KSP Community CubeSat

[3_bit]

This is an awesome idea and all, (and forgive me for not reading all the posts of 125 pages)... but wouldn't getting solar energy from anywhere beyond the general area of Earth and Mars get really impractical? I imagine having the sat turn on every once in a while and charging for hours at a time would definitely be a viable option, but dust buildup is an issue, and batteries do hold less charge over time. If the community could come up with the money needed, we'd need to be sure the satellite could function for a reasonable amount of time.

I suggest something along the lines of an ultra-low power system, one that could run for days or even weeks on internal batteries. The lowest power AVR chips on the market (well, they aren't radiation-hardened) draw a negligible 1 uA at their lowest operational state. A Jupiter/Saturn mission could happen, but I would be concerned about solar energy collection efficiency.

The best part is there's undoubtedly enough KSP fans with a Yagi antenna, or access to something better, that we could hypothetically have 24/7 reception, provided no celestial bodies or terribly bad weather are in the way.

[Nicholander]

3_bit, we've decided to have our only interplanetary destination be Mars, and maybe Venus, but we've ditched the outer planets. Also, our CubeSat will be a 1U one with one half of it having the systems to run it (Antennas, MPUs, CPUs, etc.), and the other half having a pressurized area with some moss, and the whole spacecraft will also spin, creating artificial sub-gravity. (I say sub because it will be Moon and Mars gravities)

[astropapi1]

Also, our CubeSat will be a 1U one with one half of it having the systems to run it (Antennas, MPUs, CPUs, etc.), and the other half having a pressurized area with some moss, and the whole spacecraft will also spin, creating artificial sub-gravity. (I say sub because it will be Moon and Mars gravities)

This will only be the first one, just to clarify. For a Mars mission we'd need at least a 3U.

[Nicholander]

Sorry, that's what I meant to say. Derp.

[artwhaley]

I think the moss mission is really interesting, and if there's group consensus, I'll help anyway I can!

Whatever we go with, I strongly recommend we do a balloon launch of the electronic parts of the payload as a run-up to the full satellite launch. Even this little bit of time at low-pressure, low temperature, and higher radiation may expose flaws in the system... and $50 worth of balloon and hydrogen is a really small investment to diagnose some issues.

When doing some balloon-play a while back, the biggest challenges were temperature related - some parts couldn't handle how cold it was... and other parts that generated heat couldn't dissipate it because there was no air to transfer it.

A couple of other ideas I'd had as I read through the first few pages - I think demonstrating an orbital rendezvous and (maybe) docking would be a really fascinating mission that would interest backers. NASA is planning the CPOD mission, but both cubesats will be launched from the same vehicle - not nearly as interesting as rendezvous between two sats launched at different times. It would require more delta-v, first to boost the target vehicle to a longer-lived orbit and then to fly the rendezvous on the second vessel... and it would require more thoroughly solving the problems of dealing with vacuum, temperature, and radiation... but it's an exciting demonstration.

On a similar note... Inspecting one of the old soviet RORSAT cores both visually and with instruments could be very interesting, and, again. Before the RORSATS deorbitted they blasted their nuclear reactors into a parking orbit. (Well, they mostly did. A couple of them didn't... and wound up smashing substantial amounts of U-235 back into the Earth.) This parking orbit is expected to only be stable for a thousand years or so... so humanity WILL have to deal with these again some day. Collecting data about their current status could be very cool, useful, and it's a mission with obvious public appeal, which helps with fundraising.

[Nicholander]

I think the moss mission is really interesting, and if there's group consensus, I'll help anyway I can!

Whatever we go with, I strongly recommend we do a balloon launch of the electronic parts of the payload as a run-up to the full satellite launch. Even this little bit of time at low-pressure, low temperature, and higher radiation may expose flaws in the system... and $50 worth of balloon and hydrogen is a really small investment to diagnose some issues.

When doing some balloon-play a while back, the biggest challenges were temperature related - some parts couldn't handle how cold it was... and other parts that generated heat couldn't dissipate it because there was no air to transfer it.

A couple of other ideas I'd had as I read through the first few pages - I think demonstrating an orbital rendezvous and (maybe) docking would be a really fascinating mission that would interest backers. NASA is planning the CPOD mission, but both cubesats will be launched from the same vehicle - not nearly as interesting as rendezvous between two sats launched at different times. It would require more delta-v, first to boost the target vehicle to a longer-lived orbit and then to fly the rendezvous on the second vessel... and it would require more thoroughly solving the problems of dealing with vacuum, temperature, and radiation... but it's an exciting demonstration.

