Spaceflight Formation Flying Test Bed Takes Off 64
coondoggie writes "Getting complicated systems onboard a single spacecraft to operate as one integrated unit can be hard enough, but some space agencies are trying to address the challenges of getting multiple spacecraft to fly in formation and operate together as one unit. Such challenges are exactly what a new European Space Agency lab in the Netherlands is set to address. The test bed addresses crucial operational factors for formation flying, including mission and vehicle management, guidance navigation, dealing with faults and communicating between satellites."
DARPA has been investigating this concept a while (Score:4, Informative)
It will be a critical ability. (Score:1, Insightful)
But I want to berate the author of TFA, because the issue is traveling in formation, not "flying". Spacecraft do not "fly". I'm not nitpicking; there is a pretty big difference. It's just plain intellectual laziness on his part.
Re:It will be a critical ability. (Score:4, Funny)
Man, you must just about have an anurism every time you read "space flight".
Bottom line,. people will use the term fly. get use to it.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's wrong, why should I just "get used to it"? What, you don't think setting things right is worthwhile?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not wrong. however;
Because we are talking about a common use of a common word being used in the commons. Not in scientific literature. It does no harm, and causes no confusion. It's not being used to 'teach the controversy' .
It's like spazzing over the term 'hacker'.
"What, you don't think setting things right is worthwhile?"
tsk, tsk. Seriously? you jump to a logical fallacy? I've read your posts, you're smarter then that.
In THIS case, if you don't 'get used to it' you will spend a lot of time frustrat
Re: (Score:2)
Do arrows fly?
Do stones?
I think most people agree that they do when they are thrown, even though they may have no propulsion and no aerodynamic lift.
How is this different to what spacecraft do?
It isn't. They are all examples of ballistic flight.
Re: (Score:1)
Spacecraft do not "fly". I'm not nitpicking; there is a pretty big difference. It's just plain intellectual laziness on his part.
No. This is a standard term. Please check before criticizing others if you don't know the field.
See e.g.
http://dst.jpl.nasa.gov/
Re:It will be a critical ability. (Score:4, Insightful)
Spacecraft do not "fly". I'm not nitpicking; there is a pretty big difference. It's just plain intellectual laziness on his part.
Nope, ignorance on yours. Spacecraft do indeed fly. Flying has nothing to do with wings or aerodynamic forces, it has to do with moving without touching the ground. There are certainly other terms for how spacecraft move -- which depend on the particular spacecraft and what they're doing -- but even pure ballistic flight (aka "orbit") is still flight.
Re: (Score:2)
what do you expect from a girl~
zing! or maybe BA-ZING~
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So when swimming under water, you're actually flying under water?
Especially Penguins fly under water.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially Penguins fly under water.
in theory. There's no mathematical proof that penguins exist..
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you believe that planes fly through the air, then what is different about water? Air and water are both fluids, they just have different densities. Think of a submarine -- it has control surfaces just like an airplane.
The term "flight" is widely used in the space industry, regardless of how appropriate the original meaning was at describing the motion of spacecraft and satellites (recall that early rockets didn't even make it to orbit, but still passed the edge of "space").
Aikon-
Re: (Score:2)
In a lot of respects..yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Water could be considered really, really soft ground, so not necessarily. But as another poster observed, what penguins do underwater is more like flying than anything else.
Flying under water? (Score:2)
Since I first learned to swim, I've always felt that moving around in a 3D environment under water is similar to flying.
Snorkeling on a reef is _very_ similar imho.
Terje
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, "spaceflight" is pretty much the standard term for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I will concede that in the dictionary I consulted, that use was indeed listed... in the 5th meaning of the word.
Doesn't matter whether it was the 5th, the 1st, or the 97th, it invalidated your statement that "Spacecraft to not 'fly'". If you're going to accuse somebody of intellectual laziness, you'd better have done your homework yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we want a term to describe orderly controlled non-surface relative motion through a rarefied medium, "flight" isn't bad, "fly" has the advantage of only being one syllable, and we already have the concepts of "powered" and "u
Re: (Score:2)
Poor intellectual judgement on his part? It's the accepted term. Just look at
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/home/index.html [nasa.gov], and the about 1,430,000 other results just at nasa.gov pages.
Re: (Score:2)
Flight is the process by which an object moves either through the air, or movement beyond earth's atmosphere (as in the case of spaceflight), by generating lift, propulsive thrust or aerostatically using buoyancy, or by simple ballistic movement.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
awkward headline (Score:2, Funny)
Liftoff! We have liftoff of Stainy One, ushering in America's new in-orbit dumping of unwanted mattresses. Next month will see the launch of Smelly Two.
