Costs to launch small 15kg-satellite

[ace5]

Referring to this post<br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=businesstech&Number=788099&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=<br /><br />Lets suppose that I have US$ 715,000 to pay for a GEO launch of a small (15kg/30 lb) spherical aluminum satellite hitchkicker. Is this sum enough to pay for a piggyback launch?<br /><br />It would be a simple passive aluminum sphere with no transmitter or thruster systems.<br /><br /><br />Thanks.

 

[jimfromnsf]

no. <br />1. You wouldn't be hitchhiking on the launch vehicle but the spacecraft, since LV's only get you to GTO<br /><br />2. It would cost more for the spacecraft impacts<br /><br />3. The FCC and ITU wouldn't want a passive sphere hanging around GEO

 

[nexium]

I think Jim ment to say LV only gets you to LEO if that. If the GEO stage is delivering several satellites, it's last destination might be a few thousand kilometers above GEO = the junkyard. Perhaps it could take your sphere to the junkyard at no extra cost. Without thrusters your sphere won't remain GEO synchronous long anyway. If your 15 kg sphere is a meter or more in diameter, the cost will be double or more, due to being fragile and large size. The launch safety officer will definately want to inspect the contents of your sphere just before liftoff. Neil

 

[ace5]

Thanks for the answers.<br /><br />Lets suppose that the satellite would be keep attached with the 3rd stage of the launcher. Is there any upper stage that is send to the higher, disposal orbit?<br />Or all teh upper stages currently in use are allowed to reenter following its GTO trajectory?

 

[jimfromnsf]

They eventually reenter. BTW not all launchers need 3 more stages, EELV's only need 2 for a DTO mission.

 

[PistolPete]

There are two ways to get to Geosynchronous Earth Orbit. One is the direct method of having an upper stage put the satellite directly into GEO, the second is called Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit, or GTO which Jim mentioned. GTO is the more common method these days. What GTO does is that the upper stage puts the payload into a highly eccentric orbit with the apogee of 35,786 km and the perigee in LEO. The spacecraft itself provides the final delta-v to circularize the orbit. In essence it is a Hohmann transfer orbit and allows for greater payload capacity to GEO because the total delta-v requirement is split between the upper stage and the spacecraft. It's the same principle behind why a two stage rocket can lift more payload than a single stage LV.<br /><br />So what Jim was trying to say was that the "hitchhiker" satellite would have to be attached to the main payload to actually make it into GEO, otherwise it would be stuck in a highly eccentric orbit unless the "hitchhiker" had its own propulsion system to finish the job itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I'm wondering how much it would cost to attach a remote control car to a lunar orbiter and drop it on the surface. Attach a digital camera, put bigger wheels on it to drive the required distance and collect the prize.<br /><br />I would think an off the shelf car, electronics and a suitable protective container would weigh a lot less then 15kg. The kid across the street has one that weight about three or four pounds and a camera weighs less than a pound, another pound for electronics and the rest for a solid motor to cushion the landing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MBA_UIU]

The mean temp in sun light is 107*C which would kill the motor on a standard toy car. But, why not use a compressed gas engine? With a CGE the heat would work has an advantage <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I'm wondering how much it would cost to attach a remote control car to a lunar orbiter and drop it on the surface. "<br /><br />How do you propose to "drop" it?

 

[scottb50]

How do you propose to "drop" it?<br /><br />That's what the solid motor is for. Landing would be a problem though. That may require two motors. One to start the descent and another to slow it near the surface. Crush zones on the container would protect the vehicle on landing.<br /><br />Since you only have to travel 300 yards to win the prize the compressed gas motor might be a good idea, probably lighter than an electric motor and batteries. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

If you in lunar orbit, it would have required more DV. Direct to surface is better (Surveyor) vs braking into and out of lunar orbit (Apollo) for this case

 

[solarspot]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>only have to travel 300 yards to win the prize<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I thought the distance required was 500 meters (similar to 500 yards)? As well the rover must transmit juts over a gigabyte (IIRC, tho it could be a gigabit instead), and at lunar distances, that requires either a lot of transmission time using a LGA, or adding a high-data-rate HGA in addition to the conventional LGA... Either way you look at it, you need a moderate amount of electrical power. Might offset the potential mass advantage of compressed gas.

 

[nexium]

Thank you, pistolpete: I'm correcting my guesses:<br />EELV = Evolved expendable lift vehicle = Delta 4 or Atlas 5<br />BTW = by the way<br />DTO = direct to orbit, but you need to specify the orbit. In this case a circular GEO sychronous orbit. Typically 3 or 4 stages needed at present for GEO = 2 or 3 stages plus the LV<br />ITU = international telecomunications union<br />LV = lift vehicle, unless otherwise specified the first stage that lifts off from Earth's surface.<br />GTO = geo synchronous transfer orbit.<br />solid motor = solid fuel rocket motor<br />LGA and HGA = Low gain antenna for low speed data and High gain antenna for high speed data.<br />DV = delta v<br />500 meters = about 550 yards<br />Normally we would not go to GEO statonary orbit as a step to the moon, but we do pass 36,000 kilometers altitude on the way to the moon. Neil

 

[PistolPete]

