Spacecraft: Unmanned Asteroid Probe - Need Help

[joertexas]

I'm working on a design for a small probe to investigate asteroids before a manned crew is sent out. I'm trying to see if a micro-satellite bus can do the job. The sat has to be a meter in diameter and a meter long, and weigh no more than forty kilos.

To give an idea of what such a mission is like, here's NASA's version of one:

http://near.jhuapl.edu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEAR_Shoemaker

This spacecraft is ten times heavier than what I'm proposing to send out.

My idea is to lift sixteen sats in one launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9. The carrier would stay in LEO and launch the satellites at the appropriate times to catch the target asteroid.

So, who knows about spacecraft design?

JR

[Phenix]

I understand your point.

The weight also depends on the number of measuring systems, the propulsion systems being used, the propellant quantity for the trip.

As the aim of a probe is to gather, from the spacecraft, information using in depth scans of an asteroid on on minerals, iced water/gaz and other spectrometrics, using sensors/telecomunication arrays.

I would not consider that the spacecraft is an issue on design if the mentioned sensor/telecommunications array would very lightweighted. I would more focus on the sensor/telecommunications manufacturer being on effective on a very small scale integration but as powerfull as being on the current scale such as NEAR. Thus if integration on weight for those arrays are to be proven to be efficient, then I think the spacecraft weight woud be proportional. Then we have the ability to have a payload for mutiple probes for one launcher.

Who knows any manufacturers for sensors/telecommunications arrays ?

Thanks.

[Rhyshaelkan]

Would you want a two part probe, lander and orbiter. Sent to each asteroid?

Oh I see, the whole probe later landed after orbit analysis was done. Nice.

"The NEAR mission was the first launch of NASA's Discovery Program, a series of small-scale spacecraft designed to proceed from development to flight in under three years for a cost of less than $150 million. The construction, launch, and 30 day cost for this mission is estimated at $122 million. The final total mission cost was $224 million which consisted of $124.9 million for spacecraft development, $44.6 million for launch support and tracking, and $54.6 million for mission operations and data analysis."

I do hope we can develop and launch the probe for less. And here I was hoping the probe and launch cost to be under $11M each.

[Phenix]

Yes, I do hope also we can have an all in one prob for less ;)

The main advantage is having the communication array for relaying communications if for some reason it fails to reach Earth due to distance and/or obstacles. As this technology is already available in clustered / distributed telecommunications.

[klaks]

I'm working on a design for a small probe to investigate asteroids before a manned crew is sent out. I'm trying to see if a micro-satellite bus can do the job. The sat has to be a meter in diameter and a meter long, and weigh no more than forty kilos.

To give an idea of what such a mission is like, here's NASA's version of one:

http://near.jhuapl.edu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEAR_Shoemaker

This spacecraft is ten times heavier than what I'm proposing to send out.

My idea is to lift sixteen sats in one launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9. The carrier would stay in LEO and launch the satellites at the appropriate times to catch the target asteroid.

So, who knows about spacecraft design?

JR

Do you have a specific mission target? Because that's going to define everything in terms of how you build your probe. When I worked on my sounding rocket project with NASA, we had to narrow our mission down to something very specific. We chose atmospheric radiation. I'd imagine that for asteroid exploration, you're probably looking for water, right? That would mean a spectrometer that's flight tested. We used this company, http://www.amptek.com, specifically their channel electron multiplier, but they have a whole array of off the shelf equipment that, if their manufacturing process was the same with the multiplier, is shake, rattle and roll, and space worthy. I'd look them up for lightweight scanning equipment. We also used this company, http://www.tec5hellma.com/ for their Zeiss MMS Spectral Analyser. It's space worthy. I know, because we sent it into space. You'd probably need that to look for water vapor signatures. But you'd have to somehow get the volatiles to vaporize first off the rock. Maybe a small, high powered laser with it's own power supply would do the trick. At least you don't have to worry about thermal blooming in space! That would suck.

