we somehow get more then that, well, to Venus/Mars we go!).

And here are some random spacecraft names which we should probably think about MUCH LATER:

Jeb-1

Sqaud-1

Harvest-1

Harvester-1

Jebediah-1

Kerb-1

Kerbin-1

Kerbal-1

Jool-1

Eve-1

Mun-1

Min-1

Minmus-1

Moho-1

[K^2]

It's actually significantly easier, in terms of delta-V available, to do a Mars orbiter than a Moon orbiter.

[Nicholander]

I'm assuming that's with an aerobrake through the Martian atmosphere, which makes sense. Though i don't know how much a heatshield costs, i assume, it's expensive compared to the rest of the sat. (Though, then again, the heatshield could be cheaper then the stuff required for a Lunar orbiter)

[R0cketC0der]

Heh. I don't think I can run NASA-quality simulation on trajectories, but I should be able to write code that gets me close enough for maneuvering thrusters to make up the difference in transit.

After a bit of researching I found this mission planning program that is actually made by NASA. Actually quite a lot of NASA software is available to the public.

http://gmat.gsfc.nasa.gov

[Nicholander]

Also, should we make a seperate forum thread where we discus and develop our kickstarter?

[K^2]

Somebody actually linked it earlier, but I haven't really looked at it yet. Problem is that it wouldn't be just planning a hypothetical. It needs to be possible to integrate with the rest of the software. But it's open source, so I might be able to pull out just the parts responsible for integrating trajectories and use 'em. Whatever they have in there is probably better than integrator I'd write from scratch. And it already has all the data sets to go with it.

Also, should we make a seperate forum thread where we discus and develop our kickstarter?

Yeah, I'll start one. Still gathering some info.

Edit: Though, it's way, way early for KickStarter. For example, we couldn't put a minimum funding goal up right now, because we don't know if we can get a free ride to LEO even. That's a $30k difference. But that is one of the things that would be sorted in that thread, probably.

[Ucender]

I love how bold you are, and I admit a KSP community-made steerable spacecraft would be far greater than hundreds of selfies crashed into the moon. But we shoud avoid to duplicate effort, and get in touch with the Pocket Spacecraft team, since we share many common goals :

- Build a 3U cubesat with propulsion

- Setup radio communications

- Get a free ride from NASA or ESA

- Demonstrate that space is fun

Just the payload is different. They pretend to be open, so partnership appears to be a must :

We’ve created more than twenty open space projects since 2009 building the elements we need for this mission, with contributions from more than a hundred volunteers in twenty countries (and counting) led by our co-ordinators in Europe (Bristol, UK) and America (Pasadena, USA).

we’ll show you how we make sure we follow the rules for planetary protection, space debris, spacecraft and radio licensing and more, and make all our paperwork and protocols available to all.

Now about getting interplanetary, I have no idea about feasability, but here is a video showing how Rosetta used 3 flybys of Earth and 1 of Mars to get further than Jupiter orbit and catch the comet : http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2014/01/Chasing_a_comet

[Nicholander]

I think the first poll we should have (Probably on the other thread the K^2 will make) should be about where our cubesat will go. I think the options should be:

LEO

Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO)

Geostationary Orbit (GEO)

L1 Larange Orbit

L2 Larange Halo Orbit (And because Rakaydos suggested it, "plant" a kerbal flag too.)

Lunar Fly-by

Lunar Impactor (Because litho-braking. That's why.)

Lunar Orbit (Requires advanced funding)

Interplanetary Space (Not going to any other planets, just out of Earth's SOI.)

Venus Fly-by (Requires advanced funding)

Mars Fly-by (Requires advanced funding)

Mars Orbit (K^2 said it required less delta-v then the Lunar orbit.) (Requires advanced funding)

Phobos Landing (Needs ALL THE FUNDING, though K^2 said it was possible with a Mars aerobrake and multiple fly-bys of other planets. And it's essentially pushing the 3U cubesat to the limit.)

Somewhere Else (Describe in a post)

Though we probably will remove the interplanetary ones because that will require like ALL THE FUNDS, so you can discus which ones we should keep and remove. And I think the only actual feasible goals are LEO, GTO, Lunar fly-by and impactor, and maybe GEO and interplanetary space)

Edited July 14, 2014 by Nicholander
Added the ones i think are feasible and changed interstellar to interplanetary

[R0cketC0der]

Though we probably will remove the interplanetary ones because that will require like ALL THE FUNDS, so you can discus which ones we should keep and remove.

Not just the interplanetary ones, but also the lunar ones and GEO. Mars only takes about 100 m/s more than moon for a flyby, so the only big difference between the two is the time that the mission takes and the communications.

All of these(lunar, interplanetary and GEO) need high accuracy for the burns, attitude control and multiple ignitions for the engines. Also, AFAIK a lunar flyby takes less delta-V than GEO, though I haven't really done the math on that and it might be wrong.

[K^2]

Yeah. GTO to GEO is almost 1.5km/s. GTO to LTO is less than 700m/s. But the best part is that, in terms of delta-V, if you can get to LTO, you can go pretty much anywhere. Of course, precision, tracking, comms... Still, if we can make use of some radio telescopes every once in a while, that should cover the later two. And there are some, not inexpensive, options for a cubesat to give it sufficient precision and delta-V.

What's really important here is that this is a craft that can take risks. It's not a multi-billion project, where if it misses a fly-by, it's a disaster. If we can put enough delta-V into it to make LTO, it's going to be awesome no matter what. If we miss by a lot, it will either become a really long period satellite of Earth or a new crater on the Moon. If we miss by less, it will become a satellite of the Sun. These are pretty cool outcomes for something crowd-funded. Especially if we can get some pictures and tracking out of it.

But it wouldn't hurt to have the best-case-scenario mission planned out. If the Lunar and first Earth fly-by happen to go right, it'd be a terrible crime not to have a plan for the rest of the voyage, and timing will be important there, so it has to be planned out way in advance. Mars is the obvious next target, but there, one can either go for a fly-by, or aerobrake for a capture. Both allow for some great opportunities. But getting captured and transferring to Phobos would be the holy grail, IMO.

[Nicholander]

So we can essentially only go to LEO and maybe GTO. Well, at least it's better then being stuck on a sphere. Though, the Lunar, GEO, Lagrange and Interplanetary ideas could be stretch goals. (Though if we reach a stretch goal should we launch another cubesat or change the current cubesats destination?)

[Sky_walker]

- Get a free ride from NASA or ESA

Good luck with that. I already see them willingly donating space and tonnage to some random forum members of a random game. lol

[Nicholander]

Yeah. GTO to GEO is almost 1.5km/s. GTO to LTO is less than 700m/s. But the best part is that, in terms of delta-V, if you can get to LTO, you can go pretty much anywhere. Of course, precision, tracking, comms... Still, if we can make use of some radio telescopes every once in a while, that should cover the later two. And there are some, not inexpensive, options for a cubesat to give it sufficient precision and delta-V.

I thought Lunar Transfer Injection was 4,000m/s. That's what it usually takes me in RSS. (Though i do not use realism overhaul)

EDIT:

Good luck with that. I already see them willingly donating space and tonnage to some random forum members of a random game. lol

Well, there is this thing that was linked earlier, which is esseintialy NASA offering to launch some CubeSats, though i don't know about U2/U3 and beyond LEO stuff. http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/home/CubeSats_initiative.html#.U8MtevldUTo

Edited July 14, 2014 by Nicholander