Dirty Dozen Probe - Update

[joertexas]

I checked into using ion engines, and it makes a huge difference in the spacecraft mass ratio. Instead of a 65kg net weight probe, we can put a 250kg net weight craft up that can generate 5.5km/sec total delta vee for the mission - and use its main engines for maneuvering at the destination, too. The only challenge is figuring out how to engineer 54kW worth (270kg or so) of solar panels ;) If that can be done, then we'd have oodles of power, and the mass to haul a good-sized transmitter and antenna system for video transmissions.

We still have the option of using smaller probes with a gross weight of 116kg and a net of 55kg for everything but the fuel and solar panels. Twelve of them would take about 1400kg of total lift, and sixteen plus a smaller carrier would be about 2000kg total. Even these small probes would have 9kW of power available :)

The problem is, there isn't a great deal of savings in lifting 2000kg vs 10,000kg into orbit. I haven't found a single launcher that can lift right at 2000kg in one shot. The 300-400kg range launchers are all $9-12 million, and I'd rather try for a $42 million Falcon 9 launch and put up larger, more capable probes. Even given the fact that the probes may have to hold for a while on the carrier until the launch windows open, I'd still rather put all of them up at once instead of launching them in ones and twos.

So, I now have a Light mission and a Heavy mission option.

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

We have a Dirty Dozen, correct? NEAs or NEOs that have been spectroscopically analyzed to be of the PGM asteroids or dormant comets. From what has been discussed so far. Those seem to offer the best return on investment for the time range we are talking.

SpaceX' F9H will probably be available by the time we have pooled the money, designed and built the probes. So one launch of 6 probes aboard a F9H might be more cost effective.


Edit: Had to go check what a F9H could lift, Mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO): 29,610 kg (65,280 lb). So even if the probe assembly were 2000k we would have mass to spare for all 12. The only question then is to fit them all inside the faring. Launch will be anywhere from $75-100M But that means, hopefully, that we might have all the probes for $250M designed built and sent.

Something lacking in NEAR Shoemaker... why didn't they have good video of closing with an asteroid? I would have been delighted to see such video. By our design plans we could recoup some or all of our probe fees by sale of the video we collect from the probes.

Leaving according to my business plan of $1B, $750M for the mining mission or two. One to a PGM, one to a dormant comet? Thus we could sell PGMs to Terra, while selling water and volatiles to other organizations wanting to get out there.

[Sirachman]

Is LEO preferable to GEO for our purposes. F9 can do 4500kg to GEO which still seems sufficient based on your requirements. Not sure how the transit to each asteroid would be done, but what is the propellant difference from each start point. I would think GEO would be significantly superior am I wrong?

[Rhyshaelkan]

If we build the probes with a nice Ion thruster, LEO would/should be sufficient. Thus allowing more probes to launch in one launch.

Mass to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO): 15,010 kg on the F9H. So if the DeltaV requires a GEO starting point then that limits the mass of each probe to 1250 kg. Which might be more than necessary. We will not know more until some designing is done.

[joertexas]

Is LEO preferable to GEO for our purposes. F9 can do 4500kg to GEO which still seems sufficient based on your requirements. Not sure how the transit to each asteroid would be done, but what is the propellant difference from each start point. I would think GEO would be significantly superior am I wrong?

No, you're right. Using ion engines alone won't work, because Earth escape velocity is something around 3.2 Km/sec. The ion engines can't generate this fast enough to get out of orbit. They can, however, take over once escape velocity is achieved and power the vehicle the rest of the way. So, I have to go back and calculate the mass ratio again.

That said, I'd rather park the carrier in LEO, specifically, about 400km out, for several reasons. The probes can't launch all at once, and the radiation environment is better in LEO. The carrier can use it's cameras to take good images of Earth, and it could also act as a dedicated communications relay for the deployed probes.

JR

[Sam Fraser]

Launch will be anywhere from $75-100M But that means, hopefully, that we might have all the probes for $250M designed built and sent.

The price is already entering NASA territory? :cool: I figured we were aiming for something under US$10m tops (minus launch costs).

[Rhyshaelkan]

There has not been an update in pricing come out from SpaceX for some time. Last time I saw an article about the F9H they were estimating $50m-$75m per launch. But even at $100m it is a steal. Were we able to pack all 12 probes inside the F9H fairing. String them out in LEO or GEO. Then let each one fire it's ion thrusters to take it on it's to it's destination.

Separate launches seem like they would be more costly 12 $9M launches or one $100M launch. Plus the mass constraints of F1 might not be enough.

