KSP Community CubeSat

[dharak1]

I like the idea of starting small and doing amateur rocket launches. Not really something I can do because I can't get permits.

[Sky_walker]

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.

There are still things like doppler effect that are difficult to test on a ground.

Yes, almost everything can be tested in a room, however testing with a rocket can give you lot of field experience instead of being an armchair smartass . It shows that you have determination and capability of developing a satellite-alike system that works beyond controlled, laboratory equipment.

That's really a worthwhile bargaining chip once it comes to collecting money for a real thing.

[Sylandro]

Can i make the plaque?

[R0cketC0der]

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.

You can test part of that stuff on ground, but by far not all of that. Does it have the required range? How well does it hold up against solar radiaton(though for this one you would probably use a high-altitude balloon of some sort instead of a suborbital amateur rocket, as this requires some longer time to test)? How well does the attitude control system(assuming that it would be fitted with one) work in in conditions similar to the real situation?

Just because something's working on the ground and the math works out, it doesn't mean that it would actually work.

[shynung]

There are still things like doppler effect that are difficult to test on a ground.

Yes, almost everything can be tested in a room, however testing with a rocket can give you lot of field experience instead of being an armchair smartass . It shows that you have determination and capability of developing a satellite-alike system that works beyond controlled, laboratory equipment.

If we use test rockets, we would get field experience in launch vehicles. We're starting to design a deep-space vehicle here, so I don't think much of what we get from a model rocket would be relevant.

And yes, some tests would probably need vacuum chambers or high-altitude balloons, but I just don't see why we should do a model-rocket testing.

Unless we make our own launch vehicle from scratch. But that's another story entirely, and one which is likely to be beyond our funds.

Edited July 15, 2014 by shynung

[Sky_walker]

You're not building a rocket there - all I suggested is buying one of a pre-build. So that you would not test a rocket, but rather it's payload.

Here: http://www.apogeerockets.com/rocket_kits/high_power_rockets

Edited July 15, 2014 by Sky_walker
added link

[Whirligig Girl]

You're not building or buying a rocket there - all I suggested is buying one of a pre-build. So that you would not test a rocket, but rather it's payload.

Agreed. Although high-powered amateur "sounding" rocket could test a Sat in near-vacuum free fall environment.

[Nicholander]

I really don't see the point in using sounding rockets, why not just high-altitude ballons?

[Sky_walker]

Agreed. Although high-powered amateur "sounding" rocket could test a Sat in near-vacuum free fall environment.

Yep, you could send it for a ballistic free fall. Though it's not easy and requires doing some very detailed maths - not like you wouldn't have to do it later on for different cases, so it might be a good starting point from a more scientific perspective.

I really don't see the point in using sounding rockets, why not just high-altitude ballons?

No Doppler effect. No G forces.

Advantage though is quite obvious - you can achieve higher altitudes what means more extreme conditions once you get there.

IMHO - either of these will work as a good starting point.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Sky_walker

[SciMan]

Agreed on the ridiculousness of asking for RTG prices.

If we were actually going to shoot for Jupiter or Saturn with a cubesat, we would likely have to use concentrator solar cells, Germanium-based solar cells, or both in order to get enough power to do anything useful. Any of those options would likely make the solar panels the most expensive part of the probe.

IMO mars orbit or the asteroid belt is the farthest we should realistically think about sending the probe, and even that's likely a long shot.

Also, since my idea gives us 80W to play with on the antenna, it would probably make a very good radio relay for sending data back from OTHER Mars probes, landers, rovers and stuff.

NASA's already been using the Mars Recon Orbiter as such a relay for quite a while now, and that only has a maximum of 7W transmit power.

Our little CubeSat would beat the MRO's transmit power by 11.43 times. I don't know if it would increase data transfer rates or bandwidth, but I'm sure that the TDRS satellites in Earth orbit would be sending a lot less re-transmit requests, which would speed up data transfer quite a bit, due to the light-speed delay involved.

Plus, having a dedicated data relay satellite in Mars orbit would mean that the probes in Mars orbit could focus on science instead of being re-purposed as communications satellites.

[shynung]

IMHO - either of these will work as a good starting point.

In that case, we might as well do a combined balloon-rocket test similar to the one NASA used to test the LDSD, just on a higher apoapsis.

[lajoswinkler]

I really don't see the point in using sounding rockets, why not just high-altitude ballons?

Why not both? The balloon will reach a bit more than 30 km.

Ky Michaelson's (http://www.the-rocketman.com) company has reached 116 km back in 2004. We don't need to go that high, this is just an idea. More than one amateur group is doing high launches.

The costs involved should be small because this all relies on vehicles other people make. You promote them, they help you.

BTW who will actually "do" anything?

Agreed on the ridiculousness of asking for RTG prices.

If we were actually going to shoot for Jupiter or Saturn with a cubesat

No, we will not shoot for Jupiter or Saturn. This is real world, not KSP.

