Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Hardware

Mini Satellites Could Revolutionize Space Industry 194

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the smaller-cheaper-space-junk dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Space Daily reports that University of Toronto researchers are working on a project that could replace conventional satellites with a miniature version no larger than a milk carton. From the article: "At only 3.5 kilograms, the Canadian Advanced Nanospace eXperiment 2 (CanX-2) will test small, low-power devices that could lay the groundwork for flying formations of small satellites that could eventually replace larger, more expensive satellites."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mini Satellites Could Revolutionize Space Industry More

Mini Satellites Could Revolutionize Space Industry

Comments Filter:

  • For some reason all that comes to mind (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @04:36AM (#13443889)
    Is John Carmack building this gigantic hydrogen-powered trebuchet and launching milk cartons full of electronics into space
     
    ... I think this is a sign I should be sleeping at 3:35 AM and not reading slashdot

  • Wow - miniature satallites (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @04:36AM (#13443890)
    To bad other electronics didn't follow suit. I predict that within 100 years computers and hand held electronics will be twice as powerful, 10000 times larger and so expensive that only the 5 richest kings of Europe will own one.

  • And now... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @04:38AM (#13443895)
    If only we had an elevator to lift all those milk cartons.

  • Thinking of the Muppets... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Biomechanical ( 829805 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @04:39AM (#13443897) Homepage

    "Clusters in Space-ace-ace-ace."

  • In what way is this new? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pipedings ( 839384 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @04:43AM (#13443907) Journal
    Sure, smaller satellites, smaller payload => cheaper.

    I fail to see why formations of smaller satellites should be a new development. If smaller types could accomplish the mission of bigger ones, the big ones wouldn't be up there (carrying large antennae, big lenses or whatever).
    • Another problem is that satellites are affected by numerous gravitational sources (e.g. moon, sun) and slowely wonder off course. For example, equatorial satellites require small adjustments every year. While their mass is very low - there didn't look to be a lot of room inside that box for some thrusters.

      • ...and slowely wonder off course.

        For some reason I found the idea of tiny dreamy satellites careening off into space very funny :)

        Your point is a good one, however. I wondered about that too. Maybe the idea is that these are so cheap to get into orbit that you can get away with fewer launches/year, so it doesn't matter if you lose them quicker? The article doesn't mention it at all.

        You also have the problem of attitude control, if any of the instruments depends on it.

        • I work in the satellite industry. Assuming quality design and manufacture, the primary determinants of a conventional satellite's life (I'm speaking of geosynchronous satellites here) are power and fuel. Non-geosynchronous satellites also have these considerations but have other considerations as well, such as their environment. Because these so-called "nanosatellites" are so small, it would appear that they would not be suitable to geo use since they have such limited space for batteries, solar arrays, and
    • Why, I remember when Canadian satellites used to be suitcase-sized! [astrobio.net] Soon they'll be cell phone sized. (Luckily, in space no one can hear your ring-tone. [transbuddha.com])
    • I fail to see why formations of smaller satellites should be a new development. If smaller types could accomplish the mission of bigger ones, the big ones wouldn't be up there (carrying large antennae, big lenses or whatever).

      At the bottom of the article this article [spacedaily.com] is linked, about ESA's SSETI Express, launching 1kg CubeSat picosatellites developed by European universities.

      The idea of using smaller and lighter satellites is hardly revolutionary, and resources are quite tight as it is: 71*60*60 cm max. fo
    • There are application that can be done with a series of small satellite. Like radar imagery. One who send the pulse the other to receive its echo. You replace meters long antena with small satellites. You can also have a global view of the world looking at several place at the same time. Cluster is a 4 pieces mission, with smaller and cheaper S/C you can extend this concept. What is more interesting is the technology that has to be developed. Small truster, small earthy/S/C link, ... Also to be cheap, suc
      • You point out a lot of interesting ideas here; I'd like to comment on the autonomy aspect. If, at some point, nano-satellites can actually form a reasonable in-space network, then the autonomy can exist at the constellation level. Assuming a sufficient number of satellites in a constellation to allow continuous mission control communications with the network, there could be a continuous stream of messages with various purposes beamed and relayed throughout the network. This, in combination with advanced gro
    • The reason that we don't have smaller satellites up there is because many of the miniaturized electronic components that are availble for use down here are not robust enough to survive the rigors of launch and space flight. We are just now starting to really experiment with micro, pico and nano sats as the first generations of mini-tech designed to survive launch and orbit are becoming available.