I'd also look at plastics for space probe design as well. There's a bunch out there now that don't have outgassing problems. That would cut down the weight enormously. Carbon fiber is also a good option, but I don't know of any outgassing tests performed on the resins that are used.
I'd also look into Boeing's Nstar ion engine. Or a better option is http://www.aerojet.com/capabilities/spacecraft.php Commercial, off the shelf, already done. The specs are there, the machinery is there, so that'll help cut the costs and weight down even further. That leaves your cpu, data processing, telemetry, and radio. For the CPU, you don't even need to bother with CPU's anymore, there's a lot of embedded devices that are a better option, and FPGA's in particular, and they've been tested thoroughly on space craft as well. They're also cheap, available, easily programmable, and if you need to, you can adjust the programming on the fly. For the OS, NetBSD runs on EVERYTHING. For data storage, solid state is always a best bet, but solid state data storage is more prone to radiation effects, but they have solid state memory cores that are space rated as well. You're also gonna need a power supply, best that it's one of the battery charged solar panel setups that a lot of micro satellite's use. Obviously, you're gonna need solar panels. For the instrumentation, you might neet a preamplifier and a multi channel analyzer. For orientation, fiber optic gyros are good on the budget for orientation. I think there are four manufacturers in that areana. For radio, well, the sky's the limit. My University used an S band transmitter on one of their satellites. And all of this has to be on a single system bus. For the laser's power supply, that's gonna have to be separate from the rest of the system, due to the power intensive nature. You're also going to have to worry about thermo effects from the laser itself on the instrumentation, so you might want to put that at a distance with some heat sinks, and away from plastic and carbon fiber! Unless you want the outgassing to disorient your craft.

Last but not least, you need machining facilities and engineering teams, but man, this is easy. Looks like you're in San Antonio? I think UTSA has an engineering department, they'll definitely cut their teeth into that, and most universities have a machine shop. Most EE and Computer E students have to do a senior thesis for two semesters, so even prototyping this with them will be appealing for them. And you can do that for a REALLY low budget. The cost is just the price of parts actually. Think of senior engineering students as, well, intellectual sweat shop labor. I know, because I used to be one, heck, I even used them as such in my project! ;) Just write up a proposal, brush off your sales skills, and show it to this guy: http://engineering.utsa.edu/EE/deptInfo.html Who knows, he might go for it. Most engineering professors, once they find out that they don't have to fork over any money, are more than interested in a technical project for their students to cut their teeth on. That's how I sold mine at my Uni. Kind of funny, sales. I spent more time selling my project to my engineering teams than I did in tech development. That's probably the reason why I left the tech arena. I like people more than machines. :D

ANYWAY, for testing, Houston Space Center is nearby. We did some of our testing at Lincoln Labs, in Mass, and the shake test at Chincoteague Island's Goddard Flight Center. Given the NASA budget these days, it shouldn't be too hard to lease some shake time at their labs. Hey, our taxes paid for it already.

[Rhyshaelkan]

Welcome to the forums. Nice to see another real person on the forums. I spend my days deleting spammers. :P

[Sam Fraser]

You mean I missed some, Rhy? :mad: :D A fantastic first post by klaks. :) It's amazing what private companies in the space sector are already producing commercially and at a competitive price these days. Most people would think an asteroid probe would be require a bajillion dollars and NASA doing all the R&D building each component by hand from scratch.

[joertexas]

Do you have a specific mission target? Because that's going to define everything in terms of how you build your probe. When I worked on my sounding rocket project with NASA, we had to narrow our mission down to something very specific. We chose atmospheric radiation. I'd imagine that for asteroid exploration, you're probably looking for water, right? That would mean a spectrometer that's flight tested. We used this company, http://www.amptek.com, specifically their channel electron multiplier, but they have a whole array of off the shelf equipment that, if their manufacturing process was the same with the multiplier, is shake, rattle and roll, and space worthy. I'd look them up for lightweight scanning equipment. We also used this company, http://www.tec5hellma.com/ for their Zeiss MMS Spectral Analyser. It's space worthy. I know, because we sent it into space. You'd probably need that to look for water vapor signatures. But you'd have to somehow get the volatiles to vaporize first off the rock. Maybe a small, high powered laser with it's own power supply would do the trick. At least you don't have to worry about thermal blooming in space! That would suck.

