ISS Astronauts Fire-Up Awesome 'Cubesat Cannon' 52
astroengine writes "As if the International Space Station couldn't get any cooler, the Japanese segment of the orbiting outpost has launched a barrage of small satellites — known as "cubesats" — from their very own Cubesat Cannon! Of course, the real name of the cubesat deployment system isn't quite as dramatic, but the JEM Small Satellite Orbital Deployer (J-SSOD) adds a certain sci-fi flair to space station science."
Portal (Score:5, Interesting)
I just pictured a cannon firing weighted companion cubes. But their picture is cool too.
Re: (Score:2)
I just pictured a cannon firing weighted companion cubes. But their picture is cool too.
For all you gnow, there could be gnomish compagnions in these.
And the pictures are very, very cool, indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Having just watched the episode of Doctor Who with my boys, I pictured a cannon firing those slow invasion cubes from The Power Of Three all over the world.
Re:Portal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Portal (Score:5, Funny)
But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
You just keep on trying till you run out of dehydrated cake.
And the Science gets done.
And you make a neat space gun.
For the astronauts who are still alive.
Re: (Score:3)
In space they're weightless companion cubes.
But no one can hear them scream.
Re:Portal (Score:4, Funny)
In the unlikely event that you do hear one screaming, the Enrichment Center urges you to disregard its advice.
Space-borne Cannons (Score:2)
I approve of this.
Next stop: Skynet!
Getting My Own Cubesat (Score:5, Funny)
That would be way ugly.
Re:Getting My Own Cubesat (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I think he meant tit-for-sat. It was merely a typo.
Shall not be infinged... (Score:2)
The Japanese module got a cannon before the US one?
Re: (Score:2)
yeah because they thought to call it a deployment device.
you know, kinda like they don't have aircraft carriers, only ships that happen to carry a number of attack helicopters for their defense forces.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, the Russians beat them by about 40 years. [wikipedia.org]
rotation right from when shot? (Score:3)
I just finished looking at the pictures, the 3 cube stats look to be already rotating, is that common??
I would have thought that they would just shoot right out without tumbling ??
Re: (Score:2)
completely OK.
Re:rotation right from when shot? (Score:5, Informative)
Yep, perfectly normal. Most (if not all) cubesats tumble when they're jettisoned from their launcher.
For them not to tumble when they're jettisoned, they would have to have their center of mass perfectly on top of the spring and they'd need to have the exact same friction against the launcher on all four sides. It's much easier to just fit them with a de-tumbling system, e.g. a magnet on a spring.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah ok, that's starting to make sense. thanks
Jem? (Score:1)
That's truly outrageous!
Propellent Questions (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what that antenna-looking thing on the back of the module is? Looks like a metal pole with three scimitar antennas around it, and some kind of marker nearby.
I saw one of those on a photo of the cupola exterior as well.
Re: (Score:2)
White A-frame with a silver tube on top? "Orbiter keel trunnion", and associated yoke, for attaching the modules to the payload bay of the Space Shuttle orbiter during launch.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's it - have a look at this photo. [nasa.gov] You can see the same kind of assembly between the two cupola shields, should be obvious what I'm speaking of. Looks like a brass/gold trefoil with a rod sticking out of the center, with what looks like a black and yellow target nearby. Down and right from the visible crewmember.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah. Different bit. That an attachment point for the Canadarm's or Dextre's "latching end effector".
[I suspect the reason it's on the Cupola was to allow the Canadarm to grab and move the Cupola into position during initial installation, rather than to allow it or Dextre to attach there now.]
Re: (Score:3)
AKA FRGF "flight releasable grapple fixture", sayeth the wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct but you're [url=http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4471781&cid=45491305]three days late[/url] :)
Thanks though!
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. I can never keep it straight which sites want bbcode and which want html.
Re: (Score:2)
At last! (Score:2)
It wasn't always the J-SSOD (Score:2)
Sproinnng! (Score:3)
Oh bloody hell! They just fried my Awesomeness Gauge (tm)!
Won't they hit the ISS on a future orbit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Won't they circle back around and hit the ISS on a future orbit? I'm no rocket scientist, but I recall the idea that anything that departs from a given point in orbit will cross it again, and two objects leaving the same orbital point will both cross it again.
Maybe solar or atmospheric drag is enough to alter the cubesat orbits, and I know the ISS orbit is raised periodically, but since they were launched FROM the ISS by expelling them, instead of having a propulsive system, both the ISS and the cubesats left a single point in space and ought to converge there again.
I'd welcome an explantion from a real rocket scientist.
Re:Won't they hit the ISS on a future orbit? (Score:4, Informative)
Unlikely. The synodic period would be on the order of decades I believe, and it would only be the one intersection point - the other near-approach wouldn't intersect.
So, every synodic period they would have a close approach, and it would have to happen at just the wrong spot.
Re:Won't they hit the ISS on a future orbit? (Score:5, Informative)
They're launched from the nadir side in a nadir-aft 45-degree direction to prevent collision with the ISS. That imparts a small negative delta-V (with insertion velocity between 1.1 and 1.7 m/s), so their orbit would begin just slightly below the ISS. Additionally, one of the requirements for CubeSats launched from J-SSOD is that they have a ballistic coefficient of 120 kg/m^2 or less. This means that their orbits will decay faster than the ISS orbit, precluding any potential for collisions over time.
(The life expectancy on orbit of a CubeSat launched from J-SSOD is something like 100-150 days, depending on orbital parameters as of deployment, solar activity, etc.)
Lasers.... (Score:3)
You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have satellites with frickin' laser beams attached to their casings!
I wonder just how many tiny laser wielding box satellites it would take to make one awesome weapon....
What happened to garnering public interest? (Score:2)
Calling it the J-SSOD when you could have called it the CubeSat Cannon...*facepalm*
Not only does that make it sound less exciting, but you gave up a chance to have it mistaken for a military project!
"Sir, we cannot defund the ISS or we will lose the CubeSat Cannon and the Chinese will be able to attack us with high-speed space woks at will! That's what they have right? I'm just assuming..."
Iron Sky (Score:1)
[Finland's representative slowly raises his hand]
President of the United States: Great, great. That's just great...