Much more research to be done ;)

[joertexas]

There has not been an update in pricing come out from SpaceX for some time. Last time I saw an article about the F9H they were estimating $50m-$75m per launch. But even at $100m it is a steal. Were we able to pack all 12 probes inside the F9H fairing. String them out in LEO or GEO. Then let each one fire it's ion thrusters to take it on it's to it's destination.

Separate launches seem like they would be more costly 12 $9M launches or one $100M launch. Plus the mass constraints of F1 might not be enough.

Much more research to be done ;)

Okay, the latest numbers - and these are subject to change as I figure out what I'm doing here - break down to a 600kg probe at launch from LEO, with somewhere around 185kg arriving at the asteroid, depending on the fuel consumption. After all the important bits are accounted for, that leaves about 65kg for instrumentation, and there will be 4.5kW of power available while the ion engine isn't running.

That means that a single Falcon 9 - not the F9H - can lift 16 probes on their carrier into a 400km orbit, inclined at 28.5 degress, since they'd probably launch from the Cape. The price for that launch, obtained verbally from a SpaceX rep last week, is $42 million. A single probe is too heavy for the F1, and the F1e could only handle one.

I found some cost estimation software from NASA and others, so I'll run that and see what I get..

After playing with a couple of basic cost calculators - and having a great conversation with one of the folks at SAIC, I've come up with a really, really, really rough estimate of what such a mission might cost. Now, keep in mind that this is a US Gov't / industry tool, not private enterprise. The total cost for the mission is $605 million. That's $252M for development, $293M for production of 18 probes and the carrier, $42M to launch it, and $18M for ground operations. Off the top of my head, I think that the development and production costs are too high, but that's our starting point.

JR

JR

[klaks]

The price is already entering NASA territory? :cool: I figured we were aiming for something under US$10m tops (minus launch costs).

I agree. Costs like that are gonna keep a project under theory and out of practice, and on the paper form, for a long time, as opposed to being on the prototype table and eventually into space. May I suggest looking at amateur ham radio satellites as another model for designing your mission? All too often we get caught up with doing things on a grand scale, when in fact smaller is better. Because once you go past the 10 million dollar mark, things get hairy, and funding disappears because people want a return, or some kind of return. That's why the internet boom of the nineties failed like no other.

Heck even at the five million dollar mark, it's a tough proposition if there's no sustainable business plan. It's something to consider especially if you want to see your plan happen. In general, anything past five years is difficult to sustain as a project unless you have really committed leadership, personnel, and fully committed funding guaranteed for those five years. Going past the ten million dollar mark, depending on what you're doing, becomes difficult to manage as a project for longer than five years, especially if you consider having to fund it for all five of those years.

I'd suggest trying to fit the project within 10 million dollars, in five years or less, consider educational outreach as a major objective in order to secure man power at a University for the systems design, a small launcher, in house telemetry and ground support as opposed to contracted out to the launch service provider to further reduce your costs, and I wouldn't depend on entertainment or advertising as a source of revenue. I'd explore other sources of revenue from your mission.

The problem with advertising is the eyeballs theory, advertisers go where they'll have the most eyeballs. Space missions don't get a lot of eyeballs. The same with entertainment, images that are real would be nice, but most studios use computer animation which is far cheaper. If you want a revenue model that works, and works consistently and relates to this area, which is remote sensing, take a look at cartographers and map publishers, oil and gas exploration. This area is profitable and sustains large revenues, especially with the sales of geographical information via satellite imaging to world wide governments, institutions, and private companies.

I mean, come on, let's face it. Is there oil, natural gas, or uranium on the asteroid? Not that we know of, and the data we provide, even if there were those sources, we have no technology to harness it. That's the reason why the oceans are still relatively unexplored, at least until now, now that we've got a petroleum supply problem. In terms of the market, you want to shoot for a service that you know you can sell, to a relatively large body of customers, both government and non government. And, after being in this arena for a while, I think there's a service that can make a decent profit with this, BUT, like any business, it really needs to have some market research. Which means knocking on doors, asking questions, and collating the results, which is something that I've done all too often. Anybody do door to door sales? I did. That was a rough experience, but it's pretty much the same thing in terms of finding out this market. I'll give you a hint on what the market might be. You're not going to go knocking door to door in a residential area. You're gonna have to go door to door at... Universities and Colleges, and this might give it away, research institutions.

In fact, I'd go even further. If you want some idea of your project's capability, I'd budget $50,000, find some engineering students, present your proposal, and have them mock up a working prototype. That way you'll have an idea of what the technology is capable of, what it can do, what service you can provide from it, and a baseline sales price for that service. Manpower and technology, like I said, if you're street smart about it, is cheap. Selling it and keeping things going for the duration of the project is difficult, expensive, and is often the reason a project fails.

[joertexas]

I agree. Costs like that are gonna keep a project under theory and out of practice, and on the paper form, for a long time, as opposed to being on the prototype table and eventually into space. May I suggest looking at amateur ham radio satellites as another model for designing your mission? All too often we get caught up with doing things on a grand scale, when in fact smaller is better. Because once you go past the 10 million dollar mark, things get hairy, and funding disappears because people want a return, or some kind of return. That's why the internet boom of the nineties failed like no other.

Heck even at the five million dollar mark, it's a tough proposition if there's no sustainable business plan. It's something to consider especially if you want to see your plan happen. In general, anything past five years is difficult to sustain as a project unless you have really committed leadership, personnel, and fully committed funding guaranteed for those five years. Going past the ten million dollar mark, depending on what you're doing, becomes difficult to manage as a project for longer than five years, especially if you consider having to fund it for all five of those years.

I'd suggest trying to fit the project within 10 million dollars, in five years or less, consider educational outreach as a major objective in order to secure man power at a University for the systems design, a small launcher, in house telemetry and ground support as opposed to contracted out to the launch service provider to further reduce your costs, and I wouldn't depend on entertainment or advertising as a source of revenue. I'd explore other sources of revenue from your mission.

The problem with advertising is the eyeballs theory, advertisers go where they'll have the most eyeballs. Space missions don't get a lot of eyeballs. The same with entertainment, images that are real would be nice, but most studios use computer animation which is far cheaper. If you want a revenue model that works, and works consistently and relates to this area, which is remote sensing, take a look at cartographers and map publishers, oil and gas exploration. This area is profitable and sustains large revenues, especially with the sales of geographical information via satellite imaging to world wide governments, institutions, and private companies.

I mean, come on, let's face it. Is there oil, natural gas, or uranium on the asteroid? Not that we know of, and the data we provide, even if there were those sources, we have no technology to harness it. That's the reason why the oceans are still relatively unexplored, at least until now, now that we've got a petroleum supply problem. In terms of the market, you want to shoot for a service that you know you can sell, to a relatively large body of customers, both government and non government. And, after being in this arena for a while, I think there's a service that can make a decent profit with this, BUT, like any business, it really needs to have some market research. Which means knocking on doors, asking questions, and collating the results, which is something that I've done all too often. Anybody do door to door sales? I did. That was a rough experience, but it's pretty much the same thing in terms of finding out this market. I'll give you a hint on what the market might be. You're not going to go knocking door to door in a residential area. You're gonna have to go door to door at... Universities and Colleges, and this might give it away, research institutions.

In fact, I'd go even further. If you want some idea of your project's capability, I'd budget $50,000, find some engineering students, present your proposal, and have them mock up a working prototype. That way you'll have an idea of what the technology is capable of, what it can do, what service you can provide from it, and a baseline sales price for that service. Manpower and technology, like I said, if you're street smart about it, is cheap. Selling it and keeping things going for the duration of the project is difficult, expensive, and is often the reason a project fails.

I suppose a mission to one asteroid beats no missions to 12. You're saying we should try to get a univeristy, or several, to put up the $50K?

JR

[klaks]

I suppose a mission to one asteroid beats no missions to 12. You're saying we should try to get a univeristy, or several, to put up the $50K?

JR

Yup. That's exactly what I'm saying. Or even better, if you can raise the 50k, and bring on the University, UT San Antonio, for example, on board for a three year, dedicated project that puts their student engineering teams to work on the project. It's an easy sell to the students in term of the coolness factor. I had no problem recruiting senior project teams for my project. It's a hard sell for the University to upfront the 50k. But if you think about it, if you can't raise 50k, then a million, let alone 10 million, let alone a hundred million is a fantasy.

50k is doable. That's average salary for a lot of middle class workers.That's enough to cover parts, PCB board manufacturing, basic machining of specialty parts, build a working ground support station, etc. It's enough to build a prototype that you can get the kinks out of, to get data on, to figure out if it'll work or not, and to work as a demonstrator for the next round of raising funds. When it comes to raising funds, the people with the money have seen all the paper and print they can take. But once you show them a working, demonstrating, functioning device, it suddenly becomes a LOT easier to sell them on for putting money to the cause. There's a lot of talk out there. But there aren't enough doers. I learned that early on, and because of that, I NEVER make a sales pitch to ANYONE until I've demonstrated time and commitment and a completed product or service. That's how I earn trust with the people who run the projects that I work on, and really, in the space biz, or any biz, you have to show that.