On a similar note... Inspecting one of the old soviet RORSAT cores both visually and with instruments could be very interesting, and, again. Before the RORSATS deorbitted they blasted their nuclear reactors into a parking orbit. (Well, they mostly did. A couple of them didn't... and wound up smashing substantial amounts of U-235 back into the Earth.) This parking orbit is expected to only be stable for a thousand years or so... so humanity WILL have to deal with these again some day. Collecting data about their current status could be very cool, useful, and it's a mission with obvious public appeal, which helps with fundraising.

For the balloon test, not a bad idea, and maybe we can hitch a ride on these other guys on the forum's project to make a high-atmosphere balloon with a 3D printed model of Jeb, Bill, and Bob.

For rendezvous and RORSAT? We discussed this earlier in the thread, and it's essentially impossible to cram all the fuel, RCS, and computers into even a 3U space.

[Skyler4856]

For the balloon test, not a bad idea, and maybe we can hitch a ride on these other guys on the forum's

Yeah, that's where all of the cool kids hang out.

[MGCJerry]

I've only read the first 14 pages of this thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned.

For communication to ground, we could use the same procedure as the NOAA Weather satellites used to use, and still have active. Data is sent as an analog audio signal, then is converted into an image using specialized software. These transmissions can be readily picked up by off the shelf components (such as VHF radios & radio scanners). As it stands now, you can receive satellite maps (visible & infrared) of the sky for dirt cheap. NOAA ATP. I was planning on doing this very thing for my weather station and there are plenty of plans, programs, hardware, etc for available for this.

As far as sending commands, I have no idea if it could work in reverse.

[KSat]

Hello from KSat again,

I found some time at my hands and would like to provide you with some Kerbal Models of your planned CubeSats.

Can somebody, who has the overview, provide me with details (the more the better) how the models should look like?

Hand drawn sketches might be enough. Some ideas about the textures on the sides of the cubesat would be good.

Here is an example of a real sounding rocket, that I did in a few days.

I am sure the first drafts I am going to provide will change over time, but it is very good for PR purposes to have videos of the idea. Changing texures later is pretty easy without knowledge of modding/creating KSP parts.

Cheers,

KSat

[megatiger78]

how about a thing to land on phobos? and pick up a rock\?

[megatiger78]

also could we launch of the jeb zeeplin? saves costs on rockets

[Aethon]

Umm. If all I wanted was to launch a Jeb figure high into the stratosphere, I'd do that in my own backyard. The required tech is easily and affordably available. The most expensive part would be the (everyone knows the name) camera which I already have. We're talking about orbital science here.

Nice video K-Sat. Looks a little MechJeby which, I suppose I(s) R(eal) L(ife). Good work!

[megatiger78]

Umm. If all I wanted was to launch a Jeb figure high into the stratosphere, I'd do that in my own backyard. The required tech is easily and affordably available. The most expensive part would be the (everyone knows the name) camera which I already have. We're talking about orbital science here.

Nice video K-Sat. Looks a little MechJeby which, I suppose I(s) R(eal) L(ife). Good work!

no we launch our satelite of the blimp to save fuel

[Dkmdlb]

There's not much fuel to be saved by doing that, it turns out. It's pretty much agreed by all that the hassle of a balloon launch system isn't worth the benefit.

[dharak1]

We won't be launching our cubesat we would pay a few thousand to get it on a flight going to LEO. Unless you mean test runs, in that case we wouldn't really need a rocket at all we would just let it drop.

[Nicholander]

KSat? Yeah, some sketches would be fine. And also, like I said, we should test our equipment on the "Jeb Zeppelin", and we just stick our equipment on and they handle the balloon stuff while we are busy doing our awesome CubeSat stuff.

[megatiger78]

KSat? Yeah, some sketches would be fine. And also, like I said, we should test our equipment on the "Jeb Zeppelin", and we just stick our equipment on and they handle the balloon stuff while we are busy doing our awesome CubeSat stuff.

I was thinking we stick it to the zepplin and drop it

[Majorjim!]

Hi all,

Although Cubesats are a fun idea they are going to contribute to the growing problem of orbital debris.

The reasons for launching them are not worth the trouble caused by thousands more tiny objects in earth

orbit.

I've read many articles about this issue here is one of them:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329882.500-cubesat-craze-could-create-space-debris-catastrophe.html

This is a very real problem and as a sensible group of people we should be smarter about littering in space.

It could seriously hinder future space exploration.

[megatiger78]

Hi all,

Although Cubesats are a fun idea they are going to contribute to the growing problem of orbital debris.

The reasons for launching them are not worth the trouble caused by thousands more tiny objects in earth

orbit.

I've read many articles about this issue here is one of them:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329882.500-cubesat-craze-could-create-space-debris-catastrophe.html

This is a very real problem and as a sensible group of people we should be smarter about littering in space.