      The advantage of constellations of small satellites are numerous. Take weather observation for example. A single
    • This depends on the mission. If you want an earth observing satellite with good resolution like quickbird or Ikonos, the thing needs a certain focal length and aperature size that a microsat just can't provide. Likewise if you are beaming down TV signals, you need large power components that a milk carton can't handle.

      There are however space missions that can be done with a smaller satellite.

      microgravity research
      offensive space capabilities
      optical (laser) relays
      user your imagination.

      The real problem be

  • Hmmm smaller satallites (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Compaq_Hater ( 911468 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @04:45AM (#13443912)
    How is this going to work i wonder ?, what with all the junk already floating around out there since the late 60's and with the space station how are they going to keep other junk from junking their new baby satallites ?. just a a thought. CH

    • How is this going to work i wonder ?, what with all the junk already floating around out there since the late 60's and with the space station how are they going to keep other junk from junking their new baby satallites ?. just a a thought. CH

      I'm sure that if the satellites are there for a purpose, they will have a power supply and a means to transmit a signal. Hence, one can pick up the signals and find out where they are.

      These "baby satellites" are probably safer from space debris than the bigger ones

      • What about us ? I mean if you go up in a space shuttle (I mean like real human transport) or suborbital/orbital transport vehicles (I imagine this is not too far away either) then wouldn't it be easier to navigate among a few dozen larger satellites than among some hundred/thousand smaller ones ?

        • What about us ? I mean if you go up in a space shuttle (I mean like real human transport) or suborbital/orbital transport vehicles (I imagine this is not too far away either) then wouldn't it be easier to navigate among a few dozen larger satellites than among some hundred/thousand smaller ones ?

          I suppose the space agency in question would maintain constant tracking of all the satellites that can do damage and just send off flights when it's clear--I doubt spaceflight will become too common anytime soon

          • I suppose the space agency in question would maintain constant tracking of all the satellites that can do damage and just send off flights when it's clear--I doubt spaceflight will become too common anytime soon. Just look at how many shuttle launches we've had in the past few years.

            I think we're about to see a jump in human space activity with a host of space tourism companies getting into the act. Remember the Space Shuttle is effectively a cross between an experiment and a hobby for NASA. It's never b

  • Two Danish micro satellites. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Saggi ( 462624 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @04:51AM (#13443935) Homepage
    Denmark has all ready send two micro satellites. They measure only 10x10x10 cm!

    They were send up 30. June 2003, along with some commercial satellites and were created as student experiments from "Danmarks Tekniske Universitet" (DTU) and "Aalborg Universitet" (AAU). The goal was to see if you could bring them up there and communicate with them.

    You can read more about the two satellites here:

    http://dtusat.dtu.dk/ [dtusat.dtu.dk]
    http://www.cubesat.auc.dk/ [cubesat.auc.dk]

  • And space garbage collectors open their business.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pecisk ( 688001 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @04:57AM (#13443957)
    One of biggest problems about orbit that there is already too much garbage round around the globe. It is creating significant danger to any rocket with men going up there. So collecting of this garbage sure will be next big enterprise after opening civilian space flight.
    • The problem with garbage is that unless it's big enough to show up on radar you don't know where it is. The handy thing about satellites is that firstly you've launched them into an orbit that's planned not to interfere with other orbits, and secondly you know where they are.

    • Re:And space garbage collectors open their busines (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It is creating significant danger to any rocket with men

      Then send women.

      Would it have killed you to say "people"?
    • Sorry, but I don't see how that could be at all profitable.

      I mean, who would pay for such a service? Suppose the US did. Then the rest of the world gets a nice clean LEO without contributing a dime, freeloading off of their effort. If you tried to set up some international payment agreement, you'd get all sorts of bickering similar to the Kyoto agreements: why should third world nations pay, why should nations with developing space industries pay the same as behemoths like NASA, etc.

      The problem with chargin
      • I mean, who would pay for such a service? Suppose the US did. Then the rest of the world gets a nice clean LEO without contributing a dime, freeloading off of their effort. If you tried to set up some international payment agreement, you'd get all sorts of bickering similar to the Kyoto agreements: why should third world nations pay, why should nations with developing space industries pay the same as behemoths like NASA, etc.

        Obviously the countries that caused the space garbage problem should pay the cleani
      • I mean, who would pay for such a service?

        2.5 thousand years ago, you might have said the same for urban-garbage collection:

        I mean, who will pay ? Suppose the governing clan did ? Then the rest of the clans get a nice clean polis without contributing a single loaf of bread ?