Hope this helps. It's the big reason I got so disenchanted with the space movement eight years ago. Starting small, making small steps, and turning even a buck in profit goes so much further than something large scale, with no real chance of a profit. I remember a quote from Bill Gates that really influenced me, and it was "you don't even have to have a product that make's hundred's of dollars in profit. It just has to make a dollar in profit, and then you'll have something that'll work."

I'm going to throw one more proposal in, and call this required reading. This is the historical page of the AMSAT corporation, a non profit that works with amateur ham radio enthusiasts around the world to build and launch satellites. Mind you, they've already launched about a dozen or so satellites, for really, a pittance. It's an excellent model to examine and possibly, to join forces with. After all, I think it's appealing to operate amateur radio from deep space. Here's the link
http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/AboutAmsat/amsat_history.php

Small is beautiful, not to mention the discipline and experience you get from that preps you for the next step.

[joertexas]

Yup. That's exactly what I'm saying. Or even better, if you can raise the 50k, and bring on the University, UT San Antonio, for example, on board for a three year, dedicated project that puts their student engineering teams to work on the project. It's an easy sell to the students in term of the coolness factor. I had no problem recruiting senior project teams for my project. It's a hard sell for the University to upfront the 50k. But if you think about it, if you can't raise 50k, then a million, let alone 10 million, let alone a hundred million is a fantasy.

50k is doable. That's average salary for a lot of middle class workers.That's enough to cover parts, PCB board manufacturing, basic machining of specialty parts, build a working ground support station, etc. It's enough to build a prototype that you can get the kinks out of, to get data on, to figure out if it'll work or not, and to work as a demonstrator for the next round of raising funds. When it comes to raising funds, the people with the money have seen all the paper and print they can take. But once you show them a working, demonstrating, functioning device, it suddenly becomes a LOT easier to sell them on for putting money to the cause. There's a lot of talk out there. But there aren't enough doers. I learned that early on, and because of that, I NEVER make a sales pitch to ANYONE until I've demonstrated time and commitment and a completed product or service. That's how I earn trust with the people who run the projects that I work on, and really, in the space biz, or any biz, you have to show that.

Hope this helps. It's the big reason I got so disenchanted with the space movement eight years ago. Starting small, making small steps, and turning even a buck in profit goes so much further than something large scale, with no real chance of a profit. I remember a quote from Bill Gates that really influenced me, and it was "you don't even have to have a product that make's hundred's of dollars in profit. It just has to make a dollar in profit, and then you'll have something that'll work."

I'm going to throw one more proposal in, and call this required reading. This is the historical page of the AMSAT corporation, a non profit that works with amateur ham radio enthusiasts around the world to build and launch satellites. Mind you, they've already launched about a dozen or so satellites, for really, a pittance. It's an excellent model to examine and possibly, to join forces with. After all, I think it's appealing to operate amateur radio from deep space. Here's the link
http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/AboutAmsat/amsat_history.php

Small is beautiful, not to mention the discipline and experience you get from that preps you for the next step.

The only issue with AMSAT is that the amateur radio bands can't be used for the mission. Other than that, theirs is an inspiring story.

Just to keep all of this in perspective, the point of the Dirty Dozen mission is to prepare for a manned asteroid materials recovery and utilization mission. I think that the mission can be flown for a lot less than the $600 million NASA's costing software predicts, but we still need to fly it, and get the data we need to prove that the idea of asteroid mining is worth investing in.

I don't have the money to invest, but I'm willing to work toward getting the prototype built.

JR

[klaks]

You want to get a prototype started, but don't got the money? Fine. Let's get started. Remember the post I put about my space project, SPECTRE? Go read that proposal. Use it as a model. Then formulate your proposal based on that. Critical point, setup the prototype in stages.

Stage 1 - subsystems
Stage 2 - Telemetry
Stage 3 - Data transfew
Stage 4 - space craft bus
Stage 5 - power systems
Stage 6 - Integration

Stage 1 is probably the most expensive of the bunch. Subsystem design and prototyping. If you can raise, say, 3-5 grand, go to UT San Antonio (I only chose them because your profile says you're in San Antonio, incidentally that's a city I want to move to cause my gf is from Texas. It reminds me of Philadelphia, my hometown:) ), and find Professor Chen, the department chair, and tell him that you're in charge of a space exploration project, are interested in partnering with the University, the University and Dr. Chen don't have to pay any money, and you'd like to offer a really cool space project for the senior design students to cut their teeth into. That was my basic sales pitch. Dr. Chen "should" then point you to the right people to talk to. If all goes well, you'll get started on the prototyping of the subsystems. That'll probably take about two semesters to get that done. Do the same with the rest of the craft. For the craft bus and design, go to the Mechanical Engineering department, layout your requirements, and have the students do the design for their senior design project. Find the University's machine shop, and have em cut the metal or plastic for the craft bus.

