KSP Community CubeSat

[Oafman]

Superb idea. I can't help with expertise, but I can contribute a little cash.

With this being a KSP community endeavour, I think the mission needs to be as kerbal as possible. So, a huge chance of dramatic failure, and possibly explosions....

[dharak1]

I suppose we would get a few pictures before landing anyway.

[mythic_fci]

Okay, so with the image posted a few pages back, we have a basic idea of what the cubesat should look like. I recommend putting sensors and fuel in the middle module with the computer in the front module. Also, why not mount the solar panels straight (not at a downwards angle) and on the middle module? We could therefore attach landing legs on the bottom module.

EDIT: If we go for Phobos landing without return, we could count the mission as a research mission and send some scientific data to NASA, therefore hopefully earning us a free ride!

Edited July 15, 2014 by FCISuperGuy

[dharak1]

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.

[mythic_fci]

I dunno... Maybe we could send up a 2u with just some fuel and a basic computer for engine and computer testing in LEO, then we could raise more for a 3u to Phobos.

[dharak1]

My thoughts exactly. It would let us test a few different ways of navigating space and how we would get our bearings. We could get a few pictures send some data and deorbit it or wait for it to decay and then we could start funding and planning for our next mission.

[mythic_fci]

Very true. We could prove pretty much all operational hardware (sans experiments and some nonessential sensors) in that flight, then put all of that proven hardware into a similar configuration on the Phobos flight.

EDIT: I've got names! Why not call the first one KommunitySat 1 and the second one KommunitySat 2 - Phobos?

Edited July 15, 2014 by FCISuperGuy

[dharak1]

I think we should name the second one that leaves the Earth-Moon system explorer or adventurer. Something that reflects its goal of leaving the SOI of Earth and doing a flyby of another body.

[RRG]

We could put a laser and sensor to analyze the surface of Phobos, especialy if we had enought TWR and dV to fly the CubeSat Around.

[dharak1]

I think the plan is to have a camera and possibly a FLIR camera on board. We can always use additional sensors to get different information though.

[Aghanim]

Is it possible to do a Phobos sample return-ish? Using BRFIT-3 and 2 kg propellant in a 10 kg cubesat, we could achieve 6.1 km/s delta V, allowing it to land ,grab a sample, and return it to Earth's orbit. I don't know if that is useful or not, or if it have enough TWR to even land

[dharak1]

I've never heard of a 10 kg cubesat. The largest I know of would be a 6U.

[mythic_fci]

Is it possible to do a Phobos sample return-ish? Using BRFIT-3 and 2 kg propellant in a 10 kg cubesat, we could achieve 6.1 km/s delta V, allowing it to land ,grab a sample, and return it to Earth's orbit. I don't know if that is useful or not, or if it have enough TWR to even land

I don't think so. Besides the engines, we'll need sensors to monitor the ship, at least 1 processing unit (if not 2, as I recommend to even the processing load), solar panels, landing legs and most likely scientific equipment.

- - - Updated - - -

I've never heard of a 10 kg cubesat. The largest I know of would be a 6U.

He probably meant that the cubesat weighs 10kg AFTER adding on all necessary equipment.

[dharak1]

How much deltaV would we have to do a Phobos mission on a 3U?

[mythic_fci]

Assuming that the ship will weigh about 20kg full and 15kg empty, and using the BRFIT-3's optimum ISP of 2500, the max D/V is about 7050m/s according to my calculations, well over enough for a Phobos insertion and even a return to Earth orbit.

[RRG]

But it wouldn't have enough TWR.

A BRIFT-7 has a 11mN of Thrust (BRIFT-3 has 1.6mN). With a TWR barely above 1 the Cubesat's mass would need to be less than 2kgs, wich would be impratical, unless we had a rocket to get it out of the ground.

[mythic_fci]

But it wouldn't have enough TWR.

A BRIFT-7 has a 11mN of Thrust (BRIFT-3 has 1.6mN). With a TWR barely above 1 the Cubesat's mass would need to be less than 2kgs, wich would be impratical, unless we had a rocket to get it out of the ground.

True, so... Orbiter, people?

[dharak1]

If we can get 7 km/s of delta v I think we should send something to the outer solar system like Jupiter or Saturn. A Mars orbiter would be pretty cool too. If we do two missions a moon flyby is a must.

[mythic_fci]

If we can get 7 km/s of delta v I think we should send something to the outer solar system like Jupiter or Saturn. A Mars orbiter would be pretty cool too. If we do two missions a moon flyby is a must.

As I said, it was an estimate and an estimate only. The delta-v, depending on conditions, can range anywhere from 4-7 km/s. And remember that in the outer solar system, we can't use the ion propulsion system.

[Nicholander]

So from what i see, with the BRFIT-3, the CubeSat will not have a large enough TWR? Really? Bumpers would work.

[mythic_fci]

Yeah. I lean to an orbiter though.

[Nicholander]

I still think we should do a lander, because we can do get more science and data about Phobos.

[dharak1]

I vote for orbiter and mapping the entire surface. If the craft is still functional after we map the surface we can land it.

[Nicholander]

But it wouldn't have enough TWR.

A BRIFT-7 has a 11mN of Thrust (BRIFT-3 has 1.6mN). With a TWR barely above 1 the Cubesat's mass would need to be less than 2kgs, wich would be impratical, unless we had a rocket to get it out of the ground.

Is that a TWR on Earth? because I really don't see that being possible on Phobos, I mean it has like 10% of GILLY's gravity!

[Nicholander]

I vote for orbiter and mapping the entire surface. If the craft is still functional after we map the surface we can land it.

I agree with that. Though I really want to land on Phobos directly, i guess there's nothing wrong with it orbiting and then landing.

EDIT: Also, FCISuperGuy, I think earlier you said that you were making the Phobos lander in KSP RSS, how's that going?

Edited July 15, 2014 by Nicholander