The costs of such missions are so insane that only governments can do them. Forget about leaving Earth's orbit, it's ridiculous. I can't believe someone is actually thinking about this. Communication, energy, everything involved is insane.

Edited July 15, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[Nicholander]

K^2, I guess.

[Aethon]

Some thing to think about.

Also where will this all go down. Construction etc.

[Sky_walker]

Agreed on the ridiculousness of asking for RTG prices.

If we were actually going to shoot for Jupiter or Saturn with a cubesat, we would likely have to use concentrator solar cells, Germanium-based solar cells, or both in order to get enough power to do anything useful. Any of those options would likely make the solar panels the most expensive part of the probe.

IMO mars orbit or the asteroid belt is the farthest we should realistically think about sending the probe, and even that's likely a long shot.

Also, since my idea gives us 80W to play with on the antenna, it would probably make a very good radio relay for sending data back from OTHER Mars probes, landers, rovers and stuff.

NASA's already been using the Mars Recon Orbiter as such a relay for quite a while now, and that only has a maximum of 7W transmit power.

Our little CubeSat would beat the MRO's transmit power by 11.43 times. I don't know if it would increase data transfer rates or bandwidth, but I'm sure that the TDRS satellites in Earth orbit would be sending a lot less re-transmit requests, which would speed up data transfer quite a bit, due to the light-speed delay involved.

Plus, having a dedicated data relay satellite in Mars orbit would mean that the probes in Mars orbit could focus on science instead of being re-purposed as communications satellites.

Airmchair astronauts never cease to amaze me - now you want to build a data rely satellite for NASA in a cube sat? Orbiting another planet?

It's as ridiculous idea as a purchase of RTG. If not more. You could probably buy an RTG of some Russian smuggler, but Martian data rely satellite in a cube sat is a joke.

BTW: I love how you spiced it up with some numbers to look more serious

[Duxwing]

@K^2 I think you should create and head an organization to do whatever mission we choose because you seem capable and confident. I also humbly offer my limited abilities: lay ideas, clock cycles on my computers, and whatever help I can scrounge. SQUAD might help us launch a mission advertising them. Perhaps we should get some formal wear and pitch whatever idea we choose to people with money.

-Duxwing

[Nicholander]

I don't know since we're all over the world, i don't know. Maybe where K^2 lives or something.

[dharak1]

We would have to set up shop somewhere. Most likely in North America and probably the US.

[Aethon]

Or sky_walker one could say: That's interesting, but I'm not sure it will work. This is why.

[shynung]

Airmchair astronauts never cease to amaze me - now you want to build a data rely satellite for NASA in a cube sat? Orbiting another planet?

Prepare to be even more amazed. This is, after all, a community of armchair scientists that have played KSP.

And yeah, something like this should probably need a more formal organization.

[Sky_walker]

We would have to set up shop somewhere. Most likely in North America and probably the US.

US is definitely the best idea. They have a most open market for amateur rocketry and cube sats. It'll save you quite a bit of money, even if solely on a transpiration costs.

In Europe the best place is United Kingdom, at least in terms of products available on a market for non-professional clients.

Or sky_walker one could say: That's interesting, but I'm not sure it will work. This is why.

I could, but I won't. Cause I've got a rudeness certificate.

[Nicholander]

Yeah, probably in the US, and i don't think it does not matter what space agency we're getting a ride on.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Nicholander

[Creature]

I'm all for crazy ideas but there's a million things that should be worked out right from the start if you're serious about this and not just daydreaming. Like the already mentioned fact that someone needs to build the satellite, manage the ground station (possibly build one), test, test, test and then test some more that all the systems work, make the contract with the launcher, take responsibility for it, go to a meeting or two, manage the delivery of the satellite to the launch agency IN TIME, operate and manage the ground station after the launch, manage all the legal and paperwork and take personal responsibility for the not-so-little 100k+ dollars of money involved. Don't be offended is SQUAD isn't jumping on the chance to promote this project until someone actually steps up to handle all the organization involved. If something goes wrong and the 100k gets wasted or missing you can only imagine the bad PR for SQUAD.

I'm 100% confident that people on this forum have the ability to build some kind of CubeSat, it's the other stuff I'm more worried about.

[EpicRootHairCell]

I think there is sufficient body of knowledge in building cube sats that the high altitude test can be dropped. I support and immediate attempt at Phobos for 2 reasons, while i understand that having done a cube sat would give us credibility, people get bored of ideas very quickly so i don't think we could fund the Phobos attempt afterwards. And secondly it is unkerbal and from a PR point of view, i think that we need that kerbal image after all who does not like a small ambitious bunch who tries hard to do something nobody has ever done, know they have a high chance of failure but still try.

[Nicholander]

Speaking of Sqaud suport, do you think that Squad will show support for this ounce it becomes more organized and formal, and will they give some money in the KickStarter?