In about two years, you should be ready for general craft integration, of the subsystems, transmission, power, sensors, and the bus. Then you'll have your prototype ready. Each semester, you're probably going to have to raise the money needed for each part of the craft, because, again, getting the University to fork out money is a hard sell. Even if you have to do it in a piece meal fashion, at the very least, you'll be able to get started towards a real, and functioning space craft.

Any questions? :D

[joertexas]

You want to get a prototype started, but don't got the money? Fine. Let's get started. Remember the post I put about my space project, SPECTRE? Go read that proposal. Use it as a model. Then formulate your proposal based on that. Critical point, setup the prototype in stages.

Stage 1 - subsystems
Stage 2 - Telemetry
Stage 3 - Data transfew
Stage 4 - space craft bus
Stage 5 - power systems
Stage 6 - Integration

Stage 1 is probably the most expensive of the bunch. Subsystem design and prototyping. If you can raise, say, 3-5 grand, go to UT San Antonio (I only chose them because your profile says you're in San Antonio, incidentally that's a city I want to move to cause my gf is from Texas. It reminds me of Philadelphia, my hometown:) ), and find Professor Chen, the department chair, and tell him that you're in charge of a space exploration project, are interested in partnering with the University, the University and Dr. Chen don't have to pay any money, and you'd like to offer a really cool space project for the senior design students to cut their teeth into. That was my basic sales pitch. Dr. Chen "should" then point you to the right people to talk to. If all goes well, you'll get started on the prototyping of the subsystems. That'll probably take about two semesters to get that done. Do the same with the rest of the craft. For the craft bus and design, go to the Mechanical Engineering department, layout your requirements, and have the students do the design for their senior design project. Find the University's machine shop, and have em cut the metal or plastic for the craft bus.

In about two years, you should be ready for general craft integration, of the subsystems, transmission, power, sensors, and the bus. Then you'll have your prototype ready. Each semester, you're probably going to have to raise the money needed for each part of the craft, because, again, getting the University to fork out money is a hard sell. Even if you have to do it in a piece meal fashion, at the very least, you'll be able to get started towards a real, and functioning space craft.

Any questions? :D

Just one: What am I prototyping? One of the probes I'm proposing, which, BTW, is about the same size as the latest amateur built sat they're talking about putting up, or something else?

JR

[Mark Prado]

50k is doable ...

...There's a lot of talk out there. But there aren't enough doers.

...I'm going to throw one more proposal in, and call this required reading. This is the historical page of the AMSAT corporation, a non profit that works with amateur ham radio enthusiasts around the world to build and launch satellites. Mind you, they've already launched about a dozen or so satellites, for really, a pittance. It's an excellent model to examine and possibly, to join forces with.

Small is beautiful, not to mention the discipline and experience you get from that preps you for the next step.

The first steps for this is developing a database of who's who. That normally starts with a publications database. This is where the other project I've mentioned several times here comes in. I had an on-line database of a shortlist of over 500 (sic) quality papers and reports and books as of 1998 which closely related to space resources. (This is why the old Donations page requested specific publications I didn't have, conference proceedings on space resources.) In there, you have peer reviewed analyses (why reinvent the wheel?) plus the authors to work with. Proven, published do-ers. Many from academia, and a variety of others. This is a starting point.

One of the nonprofits I worked with back around 1990, VITA (Volunteers In Technical Assistance), launched an AmSat like satellite on a shoestring budget for relaying research and development information to remote parts of the less developed world which had no other communications infrastructure with the world. Some of the people who helped move that project forward were ham enthusiasts. We gave them a practical outlet for their enthusiasm and skills. However, the success came down to the exceptional personal commitment, perseverance, and practicality of the director, Gary Garriott, and it was his long track record and being well known in the community for who and what he is, which persuaded the funding sources, volunteers and participants.

We can bring in a lot of experience by finding the right people. It comes down to choosing particular individuals and institutions. The key is finding them, getting to know their values and interests (and I don't mean just money), and finding ways to work together in mutually supportive and sustainable ways towards practical goals.

