CubeSat Mission: Near-Earth Asteroid Scout (animation only, no audio) NASA's Marshall Center
Published on Sep 21, 2016
The Near-Earth Asteroid Scout, or NEA Scout, is a robotic reconnaissance mission that will deploy a 6U CubeSat to fly by and return data from an asteroid representative of possible human destinations. Using a solar sail for its propulsion system, it will perform reconnaissance of an asteroid, take pictures and observe its position in space.
Launching on NASA's Space Launch System rocket, the CubeSat deployment animation starts at the 1:25 timecode with the solar sail deployment animation beginning at the 2:54 timecode.
The NEA Scout team is currently evaluating a range of targets, and is continually updating the candidate pool based on new discoveries and expected performance.
NEA Scout is one of three payloads selected by NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. These small satellites were chosen to address Strategic Knowledge Gaps (SKGs) and help inform research strategies and prioritize technology development for future human and robotic exploration. It is being developed at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
Learn more by visiting
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nea-scout
This is one of the cubesats that was supposed to have been deployed in the last few hours from Artemis I. Has anybody seen any news?
This is one of the cubesats that was supposed to have been deployed in the last few hours from Artemis I. Has anybody seen any news?
I just looked at the DSN and they are communicating with like 4 of the cubesat missions right now (though Neoscout isn't one of them). I'm glad some of them are working, since they had dead battery problems due to not being charged for months.
https://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/dsn.html
I just looked at the DSN and they are communicating with like 4 of the cubesat missions right now (though Neoscout isn't one of them). I'm glad some of them are working, since they had dead battery problems due to not being charged for months.
I know the PI for the mission that got taken off Artemis and will fly separately. She explained some interesting things about these smallsat missions. Initially, they were told that they could not have any recharging capability to their satellite and that it had to be all buttoned up, with no way to recharge it at all. But over time the requirements changed a bit, and NASA said it was okay to build them with a recharge capability. Some of the designs were already locked in by that time, so they could not recharge. Others may have ignored the initial requirement. Others built late enough that they added that capability. That's why some of them had no power and never got recharged.
There's also an interesting discussion one could have about whether the science community should have gotten involved in this effort at all. There are a lot of nuances to that, and one would have to look at other examples. But considering that a bunch of these things launched dead, that really implies that this was a waste of money and effort.
This whole episode illustrates the weaknesses of rideshare. They are at the mercy of the prime payload and they are not a priority for the launch vehicle. The problems of the Janus mission, supposed to be launched with Psyche, is another example of this.
And despite the glut of small launch vehicle programs, there doesn't appear to be anything that is really suitable for launching small interplanetary missions.
This whole episode illustrates the weaknesses of rideshare. They are at the mercy of the prime payload and they are not a priority for the launch vehicle. The problems of the Janus mission, supposed to be launched with Psyche, is another example of this.
And despite the glut of small launch vehicle programs, there doesn't appear to be anything that is really suitable for launching small interplanetary missions.
Have any of the symplex missions worked?
This whole episode illustrates the weaknesses of rideshare. They are at the mercy of the prime payload and they are not a priority for the launch vehicle. The problems of the Janus mission, supposed to be launched with Psyche, is another example of this.
It does, but I think it goes beyond that. There are some difficult and nuanced questions to ask about what happens when the human exploration program and science (scientists, and SMD) try to cooperate. Unless that is handled very carefully, it can be very inefficient. In this case, "inefficient" means spending money on spacecraft that never became operational.
If you think about it, it's pretty nuts that a part of NASA (remember that it was the human exploration side, not all of NASA) was willing to spend money on hardware/missions that it then had no interest in seeing succeed. And think about the people who worked on those things. They spent a considerable amount of time and effort building them only to have them fail.
There are ways for science and exploration to cooperate more effectively. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is a good example. But they have to start with a good relationship, not throw out a set of requirements and some money and then stop caring about the mission.
This whole episode illustrates the weaknesses of rideshare. They are at the mercy of the prime payload and they are not a priority for the launch vehicle. The problems of the Janus mission, supposed to be launched with Psyche, is another example of this.
And despite the glut of small launch vehicle programs, there doesn't appear to be anything that is really suitable for launching small interplanetary missions.
Electron + Photon is suitable.
Have any of the symplex missions worked?
Not yet.The first one failed just after launch. LunaH-Map, launched on Artemis 1, does appear to be alive. Janus and Escapade are looking for launches. Lunar Trailblazer will launch with a CLPS lander next year.
Electron + Photon is suitable.
Rocket Lab/Electron/Photon does look like a promising platform for SIMPL-Ex to build on. It should be less volume limited than a cubesat, and offers a low cost dedicated launch.
It does, but I think it goes beyond that. There are some difficult and nuanced questions to ask about what happens when the human exploration program and science (scientists, and SMD) try to cooperate. Unless that is handled very carefully, it can be very inefficient. In this case, "inefficient" means spending money on spacecraft that never became operational.
If you think about it, it's pretty nuts that a part of NASA (remember that it was the human exploration side, not all of NASA) was willing to spend money on hardware/missions that it then had no interest in seeing succeed. And think about the people who worked on those things. They spent a considerable amount of time and effort building them only to have them fail.
I don't think they should have let the first flight of SLS carry cubesats. There were always likely to be problems, and they needed to focus on getting the rocket off the ground.
The Hubble telescope is probably the best example of collaboration between manned and unmanned programs. However, in recent years they broke their commitment to launch Europa Clipper. A rocket that can't meet launch windows and provides poor customer service is one the missions are going to avoid using.
Don't agree with this. There was extra upmass available, why not do something with it? Everyone knew it was taking a chance, first launch being unpredictable at the best of times. But flying the cubesats didn't hurt Artemis 1 and gave people a good opportunity to learn a lot even if things don't work. As it is we will probably get some useful results, e.g from LunaH-Map and Lunar IceCube. But look ahead - no cubesats on mission 2 and no word I am aware of if there will even be any more Artemis flights with cubesats. So saying 'don't fly cubesats on the first mission' doesn't look like a good strategy.
Don't agree with this. There was extra upmass available, why not do something with it? Everyone knew it was taking a chance, first launch being unpredictable at the best of times. But flying the cubesats didn't hurt Artemis 1 and gave people a good opportunity to learn a lot even if things don't work. As it is we will probably get some useful results, e.g from LunaH-Map and Lunar IceCube. But look ahead - no cubesats on mission 2 and no word I am aware of if there will even be any more Artemis flights with cubesats. So saying 'don't fly cubesats on the first mission' doesn't look like a good strategy.
The problem with flying the cubesats on Artemis I was the deployment from inside the core interstage. Where there is no access to the cubesats while the SLS is at the launch pad. There should be some better locations on the SLS launch stack to installed the cubesats.
Don't agree with this. There was extra upmass available, why not do something with it?
The issue is that it costs money to develop the missions, and the launch cost is usually a minor fraction of the total coast. Launch costs are coming down. With RocketLab offering a dedicated launch for $10 million, the value of rideshare is less.
Have any of the symplex missions worked?
Not yet.The first one failed just after launch. LunaH-Map, launched on Artemis 1, does appear to be alive. Janus and Escapade are looking for launches. Lunar Trailblazer will launch with a CLPS lander next year.
Electron + Photon is suitable.
Rocket Lab/Electron/Photon does look like a promising platform for SIMPL-Ex to build on. It should be less volume limited than a cubesat, and offers a low cost dedicated launch.
Photon isn't limited to Electron. When launched on 1000kg LV its no longer limited to 300kg. RL can add considerable more DV to it by enlarging fuel tanks without much gain in dry mass. Also a bit more DV can be gain by deployment in higher orbit thanks LVs extra performance.
Firefly really needs a few more launches before risking on interplanetary mission.
Photon could also be used on GTO rideshares which are lot more common than interplanetary primary missions.
The problem with flying the cubesats on Artemis I was the deployment from inside the core interstage. Where there is no access to the cubesats while the SLS is at the launch pad. There should be some better locations on the SLS launch stack to installed the cubesats.
I think it is bigger than this. The problem with all secondary payloads is that they are at the mercy of the primary payload. I recently published an article on the top secret Program 989 satellites that were launched from the 1960s into the 1990s. A guy who ran a number of the individual satellites and later the whole program told me a bunch of stories that are familiar:
--they had a problem with a power source on a P989 and wanted to delay the launch for a week to fix it and were told no, so the satellite failed after a month in orbit
--they always had to fly at the time and orbit that the primary dictated
--when the launch vehicle didn't have enough capability, they were the first thing to get booted off the flight.
The same types of things happened to unclassified missions in the 1990s up until today.
So even if the smallsats had been made to be rechargeable (see my comment up-thread about this), there's no guarantee they would have been allowed to recharge when needed. It was the Artemis program that was calling all the shots. That's the way it always is with secondary payloads. You get a "free" launch, but it comes with a lot of opportunity costs, some of which may lead to the failure of your mission.
(Note that "free" may also require integration costs that may not be cheap.)