It could seriously hinder future space exploration.

this is spam, the same thing happend on the jeb zepplin thread. obviously hes trying to start a conspiracy thoery about a coverup involving cubesats

[Majorjim!]

this is spam, the same thing happend on the jeb zepplin thread. obviously hes trying to start a conspiracy thoery about a coverup involving cubesats

Mate, this is not spam.

This is a real problem. Read the article, educate yourself.

Cubesats are a bad idea, pure and simple.

My intention is to spread the word of this issue.

Littering space with tiny high velocity objects for no good reason is both selfish

and foolish.

I have a valid point to make and it shouldn't be ignored.

Your response of 'this is spam' makes it evident you are not aware of the possible future

Problems cubesats will cause.

Please only reply if you have a valid counter to my point. Otherwise, your post is 'just spam'.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Majorjim

[KSat]

Mate, this is not spam.

This is a real problem. Read the article, educate yourself.

Cubesats are a bad idea, pure and simple.

My intention is to spread the word of this issue.

Littering space with tiny high velocity objects for no good reason is both selfish

and foolish.

I have a valid point to make and it shouldn't be ignored.

Your response of 'this is spam' makes it evident you are not aware of the possible future

Problems cubesats will cause.

Please only reply if you have a valid counter to my point. Otherwise, your post is 'just spam'.

Hello Majorjim,

The article you posted is somewhat exagerating the problem.

LEO vehicles will deorbit themselves after some time (weeks, months, for some of them years), due to drag of the residual atmosphere.

Stuff that is going to deorbit in "hundreds of years" is rare and there is more distance between objects in that orbit.

Furthermore the article loses credit for mentioning Gravity but not the Kessler syndrome.

Cheers,

KSat

[KSat]

KSat? Yeah, some sketches would be fine. And also, like I said, we should test our equipment on the "Jeb Zeppelin", and we just stick our equipment on and they handle the balloon stuff while we are busy doing our awesome CubeSat stuff.

Hello Nicholander,

I was more like requesting sketches of how it should look like. I then would do the CAD/Blender/Unity3D/Kerbal Stuff.

Or maybe I make a generic cubesat pack, with place holder textures for easy editing the graphics.

Cheers,

KSat

[Majorjim!]

Hello Majorjim,

The article you posted is somewhat exagerating the problem.

LEO vehicles will deorbit themselves after some time (weeks, months, for some of them years), due to drag of the residual atmosphere.

Stuff that is going to deorbit in "hundreds of years" is rare and there is more distance between objects in that orbit.

Furthermore the article loses credit for mentioning Gravity but not the Kessler syndrome.

Cheers,

KSat

Good idea, ignore the articles valid points because it missed something.

That is one of many articles and papers written about this problem.

Littering earths orbit for no good reason is foolish and shows a lack of foresight.

The same reason why we have such a problem with atmospheric pollution.

Human arrogance.

[shynung]

Every time the ISS passes through the night side of earth, it rotates its solar panels parallel to the ground. It does this to reduce atmospheric drag, saving propellant needed to keep it in orbit. Long-term satellites operating in LEO also have to deal with this drag, so most have propulsion systems to overcome it.

Unlike those, however, Cubesats typically have no propulsion systems, especially ones designed to do short-term experiments. They are designed to be slowed down and deorbited gradually by the drag they'd encounter, which takes somewhere between days to weeks. Because of that, there is currently little to no risk of collisions with orbital debris in LEO; most would have deorbited themselves over time.

[KSat]

Good idea, ignore the articles valid points because it missed something.

That is one of many articles and papers written about this problem.

Littering earths orbit for no good reason is foolish and shows a lack of foresight.

The same reason why we have such a problem with atmospheric pollution.

Human arrogance.

Hello Majorgim,

even though you sound like you are not willing to discuss, more like accusing people of being bad, I am going to further explain my point.

Yes there are surely many papers and articles about this topic, but if you want to discuss something specific you need to reference it.

The Kessler syndrome is a known problem, but that CubeSats are a major factor to this is in doubt. Even the article you referenced states:

"Still, other researchers say Lewis's findings may overestimate the problem. "There is always a choice of model inputs and the spin put on interpretation," says Sara Seager at MIT."

There is no clue if their simulation has considered orbital decay, if not then the article is nothing more than attention seeking.

You state that the orbit is littered for no good reason, but this is wrong.

Most, if not all, CubeSats are for science and most of them will deorbit in a relativ short amount of time. As previously stated, CubeSats with very long deorbit times are much further away and there is a lot more space before anything gehts crowded.

Please dont get me wrong. Orbit littering is a problem, but accusing CubeSats for it is, in my opinion, way over the top.

Cheers,

KSat