[Bluesteel]

Does the existing database include and/or reference JBIS? (Journal of the British Interplanetary Society). It contains a vast number of excellent peer reviewed papers, of which I'm slowly acquiring as many back numbers as I can, when available and affordable...

Julian

[Sam Fraser]

JR, pity it's too late to enter this competition:

http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/near_earth_objects/apophis_competition/winners.html

Also:

The Foresight mission, proposed by Spaceworks Engineering, uses a small, low-cost ($137.2 million) spacecraft launched on an Orbital Sciences Minotaur IV to rendezvous with, observe, and track Apophis. Foresight would launch between 2012 and 2014, arriving at Apophis five to ten months after launch. Foresight would enter into orbit to characterize the asteroid with a multi-spectral imager for one month. It would then leave orbit and fly in formation with Apophis around the Sun at a range of two kilometers (1.2 miles). The spacecraft would use laser ranging to the asteroid and radio tracking from Earth over a period of ten months to very accurately determine the orbit and orbit evolution of Apophis in order to assess the probability of a future impact with Earth.

http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/projects/apophis_competition/apophis_winner_foresight.pdf

Don't tell klaks US$137m is "low cost". :eek:

[klaks]

JR, pity it's too late to enter this competition:

http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/near_earth_objects/apophis_competition/winners.html

Also:

The Foresight mission, proposed by Spaceworks Engineering, uses a small, low-cost ($137.2 million) spacecraft launched on an Orbital Sciences Minotaur IV to rendezvous with, observe, and track Apophis. Foresight would launch between 2012 and 2014, arriving at Apophis five to ten months after launch. Foresight would enter into orbit to characterize the asteroid with a multi-spectral imager for one month. It would then leave orbit and fly in formation with Apophis around the Sun at a range of two kilometers (1.2 miles). The spacecraft would use laser ranging to the asteroid and radio tracking from Earth over a period of ten months to very accurately determine the orbit and orbit evolution of Apophis in order to assess the probability of a future impact with Earth.

http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/projects/apophis_competition/apophis_winner_foresight.pdf

Don't tell klaks US$137m is "low cost". :eek:

I think the problem with these missions is they're being done with an emphasis on government contracting, mainly through NASA. It seems that anytime anyone does that, the prices spike to ridiculous levels. And I think they do that because only NASA has that image of authority to do anything in Space, which is really unfortunate.

I personally prefer to use AMSAT as the baseline model.

[joertexas]

I think the problem with these missions is they're being done with an emphasis on government contracting, mainly through NASA. It seems that anytime anyone does that, the prices spike to ridiculous levels. And I think they do that because only NASA has that image of authority to do anything in Space, which is really unfortunate.

I personally prefer to use AMSAT as the baseline model.

Well, we may not like the price, but this is precisely the mission we need to fly. I'm going to tear this plan apart to see what can be done with it. I actually have two proposals for the same mission to compare. It may take me a bit to do the analysis, though. If anyone wants to help, feel free :)

JR

[joertexas]

JR, pity it's too late to enter this competition:

http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/near_earth_objects/apophis_competition/winners.html

Also:

The Foresight mission, proposed by Spaceworks Engineering, uses a small, low-cost ($137.2 million) spacecraft launched on an Orbital Sciences Minotaur IV to rendezvous with, observe, and track Apophis. Foresight would launch between 2012 and 2014, arriving at Apophis five to ten months after launch. Foresight would enter into orbit to characterize the asteroid with a multi-spectral imager for one month. It would then leave orbit and fly in formation with Apophis around the Sun at a range of two kilometers (1.2 miles). The spacecraft would use laser ranging to the asteroid and radio tracking from Earth over a period of ten months to very accurately determine the orbit and orbit evolution of Apophis in order to assess the probability of a future impact with Earth.

http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/projects/apophis_competition/apophis_winner_foresight.pdf

Don't tell klaks US$137m is "low cost". :eek:


I spent my day reading this proposal, along with a couple of others about small sats. This mission is exactly what I want to fly, and it has every detail lovingly set out. I'd call it required reading for the Dirty Dozen mission. Maybe Mark can make contact with SpaceDev to see if they'll allow the use of their material on this site. I certainly don't want to take anything away from their mission - I'm all for seeing if we are about to get hit with a big rock in 2039 or not ;)

The only fly in their ointment is on Page 36. That's the $$$$$$$$ page. For our purposes, we need to get the price down to make a multiple probe mission go. I'd like everyone to look at this proposal and see how we can make it work on a smaller budget. For reference, the F9 can throw 10Kkg into LEO for about $42M. I've posted that many times, but it's worth repeating. You'll see what I mean when you read the budget page.