        I'm not trying to mock you, just give a reasonable counter-example by analogy: by which I mean that under a certain population density, there was no need for garbage-collectors. Once the technical capabilities and common need arose, s
    • So collecting of this garbage sure will be next big enterprise after opening civilian space flight.

      Please have your satellites parked on the low earth orbit curb on Thursdays.

      Seriously, if these can maneuver it would seem like there would be some type of de-oribt protocol for these little guys at EOM. Otherwise, yeah, one of them is going to come through the space shuttle window.

    • Each mini-satellite should come standard with a de-orbiting mechanism, like a small gas cannister or an azide pellet. When the lifespan is up, de-orbit the satellite to avoid adding to the space junk problem.
      • Cool idea for deorbiting stuff in LEO that I saw was to just inflate a balloon. Fairly low mass and foolproof and greatly increases the speed that it drops out of orbit.
    • Do we really need more LEO space junk? The future of manned space flight is doomed if mini-/micro-/nano- satellites become popular. Of course, that could justify a primary mission for the space elevator -- that of a "pool skimmer" to extract space junk. Imagine a beowolf cluster of space elevator "pool skimmers".

      Since LEO space junk is travelling at 1800 miles per hour (or better), the "skimmers" will need to be made of depleted uranium armour plating. The impact with space junk would vaporize a good bi

  • Nasa engineers during lunch just after a launch (Score:3, Funny)

    by jurt1235 ( 834677 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @05:04AM (#13443980) Homepage
    Hey, where is the milk!

  • escape velocity for microsatellites with ion drive (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zardo ( 829127 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @05:07AM (#13443990)
    I think somebody needs to develop an ion engine for micro-satellites, then universities may be able to afford rockets like the spacex falcon1 [spacex.com] which puts their satellite into low-earth orbit, where it uses the ion engine to build up its speed for escape velocity. Perhaps this is the next "killer app" for these private space enthusiasts. So far JPL is the only place to find a highly efficient ion engine. They just came up with a high efficiency, high-power design for project prometheus. Ion engine micro-satellite, watch for them.
    • I think somebody needs to develop an ion engine for micro-satellites

      The problem is that they require too much power. 100 kilowatt power supplies can not be built into 10cm^3 devices, so I don't think this is going to work.

      But imagine something like a big CD (or DVD). A thin reflective disk with a diameter of 2-3 metres. LCD shutters vary the albedo of parts of the surface so it can use light pressure to change orientation. It uses light pressure to navigate (slowly) through the solar system. You could sta

      • The problem is that they require too much power. 100 kilowatt power supplies can not be built into 10cm^3 devices, so I don't think this is going to work.

        There's absolutely no reason that you couldn't develope an ion drive that uses a few watts, for example. The thrust would be incredibly low even for ion drives, but you wouldn't need much for station keeping outside of LEO.

        But imagine something like a big CD (or DVD). A thin reflective disk with a diameter of 2-3 metres. LCD shutters vary the albedo o

  • Mars (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @05:09AM (#13443994) Journal
    It would be nice to be able so send a number of these system so that a small communication network can be set-up. Basically create a small commuication mesh. Each of the sats could have common capabilities (GPS sender, local comm antena, solar, batteries, etc), with each having a unique capability (camera, surface to sat. comm, etc). No doubt somebody will point out that these do not have enough energy (or space) to run a real science device. Yet, the ability to have redundant uplink/downlink comm, a GPS, and eve multiple cameras would be useful to future missions. If one mission to mars could put 100 of these in orbit, then it could be used by other missions.
    • I am under the impression that the two largest costs of satellites are the initial development and getting them to LEO. Anything beyond that is a lot less. So it seems to me that a fleet of indentical medium sized satellites orbiting Mars would be a very, very cool thing

      • Re:Mars (Score:3, Interesting)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 )
        Skip the medium size. These are micros. they fit in your hand. One complication with all this, is that:
        1. Need a craft to contain them until mars, and them realease them. That is dead weight, but it should be able to be minimized.
        2. These systems will have waste. The total weight in batteries ad cells is somewhat high. But that is the price of redudancies.

        Interestingly eough, we could send these to the moon first and use these to set up the mesh network for working on the back side of the moon. In addition,

  • Satellite arrays (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FirienFirien ( 857374 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @05:27AM (#13444056) Homepage
    The arrays mentioned here are a nifty piece of lateral thinking. Compare them to the giant detector arrays on earth; if you have two detectors a large distance apart, you effectively increase the aperture size to that large.