I recommend you use control type A or B (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's incredibly complex, and will be needed for robotic swarms. Imagine trying to keep 1000 robots in formation with each other without have an unexpected event start to cascade thought the swarm and cause a formation collapse.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
why do they need to be in tight formation? a voltron style bot? well i guess something like each bot has a mirror, and they are making a huge telescope, but i fail to see how thats better than just using a rigid structure in the first place. bolt it together so it can be put together by 6 bots, and then taken back down the same way, and be hauled "up" in pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
What makes you think that?
Re: (Score:2)
Rigid structures are massive.
Many heavy and therefor very expensive pieces. Much, much, much cheaper to use ion engines, laser interferometers, and clever software to maintain relative position.
Re:formations (Score:5, Informative)
[Formations] arguably are not relevant in space...or at least i fail to see the relevance from any standpoint other than purely tactical. The only thing spacecraft require is an understanding of eachothers location, and an understanding of the location of objects around them. a significantly well developed computer program would certainly be capable of tracking this information
Disregarding the fairly major difficulty of accurately determining the location of objects around them (not to mention the nontrivial bit of understanding its own location), they also need to have an understanding of the velocity and acceleration as well. In space, moving in one direction doesn't mean what you think it means. If one accelerates in the direction of motion, it will take longer to orbit the Earth. If two satellites at the same altitude are traveling parallel to each other in the same direction, they will collide in 1/4th of an orbit. There's a reason that there was a spacecraft recently whose sole purpose was to demonstrate autonomous rendezvous.
If that still sounds simple, now add a dozen satellites, and realize you can't just make them fly in the same formation all the time. The fuel requirements for stationkeeping of the outermost satellites would be astronomical. You have to minimize course corrections if you want a reasonable mission lifetime. Or carry a great deal of fuel, which can easily defeat the purpose of using smaller spacecraft in the first place. On top of that, when you need to apply collision avoidance maneuvers, you have to make sure you don't put yourself onto a collision course with the other 10 satellites.
As for the purpose of formation flying (note we're talking about the cluster kind - the trailing formations are fairly straightforward):
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
words that conjure images (Score:2)
Spaceflight Formation Flying Test Bed... wait wasn't that a Pink Floyd album cover?
Re: (Score:2)
Prior Art from the 80s (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Space Invaders!
Re: (Score:2)
Gemini (Score:2)
And later unmanned Progress craft flying in formation, and docking with, the ISS.
Is it only me? (Score:1, Redundant)
re: Flying Test Bed Takes Off (Score:1)
Sorry couldn't be bothered to RTFS
Re: (Score:2)
Reminded me of the Flying Bedstead [wikipedia.org].
Nothing new (Score:2)
The article unfortunately contains almost no information, except for the fact that ESA wants to do formation flying and is developing some testbed. This is not news, since ESA has been studying missions involving satellites flying in close formation for more than 10 years: for example the Darwin mission [esa.int], which would have flown some telescopes at a few hundred meters to do optical aperture synthesis for detecting extra-solar planets (mission appears to be shelved right now) and XEUS [esa.int] which is a 'standard' 100
Re: (Score:2)
NASA has a number of Earth-observing satellites already in orbit that do formation flying as part of the so-called "A-Train". TFA mentions this, although it links to a PDF instead of HTML. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-train_(satellite_constellation) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Dumb as a Stone (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently I must be dumb as a rock as it would seem to me that several jets flying information have the same problem as satellites traveling together. Speed, position and collision avoidance seem to be old issues to me. I wonder if the government actually farmed out money to grow a solution? Am I a dummy or what goes here?
Re: (Score:2)
Jets flying in formation have their own organic computers that require offline maintanence roughly every 18 hours. Spacecraft don't have the luxury of landing to let their pilots off, or for hauling months of food, or the means to keep their pilots from going insane with the monotony. Not if they're going to be financially feasible anyway. Hence.. automated systems for maneuvering and analyzing sibling craft position, as well as getting physically discrete systems to interoperate as a single platform.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Alternative ways for manoeuvering than thrusters (Score:1)
Satellites in LEO still experience some drag from the outer layers of the atmosphere (this is why they decay if the orbit is not maintained by manoeuvres).
In theory, you can use that to adjust your orbit (e.g. by adjusting the attitude of the satellite so a larger surface points forward: or by temporarily increasing that forward facing surface, e.g. with adjustable or inflattable panels
so it is what space powers did for real .. (Score:2)
Flying vs Falling? (Score:2)
Since they are not using propulsion once they obtain an orbit, would it not be more realistic to call them "formation falling"?
Just a thought...
Re: (Score:2)
interesting (Score:1)
Something like the classified NOSS??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, the Chinese appear to be experimenting with a similar concept (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/08/china-launches-military-satellite-yaogan-w [nasaspaceflight.com]
Hasn't this been done? (Score:1)
Flying in formation is easy (Score:2)
It's getting the "pew! pew! pew!" noises to sync up that's hard.