A cubesat definitely /could/ have high-Isp propulsion. Just because none have so far doesn't mean they couldn't.
Technology Development Project Selections announced on September 4, 2013. These should be available soon and in need of a mission (unless they were cancelled).http://www.nasa.gov/content/technology-development-project-selections/#.V2YKmDVaHIV
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/23/2016 12:12 amA cubesat definitely /could/ have high-Isp propulsion. Just because none have so far doesn't mean they couldn't.CorrectA_M_Swallow reminded us of Busek's program to build high Isp engines for smallsats and cubesats. QuoteTechnology Development Project Selections announced on September 4, 2013. These should be available soon and in need of a mission (unless they were cancelled).http://www.nasa.gov/content/technology-development-project-selections/#.V2YKmDVaHIV
Quote from: Comga on 06/23/2016 12:32 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 06/23/2016 12:12 amA cubesat definitely /could/ have high-Isp propulsion. Just because none have so far doesn't mean they couldn't.CorrectA_M_Swallow reminded us of Busek's program to build high Isp engines for smallsats and cubesats. QuoteTechnology Development Project Selections announced on September 4, 2013. These should be available soon and in need of a mission (unless they were cancelled).http://www.nasa.gov/content/technology-development-project-selections/#.V2YKmDVaHIV The challenge with high Isp cubesat propulsion is that cubesats tend to be very power limited, which means they probably optimize out to a lower Isp than a bigger satellite would (and they already typically optimize out to far lower Isp than ion engines are capable of). ~Jon
The challenge with high Isp cubesat propulsion is that cubesats tend to be very power limited, which means they probably optimize out to a lower Isp than a bigger satellite would (and they already typically optimize out to far lower Isp than ion engines are capable of).
Quote from: jongoff on 06/23/2016 04:33 amThe challenge with high Isp cubesat propulsion is that cubesats tend to be very power limited, which means they probably optimize out to a lower Isp than a bigger satellite would (and they already typically optimize out to far lower Isp than ion engines are capable of). By power limited do you mean power/mass? I would have thought there was a scaling problem in the other direction for solar power/mass. (im not claiming any experience, just laymans logic)
He means straight forward power limited. Cubesats have small solar panels so it unlikely to have more than 50-100 watts of power. About the same as the lamp in my lounge used to use.
If 2016 HO3 is in fact a natural 40-100m asteroid (likely) and if it also proves to be type with valuable resources either metallic or carbon (based on an exploration mission), how practical would it be to move it to a more useful location to be exploited? What would be required? Where would you move it?
You would think that some at NASA would be jumping at the chance to send a Pioneer class probe to H03 ASAP, since that would be a great target for the Asteroid mission.
The ConstantQ™ thrusters will be used on the CubeQuest competition’s Miles spacecraft. This craft features 12 thrusters with a custom tank design, taking the craft to lunar orbit and to asteroid 2016 HO3.....The ConstantQ™ is a hybrid electrostatic thruster, featuring an exceptionally compact and power-efficient design with a self-neutralizing plasma flow. The thruster gives 1.25 mN of thrust (modes up to 2.4mN available), 760 sec Isp (modes over 3,500 sec available), at 5.5 Watts total input power (3W beam power) when tested in Argon. Our “Model H” system includes 4 thruster heads, high voltage electronics, and 1kg of solid Iodine in a 1.5kg total, 0.5U, 22W package, giving a 8kg 6U satellite 995 m/s delta-v. The Model H’s thrusters are canted allowing for both primary propulsion and attitude control without use of moving parts – an important factor in mission assurance.
Quote from: Danderman on 08/05/2016 06:43 pmYou would think that some at NASA would be jumping at the chance to send a Pioneer class probe to H03 ASAP, since that would be a great target for the Asteroid mission.It's not a great target for the Asteroid redirect mission. See my post above.
Why not Dragon asteroid 2017 as a Mars mission precursor!?
Quote from: Geron on 06/18/2016 02:09 pmWhy not Dragon asteroid 2017 as a Mars mission precursor!?because people who become Mars obsessed aren't into rocks
Quote from: bad_astra on 09/05/2016 08:26 pmQuote from: Geron on 06/18/2016 02:09 pmWhy not Dragon asteroid 2017 as a Mars mission precursor!?because people who become Mars obsessed aren't into rocksAlso, since the goal is Mars and the primary difficulty there (the problem which must be solved no matter the other details, and which must be solved to start major even robotic preparations) is EDL, why spend the money on a launch to a rock that isn't testing EDL?If it's deep space operational experience and high speed reentry you want to test, a loop around the Moon would work, too, and would be faster.