    There's similar projects widely spread around the globe; by combining information from a wide array of detectors, you can eliminate significant swathes of atmospheric noise, and since you know which direction the arrays are pointing in, you can correct for depth errors electronically (ie if one detector is 90 round the earth from another, any signal that comes from that sector of sky will reach the two detectors at slightly different times (unless they happen to be at 45 either side of the signal) and the two signals can be shifted correspondingly to align the actual signal, whether it be emission from a star or the next wow signal.)

    On the other hand, a satellite array would probably be non-directional - can't figure off the top of my head how a signal would currently directed from a satellite, since they'd be serving multiple devices at once.... hmm. Seems like with an array you'd have better scope for having a bigger aperture; though you'd get more chance for errors if the signal was coming from a direction further away from the vertical. Comments?
    • Ooh, unless you gave it depth. Depth would allow you to work out the direction of the wave, which would allow you to work out how much to shift it by. There's a bit of a paradox here in that you need to know the direction of a signal to be able to correspond one bit to another, but presumably starting a communication with a standard byte/word for triangulation would make that easier.
    • A satellite array can be directional in the same way antenna arrays such as those used in RADAR are currently. They all transmit the same signal, but each delays the signal by an amount dependant on the geometry of the formation, causing the interference pattern to create directionality.

      I couldn't find a real good reference online, so this [nasa.gov] is all I can point to.

  • could you imagine... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Deitheres ( 98368 ) <brutalentropy@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @05:30AM (#13444067)
    a beowulf cluster of these?!

    Sorry, had to be said ;-)

    Seriously though... this would provide for something that is pretty lacking in current satellites: successful redundancy.

    If a satellite gets hit with debris or something, it's normally down for the count. You get a cluster of these mini satellites... all sharing the workload... if one gets hit, the rest just pick up the slack.

    Plus this could open up all sorts of possibilities for amateur space exploration...

  • Picosats (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Planetes ( 6649 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @05:35AM (#13444084)
    There are actually many satellite projects for stuff this small. The space industry in Florida holds an annual competition for college students to design picosats called Funsat [ucf.edu] that uses the Cubesat [calpoly.edu] format.

  • Mini satellites revolutionary? (Score:5, Funny)

    by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @06:13AM (#13444174)
    If Mini satellites could revolutionize the space industry, think what big ones could do!
  • Milk cartons are Satellites

  • A riddle (Score:3, Funny)

    by Chris Snook ( 872473 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @06:43AM (#13444257)
    Q. What do you call large numbers of objects no larger than a milk carton moving at orbital velocity?

    A. Shrapnel
  • http://www.sstl.co.uk/index.php?loc=47 [sstl.co.uk] Surrey satellites have been making micro-satellites and nano-satellites for a while. So what's new?
  • I'm just curious...

    Will there be an added difficulty in tracking these due to their small size? Obviously, there's some plan to communicate with them. But, over time, as their numbers grow, and their lifespan runs out, will NORAD (or some such agency) be able to keep track of these? Small as they may be, they'ed still be big enough to cause major damage if they collided with a shuttle, or other sattelite.

  • MOST: Canada's First micro satellite (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scattol ( 577179 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @07:21AM (#13444360)
    MOST (aka the Humble Space Telescope) is the space telescope Canada can affoard: a small one. MOST [astro.ubc.ca] was Canada's first space telescope and the first micro satellite I've heard of.

    We had a full size replica at a star party this summer and this thing is small considering what it does. Really impressive. Small means also very affoardable.

    I hear that there will be a competition for time on the MOST so maybe someone will be the first amateur to make use of a micro-satellite.
  • Just think how likely it is that:
    • Space technologists, knowing the throw-weight, cost, and $/pound of every every available booster..
    • Having access to all kinds of miniatureized technology....
    • Having access to custom-made integrated circuits, nimble-fingered assembly robots, a wide assortment of ultra-light alloys and composites....
    • .... still opt to make large, heavy, clunky satellites.

    I suspect they have been trying to make things lighter, smaller every since Vanguard lifted up that grapefruit.

  • ...with a miniature version no larger than a milk carton.

    Great!

    Err...

    Exactly just how big is a milk carton? Is this Canadian milk or American?

    (This is actually a serious question. A milk carton in Europe is only one liter sized, which is pretty danged small for a satellite!)
  • Wouldn't such an initiative contribute to the amount of space junk up there? With more, smaller satellites, there is more chance of failures on each individual one, and less incentive to build in quality to stop these becoming another space hazard. The satellites also become harder to track, making collisions more likely... Has a study been done of the safety implications, here?
  • NASA already has a couple nanosat programs that will fly in formation. They are sometimes refered to as constellation missions.

