It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Crowd Sourced ATS Spy Satellite

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
So what exactly are the capabilities, such as could we get one to zoom in on locations on earth or the moon etc.

I mean then we could take polls.

Next photo Siberia, Brazil or Somalia. Vote now. Based of course on current events and location.

?




posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Bedlam
Here is a little Sat that NASA launched.

Something on this scale or slightly larger should be doable.



I'm just wondering who's had a successful deployment. I never did find an ArduSat report of being functional. Doesn't mean they weren't all ok, you'd just think with all the pre-deployment coverage there would be a dead or alive report somewhere.

I've developed for space, both "inside" on the Mir and STS, and "outside" on several satellites and a suit gadget. It's not easy. I was actually sort of surprised they got away with some of their design choices, only maybe they didn't.

Inside's tough because you have very strict requirements on how you can design and what sort of materials you can choose. You can't contaminate the atmosphere no matter what - those guys breathe anything you shed or outgas. But it's easier because you don't have to worry as much about thermal control or vacuum.

Outside's easy because it doesn't much matter what you outgas, and you can't burn. But it's tough in that your devices and PCBs are exposed to vacuum, and you have to provide for not having convection and conduction to cool with, and you can't hit "reset" or "ctrl alt del" so you have to design for redundant systems management, and batteries are tough to manage in vacuum for several of these reasons. Plus you get more cosmic rays, so there's a design issue as well.

Anyway, it struck me as interesting that they got away with COTS epoxy chip-scale packaging because you often want ceramic with lid, due to the plastic casings having air voids around the die. You can get the packages cracking open in vacuum, breaking the die bond wires. Some epoxy packages are ok with vacuum. Others are not.

A lot of lithium batteries not designed for satellite service will outgas and dry up through the vents, or rupture if they're sealed when exposed to vacuum, too.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: machineintelligence

The question is . How much . Also ATS has world wide membership , where would it be placed .


It's not really a question of being placed somewhere, if by placed you mean in some fixed location over the ground, because you won't be in a geosynchronous orbit with this hobby sat. So you're going to be in very low Earth orbit, and I bet the life time of these is less than a year before they reenter.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
So what exactly are the capabilities, such as could we get one to zoom in on locations on earth or the moon etc.

I mean then we could take polls.

Next photo Siberia, Brazil or Somalia. Vote now. Based of course on current events and location.

?


A full 1U cubesat would limit you to an aperture of maybe 50mm. That's not going to get you very detailed photos.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: amazing
So what exactly are the capabilities, such as could we get one to zoom in on locations on earth or the moon etc.

I mean then we could take polls.

Next photo Siberia, Brazil or Somalia. Vote now. Based of course on current events and location.

?


A full 1U cubesat would limit you to an aperture of maybe 50mm. That's not going to get you very detailed photos.


Hmmm would still be cool to have polls and discuss and vote for what we do with our own ATS sat though!



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Hmmm would still be cool to have polls and discuss and vote for what we do with our own ATS sat though!


I vote we equip it with a .22LR "missile launcher" and shoot a round or two through any other satellite we get close to!



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I think arming a satellite that would fit in your hand would not be needed. It is tiny afterall and space is big. It would be cool if it can turn and take a picture if something approaches it. I was thinking something not much more than a smart phone with a small telescope mounted on it. Perhaps we could communicate with it via satellite phone network. If an ATS member has a amateur radio license we can use that for uplink communications. The slow communication speeds will make image transfer pretty limited if done on the cheap.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Bedlam

I think arming a satellite that would fit in your hand would not be needed.


Needed, schmeeded. Shooting at other satellites is fun!

eta: Or, we could have it fire a net at other satellites, easier to hit them that way. The net could deploy a de-orbiting tether and drag our prey to earth. We'll call it "Retiarius I".
edit on 3-2-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

It is funny you mention 22LR. It reminds me of my suggestion to a development team I was part of. When considering emergency maneuvering thrust on a tinysat. For reliable energy and sure firing I suggested using those tiny rim fire loads they use in construction for fasteners. They have enough charge to put a nail into hard materials. That is enough energy to lift a tinysat to a higher altitude or out of the path of a fast moving rock.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Bedlam

It is funny you mention 22LR. It reminds me of my suggestion to a development team I was part of. When considering emergency maneuvering thrust on a tinysat.


.22LR works fine in a vacuum. Light, precise, more than enough energy to cause major damage.

Screw lasers. A rifle round is the way to go.

Now, aiming one in space is something for a computer. But that shouldn't be a problem.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

The barrel of a space gun would need to have gas tubes that directed the gas from the charge to the side of the satellite 180 degrees apposed from the bullet flight path to keep the satellite fixed relative to the energy transferred.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

I think its certainly an interesting idea! I have some experience in rocketry, so naturally it piqued my interests!

Do you have a ballpark figure regarding price?



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Bedlam

The barrel of a space gun would need to have gas tubes that directed the gas from the charge to the side of the satellite 180 degrees apposed from the bullet flight path to keep the satellite fixed relative to the energy transferred.


Why throw away the delta-V? Figure out your new course and use the cartridge's recoil to get you started. Do a Quigley.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Oh, and we have to paint a Trojan Horse on one side. Other than that, the decor can be whatever.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

No sort of cost figure calculation can even start until the device mission parameters is agreed upon and established. Like any technology development project the scope of that project must first at least be outlined. Once that baseline function of the device is agreed upon we can move to the part of figuring out cost and get an idea of possible mission parameters for the system.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Please explain the frame of reference regarding the need for the Trojan Horse painted on the side. I am not understanding the reference.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Bedlam

Please explain the frame of reference regarding the need for the Trojan Horse painted on the side. I am not understanding the reference.


Why, because they're just so purty of course.


You see them showing up here and there. Think of it as a sort of Banksy or Kilroy thing.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Found a link that answers your question of has there been any successful launches. This link answers that question with a big yes: funcube.org.uk... looks like they are going on 3 successful launches. I found this while searching for communication packages for the satellite and the ground station. Most relevant work is being done in the amateur satellite community which is an off shoot of amateur radio and amateur rocketry efforts.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
This link answers that question with a big yes...


This isn't an ArduSat. I'm not saying that cubesats aren't possible, just that I hadn't seen the ArduSat ever show up as functional.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
I for one do not have a satellites structure or launch system I am in love with. What ever works and is reasonable in cost is good enough for me.

Some things I want include a decent small compact telescope, a near field RF receiver (unblocked of course), a down link with decent bandwidth, open platform hardware and software, under a kilo if possible. Other than that it can be a CubeSat, TubeSat, what ever.

I am interested in Bloostar for a launch system. I am not in love with it but I have computer modeled this type of launch system since 2002 and even talked with some Lockheed people about it back then.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join