I'd also look at plastics for space probe design as well. There's a bunch out there now that don't have outgassing problems. That would cut down the weight enormously. Carbon fiber is also a good option, but I don't know of any outgassing tests performed on the resins that are used.
I'd also look into Boeing's Nstar ion engine. Or a better option is http://www.aerojet.com/capabilities/spacecraft.php Commercial, off the shelf, already done. The specs are there, the machinery is there, so that'll help cut the costs and weight down even further. That leaves your cpu, data processing, telemetry, and radio. For the CPU, you don't even need to bother with CPU's anymore, there's a lot of embedded devices that are a better option, and FPGA's in particular, and they've been tested thoroughly on space craft as well. They're also cheap, available, easily programmable, and if you need to, you can adjust the programming on the fly. For the OS, NetBSD runs on EVERYTHING. For data storage, solid state is always a best bet, but solid state data storage is more prone to radiation effects, but they have solid state memory cores that are space rated as well. You're also gonna need a power supply, best that it's one of the battery charged solar panel setups that a lot of micro satellite's use. Obviously, you're gonna need solar panels. For the instrumentation, you might neet a preamplifier and a multi channel analyzer. For orientation, fiber optic gyros are good on the budget for orientation. I think there are four manufacturers in that areana. For radio, well, the sky's the limit. My University used an S band transmitter on one of their satellites. And all of this has to be on a single system bus. For the laser's power supply, that's gonna have to be separate from the rest of the system, due to the power intensive nature. You're also going to have to worry about thermo effects from the laser itself on the instrumentation, so you might want to put that at a distance with some heat sinks, and away from plastic and carbon fiber! Unless you want the outgassing to disorient your craft.

Last but not least, you need machining facilities and engineering teams, but man, this is easy. Looks like you're in San Antonio? I think UTSA has an engineering department, they'll definitely cut their teeth into that, and most universities have a machine shop. Most EE and Computer E students have to do a senior thesis for two semesters, so even prototyping this with them will be appealing for them. And you can do that for a REALLY low budget. The cost is just the price of parts actually. Think of senior engineering students as, well, intellectual sweat shop labor. I know, because I used to be one, heck, I even used them as such in my project! ;) Just write up a proposal, brush off your sales skills, and show it to this guy: http://engineering.utsa.edu/EE/deptInfo.html Who knows, he might go for it. Most engineering professors, once they find out that they don't have to fork over any money, are more than interested in a technical project for their students to cut their teeth on. That's how I sold mine at my Uni. Kind of funny, sales. I spent more time selling my project to my engineering teams than I did in tech development. That's probably the reason why I left the tech arena. I like people more than machines. :D

ANYWAY, for testing, Houston Space Center is nearby. We did some of our testing at Lincoln Labs, in Mass, and the shake test at Chincoteague Island's Goddard Flight Center. Given the NASA budget these days, it shouldn't be too hard to lease some shake time at their labs. Hey, our taxes paid for it already.

First, let me apologize for not answering you sooner - I didn't even see this post until today for some reason.

I will have to digest all this information before I can even begin to formulate something approaching an intelligent response. Thank you very much for taking the time to give me all this information. My background is in aviation, but this spacecraft project is much more involved.

Thanks again!

JR

[klaks]

You mean I missed some, Rhy? :mad: :D A fantastic first post by klaks. :) It's amazing what private companies in the space sector are already producing commercially and at a competitive price these days. Most people would think an asteroid probe would be require a bajillion dollars and NASA doing all the R&D building each component by hand from scratch.