JR

[klaks]

I spent my day reading this proposal, along with a couple of others about small sats. This mission is exactly what I want to fly, and it has every detail lovingly set out. I'd call it required reading for the Dirty Dozen mission. Maybe Mark can make contact with SpaceDev to see if they'll allow the use of their material on this site. I certainly don't want to take anything away from their mission - I'm all for seeing if we are about to get hit with a big rock in 2039 or not ;)

The only fly in their ointment is on Page 36. That's the $$$$$$$$ page. For our purposes, we need to get the price down to make a multiple probe mission go. I'd like everyone to look at this proposal and see how we can make it work on a smaller budget. For reference, the F9 can throw 10Kkg into LEO for about $42M. I've posted that many times, but it's worth repeating. You'll see what I mean when you read the budget page.

JR

That's a pretty big fly. Well, it's really up to you how you approach things. I'm young and impatient, and the way I work is I like to have something real in my hands to see and work with. I'm not too fond of waiting on the paper. That's why I made the suggestions that wrote up, because in my experience, it's a way to get something going that you can work with, and to use as a way to secure funding. A material, working craft always has a big selling point. Oh, and I was referring to the probe as the thing to prototype. At the very least, because sub systems tend to be one of the most problematic parts of a craft, having that up and running to debug and shake out works to your advantage.

Anyway, it's worth considering.

[joertexas]

That's a pretty big fly. Well, it's really up to you how you approach things. I'm young and impatient, and the way I work is I like to have something real in my hands to see and work with. I'm not too fond of waiting on the paper. That's why I made the suggestions that wrote up, because in my experience, it's a way to get something going that you can work with, and to use as a way to secure funding. A material, working craft always has a big selling point. Oh, and I was referring to the probe as the thing to prototype. At the very least, because sub systems tend to be one of the most problematic parts of a craft, having that up and running to debug and shake out works to your advantage.

Anyway, it's worth considering.

I'm all for building a prototype probe, for all the reasons you've stated. The biggest question we need to answer is: How much spacecraft do we need to make this mission work?

The objective is to go to these asteroids, find out what they look like, what they're made of, and their exact orbit, and send data and pictures back home. If a spacecraft the size of a shoebox can do this, great. So far, though, I haven't found any references to a viable spacecraft significantly smaller than SpaceDev's that can fly this mission.

Since the probe has to be about a cubic meter in size and weigh somewhere around 130kg, it takes a fair sized perigee kick booster to get it out there. At this point, it becomes more cost effective to put up 15 probes for $42M than one for $22M (SpaceDev's estimate).

JR

[klaks]

I'm all for building a prototype probe, for all the reasons you've stated. The biggest question we need to answer is: How much spacecraft do we need to make this mission work?

The objective is to go to these asteroids, find out what they look like, what they're made of, and their exact orbit, and send data and pictures back home. If a spacecraft the size of a shoebox can do this, great. So far, though, I haven't found any references to a viable spacecraft significantly smaller than SpaceDev's that can fly this mission.

Since the probe has to be about a cubic meter in size and weigh somewhere around 130kg, it takes a fair sized perigee kick booster to get it out there. At this point, it becomes more cost effective to put up 15 probes for $42M than one for $22M (SpaceDev's estimate).

JR

It's best if you can build a complete working prototype. That way you can test everything out, from the thrusters, to putting a rock infront of the instrumentation to see what it detects. Once you go through a period of dry runs to see what it can and can't do, then you're practically there.

[Bluesteel]

I'm all for building a prototype probe, for all the reasons you've stated. The biggest question we need to answer is: How much spacecraft do we need to make this mission work?

The objective is to go to these asteroids, find out what they look like, what they're made of, and their exact orbit, and send data and pictures back home. If a spacecraft the size of a shoebox can do this, great. So far, though, I haven't found any references to a viable spacecraft significantly smaller than SpaceDev's that can fly this mission.

Since the probe has to be about a cubic meter in size and weigh somewhere around 130kg, it takes a fair sized perigee kick booster to get it out there. At this point, it becomes more cost effective to put up 15 probes for $42M than one for $22M (SpaceDev's estimate).

JR
I would have thought it makes sense to determine the definitive package of sensors, communications and sampling equipment (if required) first of all. Then find out what the smallest, lightest, most reliable and cost effective instruments are available on the market now (or in the near future before launch), which will give you a good mass figure. Thrusters and propellant will depend on that, as well as the total mass and thus the ride to orbit costs.

