Attempting to shift the paradigm

[klaks]

So, one of my personal goals, at least on this board, besides providing information from my own experience in space craft design, is to show that the most sustainable way to approach a space craft project, is from a micro level. Small is beautiful. One of my favorite organizations, the AMSAT corporation, has already launched a lot of amateur, homebuilt, in the garage manufactured, satellites that work as well as a "professional" satellite. And, they've been able to do this on budgets usually not exceeding a half million dollars.

That's right, on budgets that usually don't exceed a half million dollars. Here's the wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMSAT#Satellite_names
Here's their AMSAT page
http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/index.php

And my personal favorite, here's one of their presentations from a director in San Fran, Emily, http://www.planetemily.com/n1did/presentations/new_and_future.pdf

They're currently working on phases for their amateur satellites, and the phase 5 satellite is for a deep space probe to Mars. Which, given their track record, I don't doubt that they'll be able to make that happen, for again, under what most of us think as a real space budget. In fact, I think they'll be able to develop, build, and launch it for less than a million.

I'd like to introduce this to y'all as a way to "shift" your approach. I myself thought bigger was better until I actually worked on a space craft project, and given what we accomplished on 30,000 dollars, I have no doubt in my mind that building, and launching a satellite or space probe can happen for less than a half million dollars. And that already included launch costs.

It's something to think about, something to ponder on, something to fundamentally shift and change the way you think about space. Hell, when you can have your own ground support station in your living room, with telemetry, I mean, come on! The old paradigm, of the giant support room with hundreds of monitors and staff and, bleah, that's obsolete.

Think about it.

[joertexas]

So, one of my personal goals, at least on this board, besides providing information from my own experience in space craft design, is to show that the most sustainable way to approach a space craft project, is from a micro level. Small is beautiful. One of my favorite organizations, the AMSAT corporation, has already launched a lot of amateur, homebuilt, in the garage manufactured, satellites that work as well as a "professional" satellite. And, they've been able to do this on budgets usually not exceeding a half million dollars.

That's right, on budgets that usually don't exceed a half million dollars. Here's the wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMSAT#Satellite_names
Here's their AMSAT page
http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/index.php

And my personal favorite, here's one of their presentations from a director in San Fran, Emily, http://www.planetemily.com/n1did/presentations/new_and_future.pdf

They're currently working on phases for their amateur satellites, and the phase 5 satellite is for a deep space probe to Mars. Which, given their track record, I don't doubt that they'll be able to make that happen, for again, under what most of us think as a real space budget. In fact, I think they'll be able to develop, build, and launch it for less than a million.

I'd like to introduce this to y'all as a way to "shift" your approach. I myself thought bigger was better until I actually worked on a space craft project, and given what we accomplished on 30,000 dollars, I have no doubt in my mind that building, and launching a satellite or space probe can happen for less than a half million dollars. And that already included launch costs.

It's something to think about, something to ponder on, something to fundamentally shift and change the way you think about space. Hell, when you can have your own ground support station in your living room, with telemetry, I mean, come on! The old paradigm, of the giant support room with hundreds of monitors and staff and, bleah, that's obsolete.

Think about it.

That's great, but, again, will the spacecraft be able to get to, match orbits with, and obtain useful data from an asteroid?

JR

[Sam Fraser]

Hi klaks. That's fascinating about AMSAT! It's really opened my eyes to what's possible on an almost unimaginably small budget. From your Wikipedia link:

In order to launch its satellites, AMSAT has worked with space agencies and commercial launch contractors to develop new ways to take advantage of unused areas of launch vehicles. In return, AMSAT sometimes can negotiate a reduction or waiver of launch costs. One of the most significant is the Ariane Structure for Auxiliary Payloads (ASAP), developed and manufactured in partnership with the European Space Agency in 1990 for use on its Ariane IV launch vehicle. AMSAT was again able to take advantage of unused space with the launch of AMSAT-OSCAR 40 (AO-40), occupying unused space on an Ariane V.