Heh. Well, at least my eight years combined experience working on space projects is being somewhat useful these days. Let me tell ya, one thing I learned the hard way is that US society in general doesn't like maverick thinkers... or at least people like me. So I left the entire space industry, space movement, and tech industry for that matter before 9/11 to pursue personal interests. I teach science to kids these days, mostly hands on stuff like how to make solar electric panels from copper flashing and spare parts, and fuel cells out of band aids and such. I also spent a lot of years working on interpersonal and human relationship skills, ie sales and marketing.

Would I go back to NASA? F--k no. Do I think society has a place for me? I dunno anymore. BUT, at least HERE, I can contribute that hard earned experience. If you want, I've got block diagrams and old proposals I can post, they can give you some models to work with. In fact, you can see a past project of mine on line, SPECTRE, http://www.bu.edu/csp/uv/spectre/index.html The mission profile link is the actual proposal we sent to NASA that got approved. We were among the first undergraduate teams to get a space project in with NASA. Before that all the teams were graduate students. I'm the vietnamese american dude in the bottom middle of the photo of our team with our sounding rocket payload. The indian dude on the upper right corner was the chief investigator, and my advisor through out the project.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l222/adventure_maniac/SPECTRE/SPECTRE_Team_payload.jpg

One thing I've learned about space is that the technology is it's actually really cheap. Hell, even the man power is pretty cheap if you use your street smarts. The problem is the will, motivation, and sales skills to keep everyone going, funding to last through the whole process, and of course, whatever higher power you believe in supporting you through it. Luck ain't a chance thing. I learned that from the school of hard knocks. Honestly, I think my team and I were lucky. Really lucky. Our project cost $30,000, and we managed to make that work for four years of the project. We also got the nike orion rocket for free, AND the project succeeded, which helped my advisor secure more grants for other space projects. Before that, the BU TERRIERS satellite program was 13 million dollars, and that failed when when the satellite went into a wrong orbit. When I think about it, it's incredible how much luck plays into it. I'm still surprised I managed to keep going all those years, because I lost my scholarship to work on it. There's nothing like failing out of school to pursue your dream, combined with family and school pressure to leave due to grades on top of that. I was even going to work as a waiter at a restaurant just to stay in town to continue with it. Somehow I managed to stay with it!

[joertexas]

Heh. Well, at least my eight years combined experience working on space projects is being somewhat useful these days. Let me tell ya, one thing I learned the hard way is that US society in general doesn't like maverick thinkers... or at least people like me. So I left the entire space industry, space movement, and tech industry for that matter before 9/11 to pursue personal interests. I teach science to kids these days, mostly hands on stuff like how to make solar electric panels from copper flashing and spare parts, and fuel cells out of band aids and such. I also spent a lot of years working on interpersonal and human relationship skills, ie sales and marketing.

Would I go back to NASA? F--k no. Do I think society has a place for me? I dunno anymore. BUT, at least HERE, I can contribute that hard earned experience. If you want, I've got block diagrams and old proposals I can post, they can give you some models to work with. In fact, you can see a past project of mine on line, SPECTRE, http://www.bu.edu/csp/uv/spectre/index.html The mission profile link is the actual proposal we sent to NASA that got approved. We were among the first undergraduate teams to get a space project in with NASA. Before that all the teams were graduate students. I'm the vietnamese american dude in the bottom middle of the photo of our team with our sounding rocket payload. The indian dude on the upper right corner was the chief investigator, and my advisor through out the project.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l222/adventure_maniac/SPECTRE/SPECTRE_Team_payload.jpg

