Build Your Own Satellite For Less Than $30K 49
schwit1 writes An industry of new cubesat builders can now build satellites for anyone for any reason for very little money. From the article: "The miniaturization of technology allows people to do more with less hardware, said Chad Anderson, the managing director of Space Angels Network, an investment house specializing in the space industry. That industry, he said, was worth $300bn (£200bn) last year. Constellations of smaller satellites, like those suggested as tracking devices for planes over oceans, are now a possibility. 'The launch costs are coming down and people leveraging today's technology are able to do more with less and launch less mass to orbit. The price point has come down to where start-ups and entrepreneurs can really make an impact on the scene for the first time,' he said." When the first tiny satellite launch companies arrive, expect this industry to blossom at an astonishing rate.
Tiny Satellites == Space Junk (Score:1)
All this time and money spent worrying about what to do with the problem of space junk and garbage that could be deadly to astronauts, but if you can scap together a few bucks you can get your shiny new junk launched! Because it is intentional, therefore it is not junk?
Re: (Score:1)
$30K! I can start building a satellite for you right now starting at $5.
Course, actual capabilities, real or imagined, do add to the final cost.
But I start at $5.
Re: (Score:3)
LEO still experiences atmospheric drag. Without engines and fuel, it doesn't stay in orbit for too long.
Re: (Score:2)
The title of the article is "The innovators: build and launch your own satellite ... for £20,000"
The $30k includes putting it in orbit.
Host your Blog from Orbit (Score:1)
You know you want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuke the entire blogosphere from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
"Bomb the Blogosphere was a t-shirt worn by Martin Reed in the comic Questionable Content.
Not sure if xkcd ever talked about bombing the blogosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
There was an article a couple of years ago on /. about a company that would launch something the size of a coke can for $300.
I think there should be an open source project to design a satellite that is the size of a coke can. Could be fun, maybe some arduino's, a few solar cells, maybe a miniature ion engine that runs on a CO2 canister from a pellet gun. It could be a lot of fun to see just how much you can fit inside a coke can.
Re: (Score:2)
Included in your $30k. It's a 5 cubic centimetre satellite, but its still a satellite.
Re: (Score:2)
That's still twice as expensive as KSP and there you can even see your imaginary sats getting put into orbit.
LEO is Not Forever (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that most small satellites are launched into low Earth orbit and that the orbit decays quickly. There is not a continuing issue of space junk for such payloads, nor do they cross the Van Allen radiation belts so rad-hardness is not as much of an issue.
It'll be very nice when we can launch one for $30K, but that day is not here. When I see AMSAT getting launches at that price, I will believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
$30k is the launch cost. Summary sucks, read TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said. When AMSAT actually gets something launched for that cost, I will believe it. Until then, it's just advertising. AMSAT has lots of FOX cubesats that it could put up for that price.
Re: (Score:2)
They're talking about satellites half the volume of a CubeSat, I'm assuming much less than half the mass.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And there is a photo of a 25-year-old guy holding a light aluminum frame that you can use to make a "satellite". Why is he not photographed watching a launch? Because he hasn't gotten any launched yet.
Why is his radio using the AX.25 protocol with G3RUH modem, which tends to fail as a satellite link, rather than Karn's more recent satellite modem which can stand long fades as your satellite tumbles and its antenna points away from Earth? He and "RadioBro" don't seem to know better.
Why don't they tell y
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be very nice when we can launch one for $30K, but that day is not here.
Now that will be a game changer. Imagine cubesats as common as high altitude amateur radio balloons. Even if Elon cranks out Falcons like sausages and reuses them, LVs are still pretty expensive.
"You Can Build a CubeSat from the Things You... (Score:1)
... Find At Home"
Waiting for someone to filk this [bsutton.com] in 3...2...1....
Regulation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
these companies wouldn't launch it themselves... they would likely package a payload for orbital sciences, boeing, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
No one has invented a new launch system.
They're developing smaller and lighter satellites to cut the cost of piggy-backing on someone else's launch.
$3 (Score:2)
I can build by own satellite for under $3. Granted it will be comprised of a solar panel and an LED that blinks once a second, but no one ever said it actually needed to do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
The first artificial satellite didn't do anything but send out a radio beep. Artificial satellites don't necessarily have to be all that sophisticated if they don't need to actually be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that beep encoded temperature into audio frequency, and you could get its rough ephemerides from receiving horizon crosses at multiple locations, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
So included in that $3 is putting it in orbit? because that's what's including in the $30,000.
still a $300B industry? (Score:2)
Is the industry that expensive even with everyone using a $30k satellite? Or does a $300B market rely on satellites costing closer to $1B each?
Re: (Score:2)
I would put a camera at the moon's L2 point.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't read it but did the price include the launch?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of the launch isn't changing. The size and weight of the satellites is getting smaller, so more can be put on each rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with your ground stations to receive and transmit data.
Also, good luck hosting a torrent tracker in a few grams and 5cm3 of space.
Also, be prepared to launch a new one a couple of times a year, since it will de-orbit itself if it's in low-earth-orbit. An orbit further away with zero atmospheric drag will cost a lot more.
Hmmm (Score:1)
These sats seem ideal for someone to design a rail gun launching system, the should be able to take the stress and they are small enough that the rail gun size wouldn't break the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible to launch something in to orbit from the surface of the earth by shooting it out of something.
Too much air resistance.
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.universetoday.com/7... [universetoday.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.popsci.com/technolo... [popsci.com]
Re: (Score:2)
First link is akin to the slingshot system used on aircraft carriers. It's reducing the fuel required to launch a rocket. Still launching a rocket.
Second link effectively says no more then "Hey, you could use a rail gun!"
Third link is the same concept as the first. It's a Railgun to launch a vehicle that has its own engine that doesn't work at low speed.
The fact is launch something from a gun in to orbit you must make it move much faster than orbital speed, because air resistance and gravity will slow it do
Re: (Score:1)
It would work for cargo, it wouldn't work for living things.
I can't accept that we could never electromagnetically launch something into orbit.
And off all the reasons I have heard for it not working not a single one was "air resistance".
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, go and design something that can handle 28,000kph without burning up. Probably more like 100,000kph, since it has to be going at 28,000kph once it reaches orbital altitude, after being slowed down by the atmosphere.
You've also go the problem of having to fire some kind of rocket once you're at the correct altitude to put it in the correct orbit, or it will continue on its ballistic trajectory and fall right back down to Earth. Maybe there is some kind of precise trajectory that will work out without co