NASA Builds a Cheap Standardized Space Probe

TangAddict writes "Dr. Alan Weston, who previously invented bungee jumping, led a team of scientists at NASA Ames Research Center to build a $4 million spacecraft in less than two years. The Modular Common Spacecraft Bus is designed to accept payloads of up to 50kg. and can be used for a variety of missions including a rendezvous with asteroids, orbiting Earth or Mars, and landing on the moon. When NASA officials saw the first flight test, they offered Weston and his team $80 million to use their design for the LADEE mission, which will gather dust and atmosphere samples from the moon in 2011."

Re:Is it big enough for a dead Vulcan to fit in?

[Raul654]

If I only had mod points for you....

what took the so long?

[Dannkape]

Seriously, why didn't they start with this like 20 years ago? Basic platform with propulsion, power and communication, with a few slots for special equipment, like cameras, radars, sample collection, or whatever is needed for that probe?

Re:Finally using some common sense

[QuantumG]

Watch as this project never sees use.

Pork belly politics doesn't work this way.

Re:$4 million to make it work...

[Vectronic]

The Russians invented Space travel... with dogs... they were also the first in human orbit/flight...

NASA does have the first human to visit and return from another (tries to find the word)...the moon...

They do have an impressive roster though, the Saturn V, the Shuttle, etc... but most of their accomplishments can't really even be claimed as "American" (as in the 'United States Of') because most of their key employees were/are form other countries... they are kind of like Microsoft (or any other large company) in that way, we'll buy them so we can say its ours...

$4million$

[quenda]

> a $4 million dollar spacecraft

So what's a square dollar worth these days?

(this _is_ news for nerds)

Re:what took the so long?

[John Meacham]

We did start with this 20 years ago. We had 5 pioneers, a handful of rangers, a pair of voyagers and so forth. Every one of those was a learning experience getting us to the point we are today. We are now at a point that we are relatively confident enough in our abilities and have enough knowledge about what will and won't work to go forward with a generic platform. This _is_ the cumulation of 20 years of working on the problem of space exploration.

Re:what took the so long?

[DerekLyons]

Seriously, why didn't they start with this like 20 years ago? Basic platform with propulsion, power and communication, with a few slots for special equipment, like cameras, radars, sample collection, or whatever is needed for that probe?

They've started with it, and subsequently dropped it, multiple times. Mostly because this is one of those ideas that seems great on paper, but doesn't actually work out too well in real life.
 
Some probes need 3 axis stabilization, others can simply spin, yet others can use gravity gradient. Some probes need to dissipate a lot of heat from their instruments, others much less. One probe has a handful of instruments each the size of your PC desktop, another probe has a single instrument the size of a small car. Etc... Etc...
 
The number of possible permutations is simply too large to be accommodated by any single standard bus, or even a reasonable number of standardized buses. To get an idea of the scale of the problem - imagine trying to base every wheeled vehicle on the road from an 18-wheeler down to a motor scooter off of a single standard bus

Not such a great idea.

[Ancient_Hacker]

This idea of doing spacecraft on the cheap comes up every few years.

In general, it's poor economy.

You see you have the fixed cost of the rocket, launchpad, and launch team. Many tens of millions of dollars. Even if you drove the spacecraft cost down to zero, it won't affect the total very much.

Meanwhile all the cost is at risk if the spacecraft fails.

In general it's penny wise and pound foolish to economize on the spacecraft.

Re:what took the so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your launch cost is huge, then the (relatively) small cost of customising your craft to get a slight optimisation in usage is irrelevant.

It is only when launching a sattelite becomes more affordable that it starts to make sense and accept some compromises with a generic platform.

Re:what took the so long?

[Detritus]

They've tried, but it has never been popular with the people who build new satellites. They're not adverse to stealing good designs from existing satellites. The problem with "one size fits all" is that it's often a poor fit. They would rather tailor the satellite to the mission.

Re:$4 million to make it work...

[ArcherB]

The scientists in Russia was of course FORCED to work, and the scientists in USA were happy to do it!

I hope you misread his post because if you didn't, you intentionally distorted it. He said the formerly Nazi German Scientists were forced to work. There was a huge difference between a captured scientist from a defeated country and a native one, in the eyes of the Soviets.

And yes, many German scientists were seeking out American soldiers toward the end of WWII because they feared what the Russians would make them do.

Re:what took the so long?

[CraftyJack]

Because there was never enough volume (numerical) to justify a modular approach. Modularity carries a weight penalty in the form of interfaces, unused slots, underutilized features, etc. A modular platform will generally be heavier and bulkier than a custom-built system. That can be unattractive when you're dealing with the mass, volume, and cost constraints of a launch vehicle.