Julian

[joertexas]

I would have thought it makes sense to determine the definitive package of sensors, communications and sampling equipment (if required) first of all. Then find out what the smallest, lightest, most reliable and cost effective instruments are available on the market now (or in the near future before launch), which will give you a good mass figure. Thrusters and propellant will depend on that, as well as the total mass and thus the ride to orbit costs.

Julian

I've looked at the NEAR Shoemaker, Dawn, Habayusa and the proposed SpaceDev missions, plus checked some references for equipment on the 'Net. The basic equipment list is at least two cameras and a magnemometer. A lidar/laser altimeter and a spectrograph would be good, too. An S Band transceiver with a backup is also a must.

The best way to determine the numbers on these instruments is by experimentation, and that will take at least some money. You are perfectly correct that the instrument package drives everything else.

JR

[joertexas]

It's best if you can build a complete working prototype. That way you can test everything out, from the thrusters, to putting a rock infront of the instrumentation to see what it detects. Once you go through a period of dry runs to see what it can and can't do, then you're practically there.

I can see me now - carrying a 20lb box around in a rock quarry...

I think I've got the basic mission profile down, at least for now. The probe's design is still the most important element, and I will now focus on gathering information about the subsystems.

One question I have about the prototype is that there is a big difference between "working" and "flight approved". For example, will single junction solar panels suffice for ground tests, even though the much more expensive triple junction panels are needed in space? The same question goes for everything else. Flight certified equipment is going to be much more expensive than the same parts without that certification.

JR

[klaks]

I can see me now - carrying a 20lb box around in a rock quarry...

I think I've got the basic mission profile down, at least for now. The probe's design is still the most important element, and I will now focus on gathering information about the subsystems.

One question I have about the prototype is that there is a big difference between "working" and "flight approved". For example, will single junction solar panels suffice for ground tests, even though the much more expensive triple junction panels are needed in space? The same question goes for everything else. Flight certified equipment is going to be much more expensive than the same parts without that certification.

JR
YUP! They'll do the trick. Remember, we're talking PROTO-type. PROTO, as in meaning before. You need solar panels that will generate the power that your specs specify, they don't have to be space worthy. The other thing is we don't know how the instrumentation will perform on the asteroids, so what better way to get an idea of how it'll do then to take the 20 pound box to quarries, deserts, caves, rocks, you name it, and test out what it measures?
Get a prototype working, a proof of concept, with cheap, available equipment that's similar to the space rated stuff, bang it around, test it out, see what works, what doesn't, what it can do, what it can't do, and then you'll have a much better position for fielding space worthy stuff. Not to mention all the design work will be DONE. And design work is the hard part.

[Phenix]

Klaks,

Thank you so much for your guidance ;), I believe also that all stuff being mentioned needs also certifications of such, what are the certification specs ?

As mentionned, it is an excellent approach to use in a near term what is already available as best quality and not to re-invent the wheel ...

[joertexas]

Klaks,

Thank you so much for your guidance ;), I believe also that all stuff being mentioned needs also certifications of such, what are the certification specs ?

As mentionned, it is an excellent approach to use in a near term what is already available as best quality and not to re-invent the wheel ...

Basically, anything that flies has a certification process it has to pass. Unmanned equipment isn't required to be certified as thoroughly as manned flight equipment, but there are still standards to be met.

There are also other considerations for flight worthy equipment, ergo my question to Klaks. Space is both very cold and very hot, has no atmosphere, and has plenty of radiation. The solar panels I referenced are much cheaper than the space certified panels the real sat will need. The same goes for the rest of the equipment aboard the probe.

This is one of the biggest challenges of this project - how to lay hands on certified equipment for less than the big boys pay. If anyone has any bright ideas, or better, contacts in the business, please let me know :)

JR

[Phenix]

Joertexas,

That is intersting, in fact, it would certainly help you a lot if there are certitification specs for the space industry.

More precisely on components (electronics, sensors, etc...) that are sumitted to extremes such as cold and hot, impact resistance, friction, elasticity and other physical constraints....

Do you have any idea if a glossary for space certifcations specs does exist on the web ?

[joertexas]

Joertexas,

That is intersting, in fact, it would certainly help you a lot if there are certitification specs for the space industry.

More precisely on components (electronics, sensors, etc...) that are sumitted to extremes such as cold and hot, impact resistance, friction, elasticity and other physical constraints....

Do you have any idea if a glossary for space certifcations specs does exist on the web ?

http://www.spacex.com/20090617_Elon_Musk_Augustine_Commission.pdf

Look in the supporting slides - there is a whole list of standards there.

JR