KSP Community CubeSat

[EpicRootHairCell]

i love the kerbal nature of Pulse propuslsion and think it certainly would get people interested, however the launch career would never allow us to launch it

[Aghanim]

Can HD webcam survive in space? If it's possible to do it, maybe we can livestream HD video from the cubesat and beam it down to the ground station by laser. With that amount of bandwidth available, probably we can make a gigapixel panorama by letting the cubesat moving around the Earth move the camera, and upload that to Gigapan

[K^2]

EDIT: And I just got an EXTREMELY Kerbal idea, trying to do PROJECT ORION. (Much smaller, and non-nuclear bombs, and it's expensive, probably illegal, impossible for Launch Vehicle providers to even consider launching it, and the CubeSat would probably not be able to handle the explosions, and.... But still.)

One of the advantages of living in the United States is that explosives aren't illegal. Large quantities are a huge hassle, but what we'd need for something like this is entirely within reason. We'd have to convince whoever carrying it that it's safe to launch, of course. I can think of a few ways of making it as safe as any combustible, including monoprop.

That said, just exploding stuff isn't efficient. It does give me an idea, though. I happen to know some people who used to work in explosions/combustion lab in Russia. That lab does have a project which I can only describe as an SRB that goes boom on purpose. I don't know if they ever worked out how to make it scale to an actual SRB size, but they have done small scale prototypes. I have zero idea of how to organize transportation even if we could convince these people to try it, but I'll write some e-mails. Maybe it can be replicated in the States. I don't know anyone certified to work with high explosives, though.

This is definitely one of these far-side ideas, though. I just want to give it a benefit of the doubt until I have all of the info.

Can HD webcam survive in space? If it's possible to do it, maybe we can livestream HD video

I don't know how long it will survive, but if we can't get a budget for a good space-rated camera, that's essentially what I would have gone with. But only for photos, I'm afraid. There are all sorts of challenges with streaming video. Mostly, I'm worried about power drain.

Edited July 16, 2014 by K^2

[R0cketC0der]

Can HD webcam survive in space?

NASA definitely used commercially available cameras on their HDEV experiment on board the ISS(it's an experiment that's supposed to figure out what type of cameras are best for space applications). I couldn't find any information on what cameras they used or how much similar cameras would cost, but I think NASA might give us some information if we asked them.

[Nicholander]

One of the advantages of living in the United States is that explosives aren't illegal. Large quantities are a huge hassle, but what we'd need for something like this is entirely within reason. We'd have to convince whoever carrying it that it's safe to launch, of course. I can think of a few ways of making it as safe as any combustible, including monoprop.

That said, just exploding stuff isn't efficient. It does give me an idea, though. I happen to know some people who used to work in explosions/combustion lab in Russia. That lab does have a project which I can only describe as an SRB that goes boom on purpose. I don't know if they ever worked out how to make it scale to an actual SRB size, but they have done small scale prototypes. I have zero idea of how to organize transportation even if we could convince these people to try it, but I'll write some e-mails. Maybe it can be replicated in the States. I don't know anyone certified to work with high explosives, though.

This is definitely one of these far-side ideas, though. I just want to give it a benefit of the doubt until I have all of the info.

So you're considering my crazy idea? Wow. Just Wow. It may be possible, and if we can do it, it will certainly be VERY Kerbal. Though I really doubt that LV carriers will let us put bomb-propelled spacecraft on there rockets. And It'll probably be much more expensive then conventional propellants. (You can prove my doubts wrong)

Edited July 16, 2014 by Nicholander

[PlonioFludrasco]

I missed why not a debris deorbit demo.

Obviously not catching a real debris, but something like decouple target-move a few meters away-come back and catch it with something that can be scaled up.

[Error404brain]

We could maybe use the earth magnetosphere for to propulse ?

We charge a small part positevely, and let it go, then negatively around the poles with another,..

What real life don't work like that ?

Or build an inflatable module ? (some reactions to make the gaz, then plants/reprocessing transform it into a breathable athmosphère CO2 has a low energy I tough so could be feasible).

Or solar sail

[Nicholander]

PlonioFludrasco, with the budget we'll be be able to get, we're not going to be able to get the technology that can rendezvous with the debris, and if we're going to separate a bit to rendezvous with, we'll have to get 100-300 Km away from it and the rendezvous with it to show that it's possible to rendezvous with debris. And with what we can get, we can only 10-20 Km close to it. Though I wish we could do a debris de-orbit tech demo.

[K^2]

We could maybe use the earth magnetosphere for to propulse ?

