KSP Community CubeSat

[Nicholander]

Well, how are you at engineering? (I SUPPOSE that doesn't involve constant Uber equations)

Edited August 21, 2014 by Nicholander

[Aethon]

NASA's Space Biology Program will fund 26 proposals to investigate how microbes, cells, plants and animals respond to changes in gravity. The research will be conducted aboard the International Space Station.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-selects-26-space-biology-research-proposals/index.html#.U_bJ9vldUTo

Edited August 22, 2014 by Aethon

[hawkinator]

I am less worried about the software improperly triggering it because of software faults. It is more the thought that a randomly flipped bit (cosmic ray, etc) could make the software THINK that the "should I vent?" system has declared "Go!". There is some data to suggest that this has been observed in computers on cars (deep inside atmo) causing things like uncontrolled accel/braking.

Possibly what we could do though which would likely fix this problem and might help with another. We could have a sort of atmosphere "airlock". This could be useful if we go with stored CO2 or something, because we could vent a little bit of pressure in controlled bursts(open outter valve, close outter valve, open inner, close inner, repeat) then 'refill' from the CO2. It would cause a higher percentage of CO2 to exist without permanently (to a degree anyway) changing the pressure of the bio-container.

For what its worth, if we did this and planned for it, we could possibly set these releases to happen in an attempt to help boost our orbit a little.

Vacuum rated seals are probably a little pricey for seals, but I wouldn't expect them to break the bank honestly.

Software side you can harden things by having redundant variables in the code, like 5 bits (or more,but a always an odd number) instead of 1. The software could then make sure all the bits were the same, and, if one or two are different change them to match the others (majority rules) that way you need three randomly flipped bits to cause a problem. Check the bits every so often (fairly frequently), and it's nearly impossible to break, since three bits would have to randomly flip at the same time, which is absurdly improbable.

[WH40krules]

NASA's Space Biology Program will fund 26 proposals to investigate how microbes, cells, plants and animals respond to changes in gravity. The research will be conducted aboard the International Space Station.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-selects-26-space-biology-research-proposals/index.html#.U_bJ9vldUTo

The article only mentions researching microbes, cells, plants, and animals respond to changes of gravity on the ISS. As far as I know, the ISS doesn't have a centrifuge, and can only test in micro-gravity. We, using a centrifuge on our cubesat, can test in other g's. Maybe we could even contact NASA about this, since they gave about 12 million for grants to the researchers.

[Nicholander]

12 million? 12 million US dollars? If we get that (That's a pretty big If...), imagine the spacecraft we could make! It would be a 6U! Maybe there could even be 2 2U long centrifuges! (If we get that 12 million, that is, and that's VERY UNLIKELY)

[Kryten]

He mentioned 12 million as the whole pot, not a handout. And 12 million will support a lot more than 6U; you could outright buy a launch on a ~ 1 ton capability vehicle for that much.

[ZodiaK]

In order to fund it, squad could release a paid dlc that adds cubesat parts and a special flag or something...

[Nicholander]

Kryten: I know why he said it, and I said in the post that it is essentially impossible to get the dream deal.

ZodiaK: DLC is evil crap that EA does. So no, NEVER. They should, however add some CubeSat parts in 0.25.

[LvL]

with 12 mil, the Phobos mission with a 2 or 3U isn't that far off!

[LvL]

oh, and BTW, we already have a cubesat part in KSP. The cubic satellite part

[K^2]

Quick update. I've worked out the EoM for the constants, but I definitely have a math error somewhere along the way. Mathematica version of 2D simulation runs and produces fine orbital motion when no forces are applied, but not all of the constants are correctly updated with a perturbation force. I'm pretty sure energy and angular momentum are correct, but argument of periapsis and time of periapsis passage seem suspect. On the plus side, I have a Hamiltonian dynamics simulation running along side, which I can use to test all of the values. So I should be able to work out all the bugs soon.

Then I'll need to move it over to 3D. (That introduces ascending node and L_z.) And then move it all to C++ code and write good integrators for the EoMs.

At any rate, getting there.

Edit: Poked around at it a bit more. It's starting to look like the errors might actually be purely numerical. I'll have to switch over to C++ sooner than I thought.

Edited August 24, 2014 by K^2

[Nicholander]

with 12 mil, the Phobos mission with a 2 or 3U isn't that far off!

Well, we still have to put a plant thing there somehow.

[Rakaydos]

Well, we still have to put a plant thing there somehow.

I maintain that the technical problems inherent with getting a lunar flyby into a rosetta slingshot are enough to make success it's own engineering reward. Nailing a Mars aerocapture and a Phobos L1 drop is more icing, but will probably take additional launches, watever funding we get.

[LvL]

Well, we still have to put a plant thing there somehow.

maybe we could have 1 cubesat orbiting phobos with the plant in it, and another landing on phobos.

[LvL]

The Phobos dream has become a possibility!

[Nicholander]

But remember, what do you think are the chances of us getting it? Next to none, it'd be absolutely perfect IF we got it, but that's a pretty big if. Anyway, I don't think NASA would want to give 12 million dollars to some very enthusiastic KSP players who want to land a CubeSat on Phobos, and will glue some plants to it just to get the money to do it.

(Just because I said "Some very enthusiast KSP players" does not mean I think this project is impossible. I still believe in this project and support it as much as I can)

[Tech Support]

Gentlemen, I must say that this one of the most exciting plans I have seen in a forum ! I really hope we can send a CubeSat ( hopefully Green and with Jeb's pic ) into space. one the biggest hurdle seems to the cost of launching it ( assuming we don't get a free ride ) could we try launchers other than NASA ? perhaps the Indians or the Chinese ? the launch rates are far cheaper and the they good track records.

[Nicholander]

China or India? Well, there is Japan's H-II Transfer Vehicle, and the Dragon (Does that count as US?), and both of those are for it being launched on the ISS's "CubeSat gun". Also, could you give us the links to the prices for India and China?

[Kryten]

For China you want to contact China Great Wall Industry Corporation and for India Antrix Corporation. I don't think either have public prices, and for China you'd have to avoid anything ITAR-sensitive. Both provide cubesat launches through ISIS launch services, and probably others.

[Nicholander]

Well, Tech Support, where did you see that China's and India's prices are cheaper? Cause until then, I'll still be convinced that NASA, ESA, or JAXA are better.

[Kryten]

Rocket launches are cheaper for the same reason most thing from those countries are, better/intact industrial infrastructure and lower wages. Cubesat slots are likely to be of similar prices, because they're being handed out by the same providers.

[Nicholander]

Oh, but I'm still waiting for Tech Support to respond.

[Kryten]

The only people that can give you a real figure are the people at Antrix/CGWIC. The numbers are right there.

[Nicholander]

Uh, well... I was looking on both websites, and I couldn't find the costs. Are we supposed to contact them?

[LvL]

wait, wait, wait. We don't know that we can't get a free ride from NASA yet. Don't go too far with it.