Launching from an equatorial site is preferred for an orbit that - and getting it free is even better! As PERMANENT is now a non-profit 501(c)(3) foundation, maybe we'd qualify for a free piggyback one of the ESA's or NASA's rockets.

I share some concerns about a probe's viability like JR and wonder about deep-space propulsion, but yes, PERMANENT is about a "paradigm shift" in the way the public perceive space and regard space development. The Planetary Society certainly received a lot of exposure in the media when it was about to launch its Cosmos solar sail, although the launch vehicle failed, sadly. I don't know how much of that media exposure translated into new members and hard cash, however.

As for the $30,000 budget, I could contribute a few thousand just by maxing out credit cards and calling in a few favours. I'd rather go into debt to get this project off the ground (pun intended) than buy a large plasma TV or some other piece of consumer junk.

[klaks]

Hi klaks. That's fascinating about AMSAT! It's really opened my eyes to what's possible on an almost unimaginably small budget. From your Wikipedia link:

In order to launch its satellites, AMSAT has worked with space agencies and commercial launch contractors to develop new ways to take advantage of unused areas of launch vehicles. In return, AMSAT sometimes can negotiate a reduction or waiver of launch costs. One of the most significant is the Ariane Structure for Auxiliary Payloads (ASAP), developed and manufactured in partnership with the European Space Agency in 1990 for use on its Ariane IV launch vehicle. AMSAT was again able to take advantage of unused space with the launch of AMSAT-OSCAR 40 (AO-40), occupying unused space on an Ariane V.

Launching from an equatorial site is preferred for an orbit that - and getting it free is even better! As PERMANENT is now a non-profit 501(c)(3) foundation, maybe we'd qualify for a free piggyback one of the ESA's or NASA's rockets.

I share some concerns about a probe's viability like JR and wonder about deep-space propulsion, but yes, PERMANENT is about a "paradigm shift" in the way the public perceive space and regard space development. The Planetary Society certainly received a lot of exposure in the media when it was about to launch its Cosmos solar sail, although the launch vehicle failed, sadly. I don't know how much of that media exposure translated into new members and hard cash, however.

As for the $30,000 budget, I could contribute a few thousand just by maxing out credit cards and calling in a few favours. I'd rather go into debt to get this project off the ground (pun intended) than buy a large plasma TV or some other piece of consumer junk.

Eh, I wouldn't go into debt, as a matter of principle and due to the fact that our country (USA), is so in hock that it's not a good idea. And it's bad discipline too. Fund raisers are always a good way to start making funds. Far better than then the credit card. I got rid of mine years ago. There are other ways to make money than to borrow it. In fact, there are INFINITE ways to make money, and only a few ways to borrow it. So, for your own sake, leave the credit cards alone. :D Besides, do you know how hilarious it would be to say, "This satellite got it's launch start from cookie and bake sales!" Absolutely f--king hilarious. I'd laugh my ass off at that.

In any case, if you want to raise funds, think of simple stuff that brings in funds. A magazine, publications, anything that can turn just a few bucks in profit. Then market the hell out of it. That way you can boot strap the project. I really would prefer that PERMANENT worked that way from the get go, as opposed to getting into the very thing that's catastrophically destroyed our economy.

But, yeah. As for the viability of piggy backing, if you look at one of the presentations of the current AMSAT satellites, take note of how high one of their satellites are in the orbital end of things. It shouldn't take too much effort to sling a satellite out of orbit from that sort of orbit. It's in the presentation pdf.

[joertexas]

Eh, I wouldn't go into debt, as a matter of principle and due to the fact that our country (USA), is so in hock that it's not a good idea. And it's bad discipline too. Fund raisers are always a good way to start making funds. Far better than then the credit card. I got rid of mine years ago. There are other ways to make money than to borrow it. In fact, there are INFINITE ways to make money, and only a few ways to borrow it. So, for your own sake, leave the credit cards alone. :D Besides, do you know how hilarious it would be to say, "This satellite got it's launch start from cookie and bake sales!" Absolutely f--king hilarious. I'd laugh my ass off at that.