Considered already. I go through the math on previous page, actually. In short, would work for larger satellite, but not enough force to overcome drag on a cubesat.

I missed why not a debris deorbit demo.

Obviously not catching a real debris, but something like decouple target-move a few meters away-come back and catch it with something that can be scaled up.

It might be possible to do a separation and rendezvous over a few meters. But would anyone actually find it interesting? The biggest problem is that there is no way in hell are we going to be able to actually find something up there, and even if we jettison something on purpose, once we separate by a few hundred meters, the physics of it becomes very messy. Accelerated frames of reference, etc. Well, if you've done docking in KSP, you have some idea. Now picture doing that remotely, with no decent range/velocity readings, and certainly without a map view. And that's just the logistics part of the problem. Actual propulsion/attitude control are going to be challenging as well.

[Nicholander]

So, K^2, how much delta-v does a pulse propulsion system have, for our CubeSat?

[PlonioFludrasco]

Ok, I got it. What about focusing on the catching method itself instead of rendez-vous? I mean, you separate a target and move away a bit, something like 5 meters or less. Then use a method that doesn't require to dock to the debris, like the fishing net concept, but only to point the cubesat in the right direction, without the need of a great accuracy.

Alternatively, you can set an experiment to study the behaviour of a tethered mass during a burn, simulating an already catched debris.

Edited July 16, 2014 by PlonioFludrasco

[Nicholander]

I see, but how would a "clamp" system work, with uses little "clamps", to attach itself to the craft. (Hopefully you understand that.)

[mythic_fci]

I see, but how would a "clamp" system work, with uses little "clamps", to attach itself to the craft. (Hopefully you understand that.)

You mean something like the KSP ARM update's claw, with a reciever on the other end? Sure, it'd be like a non-crew-transferable docking port.

On a side-related note, I'm calling off the KSP RSS Phobos lander attempt due to RAM concerns. 0.24 64bit, you sure are welcome.

[Whirligig Girl]

You mean something like the KSP ARM update's claw, with a reciever on the other end? Sure, it'd be like a non-crew-transferable docking port.

On a side-related note, I'm calling off the KSP RSS Phobos lander attempt due to RAM concerns. 0.24 64bit, you sure are welcome.

64 bit is the same (yes, identical!) in 0.24 as the community hack, so just go ahead and use that.

[Nicholander]

You mean something like the KSP ARM update's claw, with a reciever on the other end? Sure, it'd be like a non-crew-transferable docking port.

On a side-related note, I'm calling off the KSP RSS Phobos lander attempt due to RAM concerns. 0.24 64bit, you sure are welcome.

Well, there would not be a reciver on the other end, because as that is a debris de-orbit tech, actual debris would not have receivers, so we should demonstrate that you can do it with out receivers.

[lajoswinkler]

Budget

Balloon - $28

Kerbal Figurine - $15

Two shipping fees - $12

Misc. - $5

Total - $60

I say we do it!

-Duxwing

You need a camera and a GPS tracker to retrieve the payload once it bursts in stratosphere and falls down who knows where. The capsule must endure conditions like -70 °C, which isn't a big deal as it sounds, but you want your camera window without fog and still not freeze. You need hydrogen or helium and gas money for the car.

I'm actually planning to do it this summer or maybe autumn. Still planning, though.

Yes, it would be the proper way to start the imagination and boost the public image, but as you see, people around here are more concerned over ion engines and landing on Phobos.

Now imagine this with Jeb instead.

[Sky_walker]

it will certainly be VERY Kerbal

If you want to be very kerbal - make a rubber tube, put a firework inside, and fire it up in a sky.

That will be a very kerbal thing to do.

What you're talking about is a very nonsense thing to do.

I don't know how long it will survive, but if we can't get a budget for a good space-rated camera, that's essentially what I would have gone with. But only for photos, I'm afraid. There are all sorts of challenges with streaming video. Mostly, I'm worried about power drain.

Nope.

The biggest challenge is in establishing stable connection.

And even then - you have very short windows to stream data (how short - depends on an orbit and equipment used, but it might be anything between hours and a minutes in one go).

Live streaming is a joke. You might just as well go with Mars orbiter. It has exactly the same chance of achieving mission objectives.

For a live streaming you'd need an infrastructure along an entire orbital path of the satellite. Infrastructure that's synchronized and can exchange data with itself and the satellite. Simply put: it's nothing within your reach. Even national space agencies got a problem with that and often rent infrastructure from NASA or ESA. Then there's a problem with transmission rates, and other things like that. Most of the cube sats communicate with their ground station using... well: basically an equivalent of a morse code. And you're thinking about not only transferring images, but also a video... in a live stream. Come on K^2, you can do better than that.

