It's DARPA doing its job of DARPA - trying crazy things on a military, shoestring budget so that, if the said thing fails, no one will complain. And if that yield some positive results, then they will share it with the outside world (sooner or later) and everybody will be happy and benefit from it. Over the last thirty years or more a lot of organizations have literally agonized over satellite servicing or not. DARPA is doing his best to try and unlock that situation...
What do you think?
Quote from: a_langwich on 10/19/2013 08:20 amWhat do you think?Unfortunately, while it's an open program, DARPA still requires all of us who had contracts to run any public comments through their DISTAR approval process, which typically takes a while (up to a month), which makes commenting on a forum (or tweets or blog posts) somewhat slower than I'd like. They have however approved some materials for release over the past year though, and some of those might shed some light on the program and the logic behind it. Let me see if I can dig some of those up and share them on this thread. While I don't agree 100% on every last detail of logic for the program, I still think it's a neat idea that I really hope we get a chance to see fly.~Jon
That would be cool to see.
Thanks Jon! Good reading. I'd have to agree that I don't agree with every last detail of logic, although I don't need to be as politically sensitive as that. Nor does it excite me as much as the Tethers Unlimited proposal to build structure in space using 3D printers--that's something that flat out should be funded for development studies on orbit. It's a stretch, but at least a stretch toward a clearly functional system. For Phoenix, there are various troubling gaps and questions in the overall system for me, although I think there's a lot of merit in exploring several of the pieces. All their pictures show the salvaged antenna with miraculously small "satlet" electronics, but where is the power generation (eg solar panels)? May be the follow-on program to Phoenix? The Payload Orbit Delivery (POD) subsystem: was that developed under Phase 1?And then a Tender/Servicer spacecraft--is that what they plan to develop now, or is it partly done already? It seems like it is similar to a long line of satellite-servicing ideas. Does salvaging improve the economics over servicing? Still, a working design would be a good testbed for many, many ideas. Did Novawurks develop the "satlet" stuff, which if I'm reading the presentation right should be launched on/in a POD, or did it develop the Tender/Servicer spacecraft? Or are they combining the prototype satlet stuff with prototype pieces of the T/S, and launching a test of that?I wonder what somebody with a lot of experience in the satellite-building industry, who could give a pretty thorough breakdown of various satellites and their cost by subsystem, would say about this project? A satellite-builder "Jim" who might perform this function for the DARPA PM: .
...One of the problems with refueling schemes that various people and companies have proposed over the years is that refueling only gets you an obsolete satellite. As one very knowledgeable guy I know (who has worked on a lot of expensive satellite programs over the decades) put it: "Do you buy a new battery for a five-year-old laptop?"...
Quote from: Blackstar on 10/19/2013 08:57 pm...One of the problems with refueling schemes that various people and companies have proposed over the years is that refueling only gets you an obsolete satellite. As one very knowledgeable guy I know (who has worked on a lot of expensive satellite programs over the decades) put it: "Do you buy a new battery for a five-year-old laptop?"...Hey, I do!
EnQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/23/2013 09:32 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 10/19/2013 08:57 pm...One of the problems with refueling schemes that various people and companies have proposed over the years is that refueling only gets you an obsolete satellite. As one very knowledgeable guy I know (who has worked on a lot of expensive satellite programs over the decades) put it: "Do you buy a new battery for a five-year-old laptop?"...Hey, I do! End of Life disposal services, like what Dennis Wingo pitched as part of his business plan yesterday at the NewSpace Biz Plan Competition, seem to make more sense. For GEO satellites, the prop to move from GEO to graveyard orbit is equivalent to something like 6-9mos of stationkeeping. Adding an extra 6-9 mos of stationkeeping for a fraction of the revenue stream makes more sense than refueling a 15year old satellite.~Jon
Taken to the extreme, might three huge antennas with appropriate electronics, built in GEO, be able to replace cell phone towers by allowing 2 way comm with existing cellphones directly? That would be what - a trillion dollar business?
Your five year old laptop might be quite valuable to someone who can't afford a new one but can afford a battery.
1. MDA has demonstrated much of the refueling tech already 2. the cost difference between refueling a sat and moving a sat to a graveyard orbit is likely not that great is it?
1. No, they have not. Especially, not with a spacecraft that is not designed for it.2. It is magnitudes greater.
1. Yes, the technologies have been ground tested. At MDA and at NASA. NASA is flight testing those technologies on-orbit at ISS.2. No, it is not "magnitudes" greater. Graveyarding costs 2-3 months of effective satellite revenue thus on the order of $10-$12M in lost revenue. Prior business arrangement have shown that refueling is worth $10M-$12M per year of added life per satellite to an owner operator.
Quote from: GuessWho on 11/16/2013 02:49 pm1. Yes, the technologies have been ground tested. At MDA and at NASA. NASA is flight testing those technologies on-orbit at ISS.2. No, it is not "magnitudes" greater. Graveyarding costs 2-3 months of effective satellite revenue thus on the order of $10-$12M in lost revenue. Prior business arrangement have shown that refueling is worth $10M-$12M per year of added life per satellite to an owner operator.1. Ground testing does not qualify "demonstrated" for flight operations
2. Business arrangements that were never carried out do not qualify as proof.