In any case, if you want to raise funds, think of simple stuff that brings in funds. A magazine, publications, anything that can turn just a few bucks in profit. Then market the hell out of it. That way you can boot strap the project. I really would prefer that PERMANENT worked that way from the get go, as opposed to getting into the very thing that's catastrophically destroyed our economy.

But, yeah. As for the viability of piggy backing, if you look at one of the presentations of the current AMSAT satellites, take note of how high one of their satellites are in the orbital end of things. It shouldn't take too much effort to sling a satellite out of orbit from that sort of orbit. It's in the presentation pdf.

Using a piggyback mission to generate escape velocity is a good idea, and that takes care of about 3.2 km/s of the delta vee budget. There's the other 1.4 km/s to handle the intercept, plus the maneuvering that has to be done to catch the asteroid.

According to a trajectories specialist I spoke with today, chemical propulsion is easier to handle than ion engines from the perspective of trajectory calculation. Also, he suggested putting the whole carrier into a heliocentric orbit, thus saving the expense of using boosters on each probe. The carrier would take advantage of the launcher's energy to achieve escape velocity, and we'd only have to have one booster instead of 16.

However, with such a small probe, I think we're stuck with the ion engine no matter what we do. The physics of a chemical system aren't going to cut it for the intercept phase, especially on a bargain basement mission. Here's the proof:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/dvNomogram01.pdf

Anyone who designs anything that goes anywhere besides 'round and 'round Earth needs to post this on their wall.

I do agree that we need to find a way to fund this thing. How about if we divide the project up? One person handles only their part of the prototype's design and fabrication?

JR

[Mark Prado]

I really would prefer that PERMANENT worked that way from the get go, as opposed to getting into the very thing that's catastrophically destroyed our economy.

Yes, more money doesn't necessarily mean more success. Debt can kill an organization or at least greatly reduce its flexibility. As noted in my personal website, I avoid debt and for about 20 years have had no debts except my recent car payments (actually not my personal debt, it's owned by one of my companies, but I consider my companies as my personal responsibilities; I would have bought a used old clunker like before but I run a luxury real estate business showing customers luxury properties so I got a cheap Isuzu Adventure, driven by multiple people, which pays for itself many times over in productivity). While I can see the merits of a business borrowing in order to get something accomplished quickly, whether personal or business debt, it would need to be done with a very clear plan.

Also, I can cite countless examples of high paid project managers and engineers who looked great on paper but were not cost efficient and sometimes disasters. Sometimes you see this in the end result, especially the finer details, but often it's hidden in lost time and costs in redesigns and fixes which are not reflected in the end product, and in cost overruns.

Shortly before I left the US, I spoke with a NASA guy whose name I recognized as one who was reviewing proposals and had a lot of influence on who got funding, and of whom I had heard good things. (Actually, I helped assess wannabe contractors before, but for the defense space program rather than the civilian, years before.) His language in our private conversation was rather blunt. He commented about how once you started speaking about money, you attract a lot of "whores" in the space industry. Sometimes, you've got to find the best people, they not find you, you find them. Often, they just don't know that they can compete with the likes of the beltway bandits. They don't even try unless you ask them to.

This is similar in the private sector, a lot of people with skills who can make substantive contributions within the framework of competent project management, at economical and sustainable costs, because it's what they want to do with their life, part of their values system and their interests. They can perform much better than highly paid people. (Kind've reminds me of Peace Corps Volunteers vs. cronies when I consulted to USAID ...)

Quality project management is the key to success in space projects. Especially in the details. That comes down to subordinates with true commitment to diligence, triple checking, intelligence, and especially the ability to work well with other experienced people.

Also, sales is often a 2-way street ...