One thing I've learned about space is that the technology is it's actually really cheap. Hell, even the man power is pretty cheap if you use your street smarts. The problem is the will, motivation, and sales skills to keep everyone going, funding to last through the whole process, and of course, whatever higher power you believe in supporting you through it. Luck ain't a chance thing. I learned that from the school of hard knocks. Honestly, I think my team and I were lucky. Really lucky. Our project cost $30,000, and we managed to make that work for four years of the project. We also got the nike orion rocket for free, AND the project succeeded, which helped my advisor secure more grants for other space projects. Before that, the BU TERRIERS satellite program was 13 million dollars, and that failed when when the satellite went into a wrong orbit. When I think about it, it's incredible how much luck plays into it. I'm still surprised I managed to keep going all those years, because I lost my scholarship to work on it. There's nothing like failing out of school to pursue your dream, combined with family and school pressure to leave due to grades on top of that. I was even going to work as a waiter at a restaurant just to stay in town to continue with it. Somehow I managed to stay with it!

I really appreciate your help. As you said earlier, my first problem is determining exactly what information I can gather from the target asteroids. I posted my so-called Dirty Dozen list elsewhere in this forum. These asteroids all require 4.5 km/s or less Delta Vee, are 100m+ in diameter - basically making them both accessible and attractive for a manned mission.

My idea is to launch a carrier with 16 or so probes that can be launched at will to run and find out about a particular rock. So, I thought that visual and infrared cameras would be a given for the mission. I don't have the background to know what other instruments would be useful in determining if the rock in question would be a good target for mining.

JR

[klaks]

I really appreciate your help. As you said earlier, my first problem is determining exactly what information I can gather from the target asteroids. I posted my so-called Dirty Dozen list elsewhere in this forum. These asteroids all require 4.5 km/s or less Delta Vee, are 100m+ in diameter - basically making them both accessible and attractive for a manned mission.

My idea is to launch a carrier with 16 or so probes that can be launched at will to run and find out about a particular rock. So, I thought that visual and infrared cameras would be a given for the mission. I don't have the background to know what other instruments would be useful in determining if the rock in question would be a good target for mining.

JR

Well, what you can do in terms of prototyping then is remember that instrumentation is always going to send you your information in bits. So, whether you choose IR or some other remote sensing method, as long as you can accomodate the data bandwidth, you'll be fine. I personally wouldn't use a visual camera, unless it's black and white, because it has a LOT of data that's streaming, and if you're making course corrections and adjustments, with the time delay in between, that can get a little crazy. IR is good, but I'd also look into recent developments in spectroscopy. Like this link:
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/environment_sciences/039_pollution_radar_039_developed_provide_128857.h tml

A lot of remote sensing these days has been miniaturized, so you shouldn't have too many problems locating battle tested equipment for your probe. I'd also seriously consider the ion engine as opposed to chemical, due to weight.. unless time is of the essence for your mission. :D

Other than that man, it's just the nitty gritty details, but you can have engineering teams take care of that. Really, the only problem is the main one. Cost to launch to orbit. But given that, say, Orbital Science's Pegasus booster, for example, costs about a few million (which is a bargain in terms of launch costs if you can in house most of the ground support and telemetry at the University), and it can hoist 443 kilograms, if you can get your probes down to, say, 100 kilograms a piece, you can send up 4, which would be a good start.

[Mark Prado]

The problem is the will, motivation, and sales skills to keep everyone going. ... I was even going to work as a waiter at a restaurant just to stay in town to continue with it. Somehow I managed to stay with it!

Klaks, you are a proven entity, as few people have your perseverance all the way thru to completion. I'm sure you have unique leadership skills in your own different way, and you clearly choose your own paths and have initiative. Most people follow the path of least resistance and to the most money, all in conventional ways, just briefly crossing paths with us.

I've been reading your personal website about your 6000 km bicycle trek thru some of the roughest terrain in Latin America, watching your homemade Youtubes as well as watching you on the news, and reading how you sussed out foreign situations, it's clear that you have taken the Real World head-on, choosing your own path (that's leadership!), and passed the most difficult school of all -- The School of Hard Knocks -- with honors!

Few people fully appreciate that until they've experienced it themselves.

