Cubesat 10x10x10cm 1kg Payload, Lets here it then... |
Cubesat 10x10x10cm 1kg Payload, Lets here it then... |
Sep 15 2005, 06:53 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 562 Joined: 29-March 05 Member No.: 221 |
I'm sure many of you will be familar with the CubeSat project, in fact some of you may well have worked on one.
So lets hear it, what would you do with a 10x10x10cm 1kg payload in a CubeSat, beside the obvious like stick a camera in it and photograph your house. Who knows, perhaps one day we may see the launch of the USF CubeSat |
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 01:54 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Need a lot of power and a high pressure Xenon tank. Wonder if it could be doable in a tripple cube.
Doug |
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 03:38 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 562 Joined: 29-March 05 Member No.: 221 |
QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 16 2005, 02:54 PM) Need a lot of power and a high pressure Xenon tank. Wonder if it could be doable in a tripple cube. Doug the power could come from a set of extendable solar panels, who says that once deployed it has to remain constrained to a 10x10x10 cube. I jsut spent an hour in a boring meeting trying to figure out how to get a tiny telescope deployed from a 10x cube. with a single pivot point. We need to start thinking outside the box.... |
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 03:49 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
QUOTE (paxdan @ Sep 16 2005, 04:38 PM) the power could come from a set of extendable solar panels, who says that once deployed it has to remain constrained to a 10x10x10 cube. I jsut spent an hour in a boring meeting trying to figure out how to get a tiny telescope deployed from a 10x cube. with a single pivot point. We need to start thinking outside the box.... The absolute minimum of deployment is probably the way to go - movement of parts=risk to both the CubeSat and the host vehicle, and leads to weight gains, spiralling cost etc. KISS is the motto - it's not Rocket Science, after all, just building... ...er... ...maybe it is. -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 03:54 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
Did I mention that an old friend of mine is selling places on Dnepr launchers, and that if persuaded he might be the very man to find a launch slot? All we need is a spacecraft...
-------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 05:03 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 562 Joined: 29-March 05 Member No.: 221 |
QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Sep 16 2005, 04:54 PM) Did I mention that an old friend of mine is selling places on Dnepr launchers, and that if persuaded he might be the very man to find a launch slot? All we need is a spacecraft... Well lets do it then. seriously. You can buy a lot of the kit you need for the cubesats off the shelf, as someone else pointed out 75% of the volume of a 10x10x10 cube is taken up by standard stuff, CPU, battery, radio, gyro/mag-torque, etc... What we need to focus on is what you would do with a 10x10x2.5 (or eqivalent) 250g payload. The thing that got me thinking is that most telescopes are empty volume. instead of launching that empty volume, why not launch the volume filled with the support stuff, pack all the brains into that empty space for launch then clear the tube once on orbit. Now the clever bit is to design it so that the mirrors and camera remain permenentaly fixed relative to each other. i.e., none of the deploy would be about moving the mirrors accurately, just clearing the tube. I have a design in mind that is essentailly a reflecting telescope with a single sprung hinge which rotates out the brains of the scope from the light path leaving behind a clear tube, you wouldn't even need fine control over the movement, it's a dead cert gross movement deploy. You turn a 10x10x10x satalite in a 10x10x20 telescope on orbit with a single hinge. and bingo there is you amateur telescope in space. the thing is it's such a simple way of doing it, i know it must have been done before, are there any orbiting telescope that have used a similar deploy mechanism on orbit?. |
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 10:26 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
QUOTE (paxdan @ Sep 16 2005, 06:03 PM) Well lets do it then. seriously. You can buy a lot of the kit you need for the cubesats off the shelf, as someone else pointed out 75% of the volume of a 10x10x10 cube is taken up by standard stuff, CPU, battery, radio, gyro/mag-torque, etc... What we need to focus on is what you would do with a 10x10x2.5 (or eqivalent) 250g payload. The thing that got me thinking is that most telescopes are empty volume. instead of launching that empty volume, why not launch the volume filled with the support stuff, pack all the brains into that empty space for launch then clear the tube once on orbit. Now the clever bit is to design it so that the mirrors and camera remain permenentaly fixed relative to each other. i.e., none of the deploy would be about moving the mirrors accurately, just clearing the tube. I have a design in mind that is essentailly a reflecting telescope with a single sprung hinge which rotates out the brains of the scope from the light path leaving behind a clear tube, you wouldn't even need fine control over the movement, it's a dead cert gross movement deploy. You turn a 10x10x10x satalite in a 10x10x20 telescope on orbit with a single hinge. and bingo there is you amateur telescope in space. the thing is it's such a simple way of doing it, i know it must have been done before, are there any orbiting telescope that have used a similar deploy mechanism on orbit?. Paxdan: I've never, ever, heard of an astronomical spacecraft which was built without that big hole in the middle (other than the James Webb chappie). I think mass/structure issues have tended to be the limiting factors, but with nanosats you may as well throw the rulebook away. For example, structural integrity in a 10cm cube, is, well, a given - so move on! If there's serious interest in actually building something - and between us, why not? - then let's build something! I'll make some discreet enquiries regarding a launch... Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th September 2024 - 02:59 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |