Planetary Resources

[jebbo]

PR says they will equip their Arkyd 100 series with a cutting edge Laser Communication system. Will they be able to use multiple Arkyd's as an Interferometer utilizing the Communication system?
If they can do that they can exponentially increase their optical resolution.

I'd say no: to perform optical interferometry requires extremely precise beam combination and extremely precise control over the effective separation of elements of the interferometer which means optical delay lines to compensate for distance variations.  And these need to be precise down to (from memory) 1/4 wavelength . . .

[ChefPat]

PR says they will equip their Arkyd 100 series with a cutting edge Laser Communication system. Will they be able to use multiple Arkyd's as an Interferometer utilizing the Communication system?
If they can do that they can exponentially increase their optical resolution.

I'd say no: to perform optical interferometry requires extremely precise beam combination and extremely precise control over the effective separation of elements of the interferometer which means optical delay lines to compensate for distance variations.  And these need to be precise down to (from memory) 1/4 wavelength . . .

In absence of an answer direct from PR, I've come to the same conclusion. But, PR has said the Arkyd 100 is only the first this series. I also asked them if the, say, Arkyd 105 or, 110 might be able to do this.
Unfortunately I have yet to receive an answer.

[JohnFornaro]

But it sounds like a simple strategy.  Sit and wait; point and shoot; count and calculate.  Repeat.

Indeed.  But why be complicated?  Spotting objects moving against the background is straight-forward and largely automated (subtract 2nd shot from 1st and anything that isn't zero is moving).

Arithmetic is typically available to the armchair observer.  A note on rhetoric: To point out the existance of the simple is not a call for complication.

For me, a larger issue is the sketchiness of the asteroid heist itself; a plan which is not yet dead, and which proposes to funnel taxpayer dollars into a funnel which has not only a large intake aperture, but too large output aperture.  That is, the Keck proposal suggests that the rock can be bagged and  brought to a new fangled lunar orbit for about $2.6B or so of taxpayer dollars.  Reading the fine print of their proposal, they assume a TRL6 of the bag, for one thing.  For another, they assume somebody else, which could only be NASA and the taxpayer, will find the rock for them in the first place.  I could go on, but the list of un-included costs is pretty long.

One of the things I'm getting at is that the hunt for the rock itself does not seem to be well conceived.  In fact, just the other day, they announced that they want to send up another cubesat, this time to look for planets in other solar systems.  So there's that immediate change of plans temporally related to the current rejection of the heist in the halls of Congress.

What's up with that?

They have not yet told the public sufficient information about the resolution of the camera, nor the strategy for looking, which is why, I suppose, it is being speculated about on this thread.

Yup.  Not just resolution but a whole gamut of important things: the per pixel point spread function of the optics, noise floors, dark levels, mapping of pixels onto sky coordinates, what their data release strategy is (will they release FITS files, etc).

I'll tell ya about the data release strategy:  Ya gotta pay to play.  That's the part where the taxpayer would pay more for the data dump, whether or not that data has utility.  As I recall, NASA's current price for data is $10M a pop.  Not sure if that's a per CD cost or what.

Of course the CCD sensor (or whatever kind it is) is limited by its resolution.  In addition, to a zeroth order, the optical resolution of the collection mechanism is so important.  That ability being the optical resolution, in this case.  Resolution is indeed the constraint, no matter the wavelength.  It is not at all generally known what the capabilities of the Arkyd 100 spacecraft is.  Naturally, that would be proprietary info.

The speculation of the OldAtlasEGuy above is telling.  The collection resolution, no matter the wavelength, must be pretty darn high.  From an optical standpoint, the diameter of the lens is crucial.  From a cubesat standpoint, the diameter of the lens is constrained.

Add to this equation the recent news about the appropriations bill, and the new focus on exoplanets makes sense in their fundraising efforts. 

[Robotbeat]

Neither the Keck people nor the JPL people (nor Planetary Resources) thought of the bagging idea. If you can guess who, I'll give you a prize (okay, the prize is just satisfaction). As a hint, it's a NASA group. 1 point for guessing the NASA center, 10 points for guessing the group within that NASA center.

(And bagging it isn't the only thing considered, either.)

[JohnFornaro]

Neither the Keck people nor the JPL people (nor Planetary Resources) thought of the bagging idea. If you can guess who, I'll give you a prize (okay, the prize is just satisfaction). As a hint, it's a NASA group. 1 point for guessing the NASA center, 10 points for guessing the group within that NASA center.

(And bagging it isn't the only thing considered, either.)

Whatevs.

[neilh]

In fact, just the other day, they announced that they want to send up another cubesat, this time to look for planets in other solar systems.  So there's that immediate change of plans temporally related to the current rejection of the heist in the halls of Congress.

You realize these satellites are designed to be multifunctional, right?

[spectre9]

Neither the Keck people nor the JPL people (nor Planetary Resources) thought of the bagging idea. If you can guess who, I'll give you a prize (okay, the prize is just satisfaction). As a hint, it's a NASA group. 1 point for guessing the NASA center, 10 points for guessing the group within that NASA center.

(And bagging it isn't the only thing considered, either.)

From the paper I posted in the NEA forum.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Min Qu and Jon Chrone with Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc. (AMA,
Inc.) for their outstanding trajectory analysis in support the ARM concept. Additionally, we would like to thank
the personnel in the Advanced Concepts Laboratory at NASA LaRC, Dave Helton, Josh Sams, Bob Evangelista,
Christopher  Keblitis,  and  Kevin  Greer  (all  employees  of  AMA,  Inc.)  for  the  terrific  computer-generated
graphics included in this paper.  We also like to thank  Dave North  (NASA LaRC),  Christopher Keblitis, and
KISS  for the  capture mechanism  sketches  and drawings,  along with  Jim Strope for his  beautiful  photograph of
the  Murchison CM2 carbonaceous chondrite meteorite  fragment.  Finally, the authors would like recognize and
thank the  Keck Institute for Space Studies  (KISS). KISS  hosted the  ARM  Study  in 2011 and 2012  and was
instrumental in advancing the concept of returning a NEA to cislunar space .

[JohnFornaro]

In fact, just the other day, they announced that they want to send up another cubesat, this time to look for planets in other solar systems.  So there's that immediate change of plans temporally related to the current rejection of the heist in the halls of Congress.

You realize these satellites are designed to be multifunctional, right?

They are certainly giving the impression that their second satellite, built with their second million, will have a quite different function.  Even with some narrowly defined notion of functionality, (it is sensitive to light in wavelength 'x' and light in wavelength 'y'!) there's still limits to the fucntionality in the small package.

What is your point?

[jebbo]

The 2nd $1m is to improve pointing accuracy and to dedicated time to exoplanet hunting, not to launch a 2nd publicly accessible telescope.

[hop]

Their camera's got to be higher resolution than what you suppose, which would not be able to see the rock that is intended to be retrieved. 

This isn't correct at all. You are confusing the ability to resolve an asteroid with the ability to detect it. You can detect an asteroid, characterize it's orbit and obtain light curves and spectra without being able to resolve it. The vast majority of asteroids and KBOs are only known as point sources.

Asteroid surveys favor large FOVs over high resolution.

[Robotbeat]

Neither the Keck people nor the JPL people (nor Planetary Resources) thought of the bagging idea. If you can guess who, I'll give you a prize (okay, the prize is just satisfaction). As a hint, it's a NASA group. 1 point for guessing the NASA center, 10 points for guessing the group within that NASA center.

(And bagging it isn't the only thing considered, either.)

From the paper I posted in the NEA forum.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Min Qu and Jon Chrone with Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc. (AMA,
Inc.) for their outstanding trajectory analysis in support the ARM concept. Additionally, we would like to thank
the personnel in the Advanced Concepts Laboratory at NASA LaRC, Dave Helton, Josh Sams, Bob Evangelista,
Christopher  Keblitis,  and  Kevin  Greer  (all  employees  of  AMA,  Inc.)  for  the  terrific  computer-generated
graphics included in this paper.  We also like to thank  Dave North  (NASA LaRC),  Christopher Keblitis, and
KISS  for the  capture mechanism  sketches  and drawings,  along with  Jim Strope for his  beautiful  photograph of
the  Murchison CM2 carbonaceous chondrite meteorite  fragment.  Finally, the authors would like recognize and
thank the  Keck Institute for Space Studies  (KISS). KISS  hosted the  ARM  Study  in 2011 and 2012  and was
instrumental in advancing the concept of returning a NEA to cislunar space .

Nope. Earlier than all that.

[spectre9]

Ok I'll have one more guess then.

GRC COMPASS.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Here's an unexpected (at least to me) piece of news:

@PlanetaryRsrcs: The A3 will help test the #ARKYD technology! It will launch from the ISS in early 2014. You're the first to know! http://t.co/YIvAtLVYeB

How have they arranged that?!

[Kryten]

 I know there's a cubesat dispenser on Kibo; can it handle 3U sats?

[QuantumG]

"launch from the ISS" .. that's the first time I've heard that!

Good work Planetary Resources.

[Danderman]

It would appear that the very first hardware to be launched by Planetary Resources is NOT a full blown Arkyrd, but rather an early prototype.

Can a 3U CubeSAT be deployed from the Kibo airlock? I would imagine that whoever is handling this deployment for PR will make sure that such a deployment is possible.

[Danderman]

"launch from the ISS" .. that's the first time I've heard that!

Good work Planetary Resources.

Not to mention whoever is doing the deploying.

 

[Robotbeat]

Ok I'll have one more guess then.

GRC COMPASS.

Yup! But no points can be awarded for a second guess.

[JohnFornaro]

Their camera's got to be higher resolution than what you suppose, which would not be able to see the rock that is intended to be retrieved. 

This isn't correct at all. You are confusing the ability to resolve an asteroid with the ability to detect it. You can detect an asteroid, characterize it's orbit and obtain light curves and spectra without being able to resolve it. The vast majority of asteroids and KBOs are only known as point sources.

Asteroid surveys favor large FOVs over high resolution.

Understood.  What about the rate of lazy tumbling? Diameter?  Mass?  Given these,  I'm sure density can be derived.

A flickering point of light can only give but so much info.

[hop]

What about the rate of lazy tumbling?

Light curves can give rotation rate.

Diameter?

You can get a decent estimate, especially if you have mid IR data. This was one of the big contributions of NEOWISE.

Mass?

Not easily unless it has a moon, which a fair fraction of NEOs do. Of course you can get a ballpark from the size estimate and knowledge of other bodies with similar spectral type.

A flickering point of light can only give but so much info.

Most astronomy is done on flicking points of light

The other thing to keep in mind is that survey and followup will be done by different instruments. From what I gather the first generation Arkyds will be intended for survey.