|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
scaling laws for satellites and probes?
dave and hank patterson wrote: From my rather small knowledge of deep space probes, it strikes me that they all seem to be about the same size, say, the size of a dumpster. First, is this true? Second, is there any reason for this? In particular, I am surprised there have not been more efforts to build very small probes. Launch vehicles seem to scale badly at small scales (high surface area, and I have a vague sense that building a small pump is hard), but it seems much less obvious to me once the thing is in LEO. In particular, it seems to me that solar thermal rockets could scale very well. The image I have in my head is a probe, mass on order of 100 grams plus a few hundred grams liquid hydrogen fuel. (If the fuel tank is small, perhaps it can hold high pressure gas instead of liquid?). Communication probably done via laser, to avoid the need for a large antenna. Does anyone have an idea for how small the "basic necessities" can be made - for example, some type of navigation system (star camera?), a computing platform, and communication equipment? I am even more unclear about what mission such a beast would be good for; vague ideas that come to mind are investigating asteroids, flythroughs of comet tails, and sample return of interplanetary media. My hope would be that, since launch costs would be very low, many of these things could be sent out - I would imagine there would even be a "market" for lots and lots of medium quality photos of small moons. As far as I know, every deep space probe we have ever launched has been a one-off; these microprobes would have a significant advantage economically, since they could be produced in larger runs. On the other hand, ground support for 100 small probes might be much more expensize than the equivalent for one large probe. I have tried and so far failed to imagine how to get something this size onto a planetary surface; it would seem to me to be very valuable scientifically if we could scatter several hundred very small probes across Mars, Europa, or other trendy locations. Surely this idea has been had before.. but on the other hand, we are better at making small things than ever before. --Dave and Hank Patterson SMART-1 exploited miniaturization to make a smaller probe. http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/are...cfm?fareaid=10 It is not close to 100 grams, though. -- Hop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
dave and hank patterson wrote: From my rather small knowledge of deep space probes, it strikes me that they all seem to be about the same size, say, the size of a dumpster. First, is this true? No, e.g., for Mars probes compare Viking to say Mars Odyssey, or more currently, compare Mars Odyssey to the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter launching in August. For recent probes in general, compare Cassini to Lunar Prospector. Second, is there any reason for this? In particular, I am surprised there have not been more efforts to build very small probes. Size depends on a number of factors -- science goals, instrument design to meet the goals, budget, mission design (e.g., flyby vs. orbiter, lander vs rover), technology (current technology allow for smaller spacecraft to meet a given set of science goals vs technology from say 20 years ago). There have been some small deep space probes, e.g., Deep Space 2 to put 2 coffee can sized probes on Mars. Deep Space 2 was a poor shadow of the proposed MESUR program which would have put over a dozen landers across Mars with 4 or 5 launches. Unfortunately, Deep Space 2 failed which did not help proposals for additional very small Mars probes. Launch vehicles seem to scale badly at small scales (high surface area, and I have a vague sense that building a small pump is hard), but it seems much less obvious to me once the thing is in LEO. In particular, it seems to me that solar thermal rockets could scale very well. The image I have in my head is a probe, mass on order of 100 grams plus a few hundred grams liquid hydrogen fuel. (If the fuel tank is small, perhaps it can hold high pressure gas instead of liquid?). Communication probably done via laser, to avoid the need for a large antenna. 100 grams is really small. Even today, one science instrument masses over 100 grams. With traditional design, spacecraft structure, fuel, power, command/control, communications and data processing HW take up a large part of the spacecraft mass. Does anyone have an idea for how small the "basic necessities" can be made - for example, some type of navigation system (star camera?), a computing platform, and communication equipment? Technology is allowing proposals for "sciencecraft" designs which integrates the support HW into the science instruments to reduce mass. I am even more unclear about what mission such a beast would be good for; vague ideas that come to mind are investigating asteroids, flythroughs of comet tails, and sample return of interplanetary media. My hope would be that, since launch costs would be very low, many of these things could be sent out - I would imagine there would even be a "market" for lots and lots of medium quality photos of small moons. A large number of small spacecraft (not quite 100 gram size) is useful for coverage of wide areas or large numbers of bodies with different characterisitcs. As for launch costs, it may be cheaper to launch a larger number of probes on a single launcher provided the probes are all going to same general vicinity. As far as I know, every deep space probe we have ever launched has been a one-off; these microprobes would have a significant advantage economically, since they could be produced in larger runs. On the other hand, ground support for 100 small probes might be much more expensize than the equivalent for one large probe. Ground support costs may or may not be much more expensive for one large probe than for a lot of smaller ones. Operattions costs depend on a lot of factors. I have tried and so far failed to imagine how to get something this size onto a planetary surface; it would seem to me to be very valuable scientifically if we could scatter several hundred very small probes across Mars, Europa, or other trendy locations. Surely this idea has been had before.. but on the other hand, we are better at making small things than ever before. --Dave and Hank Patterson |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A system for 1 pound spacecraft is being planned:
www.microlaunchers.com . A major set of flights will be for fly-by photos of NEO's like 2004-MN4. The website is now a summary of a presentation given last April at Space Access Society conference in Phoenix. It's definitely feasible. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Another practical design constraint that sets the size of a spacecraft
is the fact that, in most cases, it has to fit within the launch vehicle payload fairing. The spacecraft may have solar panels, booms, or other appendages which are deployed after launch, but it all has to fold up to fit within the payload shroud. Martin |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Voyager probes in funding crisis | Max Power | SETI | 27 | May 28th 05 12:17 PM |
The Depths of Space: The Story of the Pioneer Planetary Probes | w9gb | History | 0 | November 27th 04 11:12 PM |
CNN article about nuclear power on space probes | quibbler | Science | 9 | February 28th 04 08:00 PM |
Alien probes are here? | Steve Dufour | Misc | 3 | February 21st 04 05:28 PM |
Search for ET Probes | Hobbs aka McDaniel | SETI | 14 | February 6th 04 06:49 PM |