It's really good to have you on our pioneering team! You come with some stars already earned at a young age, and you're a young guy with decades ahead of you. You've chalked up some great experience since you bought the book in 2001 (as have Sam and I here) and it's good you checked back in here.

[joertexas]

Well, what you can do in terms of prototyping then is remember that instrumentation is always going to send you your information in bits. So, whether you choose IR or some other remote sensing method, as long as you can accomodate the data bandwidth, you'll be fine. I personally wouldn't use a visual camera, unless it's black and white, because it has a LOT of data that's streaming, and if you're making course corrections and adjustments, with the time delay in between, that can get a little crazy. IR is good, but I'd also look into recent developments in spectroscopy. Like this link:
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/environment_sciences/039_pollution_radar_039_developed_provide_128857.h tml

A lot of remote sensing these days has been miniaturized, so you shouldn't have too many problems locating battle tested equipment for your probe. I'd also seriously consider the ion engine as opposed to chemical, due to weight.. unless time is of the essence for your mission. :D

Other than that man, it's just the nitty gritty details, but you can have engineering teams take care of that. Really, the only problem is the main one. Cost to launch to orbit. But given that, say, Orbital Science's Pegasus booster, for example, costs about a few million (which is a bargain in terms of launch costs if you can in house most of the ground support and telemetry at the University), and it can hoist 443 kilograms, if you can get your probes down to, say, 100 kilograms a piece, you can send up 4, which would be a good start.

One reason I was considering color imaging was the publicity factor. We could get a lot of good press with some eye candy to show. Even some stills would be good - think of the images from Hubble.

I can't find any specs on ion engines, so that's why I've been planning to use Nitro Tet / Hydrazine thrusters for the perigee kick engine. I'll keep looking, though. The probe itself is working out to be about 61 or so kg, from the mass ratio du jour. Anything I save in equipment mass is going into the probe's tank for maneuvering fuel.

For the launch vehicle, I'm looking to SpaceX's Falcon 9. http://www.spacex.com They are estimating about $42M for 10,000kg to LEO, as of Thursday when I spoke to someone on their team. That's why I'm going for One Big Launch and hold in LEO vs. launching piecemeal. Now, if we can get it done by launching even one at a time, I'm all for it.

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

I would hope for color pictures as well. Are transmissions so limited in bandwidth? I would love to have a real-time closing with said asteroids. Then PERMANENT could make a time-lapse video of such and sell rights to networks. Perhaps even for movie producers that want "real" footage of an asteroid.

[joertexas]

I would hope for color pictures as well. Are transmissions so limited in bandwidth? I would love to have a real-time closing with said asteroids. Then PERMANENT could make a time-lapse video of such and sell rights to networks. Perhaps even for movie producers that want "real" footage of an asteroid.

Exactly! :D

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

If you have room and mass-capacity for it. Perhaps even stereoscopic vision. It would not be very apparent until you got closer. But being able to broadcast in 3-d would be quite glitzy. Perhaps have two arms that can extend out a meter or two to get better depth perception. Watching one of the "dirty-dozen" as the probe orbits. Seeing the relief of the terrain's bumps.

Having watched a few tutorials of Autodesk Maya. The abilities to go 3-D are stunning. And not something we should overlook.

[joertexas]

If you have room and mass-capacity for it. Perhaps even stereoscopic vision. It would not be very apparent until you got closer. But being able to broadcast in 3-d would be quite glitzy. Perhaps have two arms that can extend out a meter or two to get better depth perception. Watching one of the "dirty-dozen" as the probe orbits. Seeing the relief of the terrain's bumps.

Having watched a few tutorials of Autodesk Maya. The abilities to go 3-D are stunning. And not something we should overlook.

Now, I really like that idea. I don't know what sort of transmission rates it would require, but that's an awesome idea!

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

Kinda getting off-topic, but it will be something to consider when designing the probes and later craft. Especially if we wish to make a profit from video shot along the way. More money meaning more missions after all.