Here are a few definitions that I can remember off of the top of my head:<br /><br />EELV: Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle. Specifically it refers to the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets but can generally refer to any rocket of a similar configuration. The EELVs can lift between roughly 10,000 kg to 25,000 kg due to the fact that they are modular. Upper stages can be replaced and several first stages can be strapped together to increase payload.<br /><br />BTW: By The Way, but that's a common internet slang.<br /><br />LV: Launch Vehicle<br /><br />GTO: Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit. I already defined GTO earlier in this thread.<br /><br />Solid motor: Solid rocket motor. Can be abbreviated SRM or SRB: Solid Rocket Booster.<br /><br />DV does stand for Delta v. Written mathematically as Δv <br /><br /><br /><br />Edit: LGA & HGA: Low Gain Antenna and High Gain Antenna<br /><br />ITU: International Telecommunication Union <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[ace5]

Let avoid the talk gooff topic, guys!<br /><br />I remember that Vanguard satellite is still in Earth orbit, and it ia a very small satellite by nowadays standards.<br /><br />What would be the main options to launch my 15 kg aluminium satellite into a Vanguard-type orbit (650 x 3800 km)?

 

[PistolPete]

Did some digging around using Astronautix.com and Keermalec's space calculator. 650x3800 km is a very elliptical orbit which has very little commercial or scientific value. Also, 15 kg isn't the typical payload of a launcher. Most of the rockets that I looked at that are still in production either lift too much or too little. The closest I could come up with is the Start rocket. It can't deliver a 15 kg payload quite to your desired orbit, but it can take it to a 650x2500 km orbit, which is still a pretty stable orbit.<br /><br />The problem with having a 15 kg satellite as the main payload of a rocket is that you can't fit much science equipment into 15 kg and with the cost of the rocket somewhere between $10-$20 million it's just not worth it. Your best shot would be to get yourself a CubeSat and have it as a hitchhiker payload along with a satellite bound for GTO and perhaps eject the hitchhiker somewhere along the way to get it into your desired orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[ace5]

Thanks.<br /><br />"The problem with having a 15 kg satellite as the main payload of a rocket is that you can't fit much science equipment into 15 kg and with the cost of the rocket somewhere between $10-$20 million it's just not worth it. Your best shot would be to get yourself a CubeSat and have it as a hitchhiker payload along with a satellite bound for GTO and perhaps eject the hitchhiker somewhere along the way to get it into your desired orbit. "<br /><br /> />> My satellite would not have any scientific payload. It would be just a commemorative satellite.<br />Anyone aware anythingf about the costs of a hitchhiking way to space using some of the current space launchers?<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

a least 7 figures

 

[yevaud]

If this helps, I was a part of the TERRIERS satellite project at BU in the mid-90s. It was designed, built, tested there, and launched via a Pegasus from Vandenburg.<br /><br />Total cost was approximately six million from inception to launch.<br /><br />http://www.bu.edu/satellite/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

That was spacecraft costs and not launch vehicle costs. Also not to be mean but what was the final outcome of the mission for only $6million

 

[yevaud]

No, that was all-inclusive costs including launch costs. I would know, I worked for one of the PI's.<br /><br />The final outcome was the Pegasus regrettably inserted it into the wrong orbit, so it all came to naught. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

It couldn't have been all inclusive. STEDI missions were given free rides.<br /><br />http://www.sop.usra.edu/STEDIProgramReport.pdf<br /><br />section 1.3.<br /><br />spacecraft costs $4.4 million<br /><br />Launch vehicle cost $11 million <br /><br />Section 5.3.2.3<br />Actual TERRIERS cost 5.8M

 

[yevaud]

It was all paid for via a set of Grants - including launch costs, so you are completely wrong.<br /><br />You know what my personal standard nowadays at SDC is?<br /><br />If someone who was not even remotely involved begins to tell me that they know more about the internal details than I do - having been so intimately involved (I sat on the weekly steering committee meetings, built the Ground Support Equipment, and was the Material's Manager for two years), I end the discussion.<br /><br />This conversation is terminated. I have no patience for this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Don't get huffy and puffy with me, when you are clearly WRONG and going against documented proof<br /><br />This attitude may be part of the reason for the mission failure.<br /><br /><br />Remotely involved? I am more that you are wrt launch costs. I am in the NASA launch service program, which handle your launch.<br /><br />The PI were never funded for launch vehicle<br />Again, read the report. <br /><br />you were at too low of level to know the workings of the STEDI program. <br /><br />You may know the TERRIERS spacecraft project but not the program that funded its launch <br /><br />5.2 Final Program Costs<br />Through February 2002, the STEDI program/project cooperative agreement value was as follows:<br />USRA Program Management (including subcontract handling).......................................................................$1,463,581<br />Phase I Studies (six)......................................................................................................................................... $960,000<br />Phase II/III<br />SNOE...............................................................................................................................................................$5,058,757<br />TERRIERS ......................................................................................................................................................$5,659,539<br />CATSAT..........................................................................................................................................................$8,344,915<br />Support Subcontracts<br />Viking Science & Technology..................................................................................................................... $19,799<br />Massachusetts Institute of Technology ........................................................................................................ $26,208<br />Southwest Research Institute ............................................................

 

[yevaud]

The entire project was initiated by NASA, and all of the grants paying for it were derived from them (or the NSF). I still possess the very RFPs for them, as well as all of the Engineering documents for TERRIERS, SCARI, GISSMO, plus financial spreadsheets thereof. They did not waive all costs, we were obligated to pay some of them. This was in the daily fiscal report discussed at every steering committee meeting I attended for two years.<br /><br />You are more than welcome to convince yourself otherwise. That alters nothing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>