Big Hopes for Tiny Satellites

shelflife writes: "ST5, according to NASA, will usher in a new era of small, smart spacecraft. Why send a human into space when you can send a computer? And why send something almost as heavy as a UNIVAC if a laptop will do? Compact nanosatellites will have everything you'd want in a full-size, luxury satellite. They will have the attitudinal and navigational capabilities needed to maintain proper orbits, and they will be capable of complex, high-bandwidth communications functions."

Because Humans Explore

[thinmac]

Why send humans? Because there's more to life than just knowing new things. We're an expansive race, and for better or for worse (in my opinion for better) we need to grow. Robots, while they can give us a lot of information, are no substitute for actually being there and experiencing it for ourselves.

Another good thing about being small

[gusnz]

With the growing amount of space detritus, another good point in favour of smaller satellites is less statistical risk of a collision.

This would go both ways -- less risk of debris colliding with satellites, and less risk of a rogue satellite colliding with something else. The odds are minimal anyway, but it can't hurt that much.

Long on Advertising, Short on Meat

[Autonomous Crowhard]

While the article talked about beach balls, Univac, birthday cakes, Broncos, bowling balls, Coke cans, and Callista Flockhart.. It was completely devoid of any information we have not seen before.

It's called Brilliant Pebbles, guys. Sheesh!

OK, they mentioned funding is a consideration in the development.

A complete fluff piece.

Space Junk Threat?

[Jucius Maximus]

Would smaller satellites be more or less vulnerable to being hit by flecks of space junk [space.com] in comparison to their larger counterparts?

Larger satellites tend to be plagued by little dints and holes in their solar sails because of these flecks of paint and whatnot. Smaller satellites would be harder to hit (because there's less volume up there in the first place,) HOWEVER the greater density of the devices could make a single unfortunate hit rather catastrophic because it could knock a whole bunch of things out at once.

It's like of like an ultra-powerful shuttlecraft compared to a borg cube. Small centralisation versus big generalisation. Comments anyone?

More than simple logistical problems.

[Bowie J. Poag]

While it seems like a "cool" idea on the outside, it probably isn't. There are at least two problems I can think of, off the top of my head, as to why microsatellites would be a Bad Idea (tm) ...

First and foremost, tracking. Suppose your microsatellite fulfills its useful lifespan, and dies, like so many other satellites....Without any means to communicate, the object is too small (and its irregular orbit too unpredictable) to be reliably tracked from the ground. Your microsatellite now becomes a big danger to other spacecraft, and other satellites, as it joins the ranks of tens of thousands of other pieces of other untrackable space junk.

Secondly, suppose you to manage to get a microsatellite up into orbit. You're an amateur, of course, which means you arent really aware of the orbital paths of other satellites. It might just be a matter of time before your little science fair project interrupts communication to half a continent due to the radio noise it gives off from a poor design meant to maximize for space, and not function.

I think we'd be wise to leave space for the professionals and be content with ground-based communications like shortwave packet and slow-scan TV.

Cheers,

Re:Lots of advantages to being small

[Graymalkin]

What? I think you need to put your geometric scales back where you found them because I don't think you're using them correctly. Making smaller sats doesn't lower the launch cost of the rocket. A majority of the rocket exists just to get the rest of the rocket up to a point where the payload can be delivered. making the payload smaller just means you wasted alot more money getting it into orbit. Putting a bunch of small mini-payloads doesn't reduce the cost anymore because you need to include the mass and bulk of the delivery system for each mini-sat. Where the fuck do you come up with smaller sats not needing orbital maintainance equipment? All birds need attitude controls at the very least to point them the right way. The concept of disposable birds is ludicrous. Even if it costs ten bucks to build it costs thousands of dollars to get in the air. Nobody in their right mind would design a bird and send it up if they didn't plan on getting their money's worth out of it. And the dumb comment about building a transceiver bigger than VLA to manage mini-sats nearly made me piss myself. Increasing the size of the ground base tranceiver adds way too much to the cost of launching any sat. why should you have to pour the millions of dollars in maintainance of a VLA sized unit to talk to a sat that costs a fraction of a percent of the ground station?

Space - Patriotism

[ZaBu911]

I know a few of us have long dreamed of the stars. The riches beyond our grasp. Sure, we can find a few more facts with a computer, but we can never have the same satisfaction as we would have had if we sent a person.

I'd like to [mis?]quote a line from the movie Contact: "This is so beautiful...words cannot describe...they should have sent a poet."

Ponder that for a while. And no CmdrTaco, the poem-producing engine you wrote doesn't count!

Clear mouse

[Graymalkin]

Microsats would be cooler if there were cheaper ways of getting them into orbit. Even if you get the bird's weight down to as little as possible you still need a deployment module. Then you've got this thousands of pounds of rocket to get a little bird into orbit. Your launch cost will still be in the order of a thousand dollars a kilogram if not more (especially if your rocket is wasting all of its power getting a tiny 100kg bird into orbit). Nearly all of the work being done at Marshall SFC has to do with the reduction of cost with any and all ground launches including getting birds in the air for alot less than they currently cost. They changed their site around or I'd put some useful links from there like the magnetic linear accelerator. It looks like a fucking brochure now. Maybe if a couple of us donate ten bucks to them they'll put some useful information back there. One can only dream I suppose.