I found a video bandwidth calculator (http://www.csgnetwork.com/videosignalcalc.html)

Common display resolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution)

If our cameras would take one picture every second on the trip there. One minute of real time could be compressed down to 2 seconds of film. With standard film being 30 frames/second. Later when the probe gets closer we can up the frequency of the frames. However as klaks has said sending the probe through a sequence of maneuvers at the same time as upping the video content might push the abilities of the signal bandwidth.

Later if it is a manned mission this will not be an issue as the film can be recorded for later. And then in a lull of activities, the bandwidth can be hogged by the recorded video transmission.

[joertexas]

Kinda getting off-topic, but it will be something to consider when designing the probes and later craft. Especially if we wish to make a profit from video shot along the way. More money meaning more missions after all.

I found a video bandwidth calculator (http://www.csgnetwork.com/videosignalcalc.html)

Common display resolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution)

If our cameras would take one picture every second on the trip there. One minute of real time could be compressed down to 2 seconds of film. With standard film being 30 frames/second. Later when the probe gets closer we can up the frequency of the frames. However as klaks has said sending the probe through a sequence of maneuvers at the same time as upping the video content might push the abilities of the signal bandwidth.

Later if it is a manned mission this will not be an issue as the film can be recorded for later. And then in a lull of activities, the bandwidth can be hogged by the recorded video transmission.

That brings me to my next question: What sort of transmitter would we need to send data back? I figure we can get a 1m high gain antenna on the probe. A larger one might be possible, but that will be more of an engineering challenge than a simple device like an umbrella.

I'm thinking a S-band transceiver is the right device, but I don't know what the specs would need to be for pictures.

JR

[Sam Fraser]

I'm thinking of nothing less than stereoscopic IMAX 3D resolution. :cool: We'll be making a movie in both IMAX and regular screen resolutions. If we can make a few million from footage made into a documentary to defray mission costs, it's worth investigating a system than can handle the highest bandwidth possible. :D

[joertexas]

I'm thinking of nothing less than stereoscopic IMAX 3D resolution. :cool: We'll be making a movie in both IMAX and regular screen resolutions. If we can make a few million from footage made into a documentary to defray mission costs, it's worth investigating a system than can handle the highest bandwidth possible. :D

I found this presentation about a mission that sounds like it'd be a good one to support:

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/IAA_PD2009_1544473_present.pdf

JR

[Sam Fraser]

Some wickedly cool artwork and renderings there, JR. PERMANENT needs to develop material like that. All in good time.

Can your Dirty Dozen double as transponder units that can be "landed" on each target? Sticking on a transponder would be cheap.....right?

[Rhyshaelkan]

A nice cost saver for the Dirty Dozen probes. They are can all be the same. One R&D bill, one production bill and one(using SpaceX 9H) launch bill hopefully.

Funds coming in from the sale of video is great. However I would like the probes capable of discerning "fluffiness" of the asteroid. For that will tell us what kind of mining equipment to send up.

Why the freak do these things cost so much? I tried looking for transmitters, transponders, antennae. Just got a bunch of BS links that did not apply to satellites. In looking up satellite equipment I find satellite speakers, satellite RF signal transmitters for room to room locations. Nothing that could help with a self-designed probe. Quite discouraging.

Long ago I heard about a scam or study of ICBM builders. That instead of using high quality parts. They built ICBM on-board guidance systems using off the shelf radio-shack parts.

If only we could build these probes on the cheap using decent quality but more cost effective parts.

[joertexas]

Some wickedly cool artwork and renderings there, JR. PERMANENT needs to develop material like that. All in good time.

Can your Dirty Dozen double as transponder units that can be "landed" on each target? Sticking on a transponder would be cheap.....right?

I do want each of the probes to stay with its target asteroid. I don't exactly know how to accomplish that short of using a tethering system, or landing on it like NEAR Shoemaker did.

JR