    ST-5
    http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/st5/ [nasa.gov]

    THEMIS
    http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/themis/flash.html [berkeley.edu]

    These are the two that I know off the top of my head.
  • Space Daily reports that University of Toronto researchers are working on a project that could replace conventional satellites with a miniature version no larger than a milk carton

    Silly hosers, everyone knows that Canadians get their milk from a bag not a carton, eh.
    • Silly hosers, everyone knows that Canadians get their milk from a bag not a carton, eh.

      Actually, we respect freedom of choice. My grocery store carries both bags AND cartons.

      Then again, we can't get our milk in jugs.

  • Unsupported assertion (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RoverDaddy ( 869116 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @08:28AM (#13444634) Homepage
    flying formations of small satellites that could eventually replace larger, more expensive satellites

    I hate reading text like this in the context of university research projects. Every prof. looking for grant money seems quite willing to say 'Our new Fremulator design will revolutionize the VeebleFetzer industry and replace more expensive Framistan devices used today.' Considering the amount of additional hardware needed by a flock of microsatellites (propulsion, orientation, power collection, communications), you'll need some huge gains in other areas to really make this cheaper than one big integrated satellite. TFA says nothing to support the idea that these small birds really have practical commercial applications.
    • ...practical commercial applications. How about instant photo's of disaster areas (like New Orleans), how about a sattelite comm? Kinda like the old Iridium idea. How about real time intelligence on your enemy? This idea is not new, I first read about it in one of Dale Brown's techno thriller books well over 10 years ago. He called them NIRTSats for Need It Right This Second. They could be launched off a fighter or B52, the were about the size of an air-to-air missile. When brings up the Pegasus sat-killer
  • IIRC the amount of debris and uncontrolled objects in LEO is already a bit of an issue.

    Currently, if your multimilliondollar satellite dies, it's another piece of space junk.

    One of these systems dies, it's 100+ pieces of space junk.

    While I can see the value in the redundancy and survivability of such a system, the impact on the future LEO environment and, for that matter, ground based astronomy is probably not zero...

  • Interspace Highways... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by St. Arbirix ( 218306 ) <matthew...townsend@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @09:07AM (#13444841) Homepage Journal
    The windshields of the future will have to be able to deflect these things like the gnats they'll become. Can you imagine how fun it would be navigate around this planet if it's surrounded by a fine dusting of millions and billions of these bugs?
  • People have been doing this for a long time. There are cluster launches of mini-satellites and specifications for engineering them.
  • Perhaps I could have my own, to beam my iTunes tracks where ever I happen to be!

  • Communications Satellites (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tony ( 765 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @10:24AM (#13445418) Journal
    Communications satellites are about one thing-- pushing as much data through with as little energy as possible. A *lot* of the mass of a satellite is in the power subsystem, and a lot of that won't scale down as well as it scales up.

    Then there's the communications issue itself. If you have an array of satellites serving one area, you stand a greater chance of require *two* earth-satellite-earth hops, once through the satellite serving the source, and one for the destination. If you have a single satellite, you can reduce that to one hop (assuming the communications system is capable of point-to-point communications, and is not stuck with point-to-gateway communications).

    I don't see pico sats affecting the communications industry right now-- perhaps in a couple of decades, but maybe not. Considering Shin satellite just launched [atimes.com] the largest (most massive, with the most bandwidth) satellite ever, there still seems to be life left in the big boys.

  • There are a number of practical issues with teeny tiny satellites, but one of the biggies is power.

    Realistically, the only power source for more than a few weeks is solar cells. Small satellites have small surface area, and so have a very imited power generation capability. Sunlight gives you about 1 kW per square meter in Earth orbit, but the very best solar cells are less than 25% efficient. Hence the problem.

    ...laura

    • Actually, the best commercially available space-ready solar cells operate at around 28% efficiency these days. Rumor has it that there are 30-35% efficient cells in the lab right now. Of course, none of that invalidates your basic point...
  • Isn't going to be awfully hard to see the pictures of lost kids from that far away?
  • The author Paul Glister's blog @ Centauri Dreams [centauri-dreams.org] keeps tabs on new propulsion technologies ++ space geek topics in general.

    One technology, Mini-Magnetospheric Plasma Propulsion (M2P2) [washington.edu] comes complete with a 7 meg flying coffee can [washington.edu] flash demo.

    Glister's book, Centauri Dreams, gives me some hope that science and discovery will drive NASA again.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close