I missed why not a debris deorbit demo.

Obviously not catching a real debris, but something like decouple target-move a few meters away-come back and catch it with something that can be scaled up.

You most likely can't achieve the level of precision required.

If your satellite has any detachable parts - it has a very low chance of surviving through the tests before launch.

And finally - there's just too many things that can fail.

If you want to test deorbit - do something more reasonable, like deployable tether. Though I very much doubt you'd be able to achieve even that.

It might be possible to do a separation and rendezvous over a few meters. But would anyone actually find it interesting?

If you'd be able to grab it without a dedicated port and then make a controlled deorbit - it'd be amazingly interesting and one of the best achievements cube sats have ever done.

So, K^2, how much delta-v does a pulse propulsion system have, for our CubeSat?

Each time I see posts about delta-v I smile. You don't even know how to aim your spacecraft at the earth, and already think about delta-v and going somewhere. What a nonsense. Stop thinking about satellites in terms of KSP. Real life is nothing like KSP.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Error404brain]

Each time I see posts about delta-v I smile. You don't even know how to aim your spacecraft at the earth, and already think about delta-v and going somewhere. What a nonsense. Stop thinking about satellites in terms of KSP. Real life is nothing like KSP.

Space is big. Earth is small. Pointing the ship at one direction and go on. If u have enough delta-V u might arrive, uh somwhere.

More seriously, we can use the gps system, don't we ?

Or using the 1st orbit data and slow inducted, and using the transmissions energy for to correct any change. Then for to point, that's what our video is for

[Nicholander]

Like I said on the previous page, doing pulse propulsion will be next to impossible, I just though I might say it and see if I was wrong. Anyway, what do you guys think the CubeSat should do ounce in LEO?

[Error404brain]

Sails.

E-sail for example.

Not tested for what I know, and have the avantage that it can only propulse in a single way. The opposite of the sun.

[Aghanim]

@Sky_walker:

Does streaming for 1 minute and then stop doing that still counts as livestreaming? No one says that you need to do 24/7 livestream, yes? Again, the communication system is an issue. But probably laser comm will solve that. I say probably because it put a much more stricter limits on cubesat and ground station pointing accuracy, and the ability of both of them to track each other. Again, feasibility is a big issue, but even if the HD camera isn't there, the mass penalty of putting a laser diode and its driver in our cubesat isn't that much at all

@Error404brain:

Well, in LEO we have GPS. But that is still a problem, because pointing a radio, or in this case, a laser beam, the pointing system needs to be accurate enough so the tight beam could hit the receiver. Using radio, we can cheat and use omnidirectional antenna, but it spreads the radio wave everywhere, reducing the signal that will come to the receiver.

But, what Sky_walker probably meant, is that we used to imagine about this cubesat going to Phobos. Obviously, there will be no GPS signal outside Earth's SOI, so another navigation method needs to be implemented.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Aghanim

[R0cketC0der]

Sails.

E-sail for example.

Not tested for what I know, and have the avantage that it can only propulse in a single way. The opposite of the sun.

In LEO a solar sail would generate more drag than thrust. Also it's possible to use a solar sail to propulse in any way but towards the sun, you just need to have the angle set correctly.

[Error404brain]

In LEO a solar sail would generate more drag than thrust. Also it's possible to use a solar sail to propulse in any way but towards the sun, you just need to have the angle set correctly.

Didn't knew. Does the thrust got from it is linear to the angle ?

[VirtualCLD]

@Error404brain:

Well, in LEO we have GPS. But that is still a problem, because pointing a radio, or in this case, a laser beam, the pointing system needs to be accurate enough so the tight beam could hit the receiver. Using radio, we can cheat and use omnidirectional antenna, but it spreads the radio wave everywhere, reducing the signal that will come to the receiver.

But, what Sky_walker probably meant, is that we used to imagine about this cubesat going to Phobos. Obviously, there will be no GPS signal outside Earth's SOI, so another navigation method needs to be implemented.

GPS doesn't help too much with pointing, at least not with the kind of equipment you can fit on a cubesat. At work, the instrument of choice is a star tracker, but those are expensive and often custom designed. Plus, they don't work out too well if the sun is in your FOV.

[PakledHostage]

The biggest challenge is in establishing stable connection.

And even then - you have very short windows to stream data (how short - depends on an orbit and equipment used, but it might be anything between hours and a minutes in one go).

Live streaming is a joke.

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.