CubeSat DIY satellite lets anyone with $80K join space race

Sure, if you're Richard Branson or Paul Allen you can write a blank check to launch a spaceship—and why wouldn't you? But that doesn't mean you can't join the space race on a scale that's more comparable to the way Branson and Allen worked a few decades ago when both were scrappy young entrepreneurs. In fact, if you've got about $80,000, you can build and launch a satellite, thanks to the CubeSat program from Stanford and California Polytechnic. The CubeSat, which its developer calls the Apple II of space exploration, is two-pound cube that can be built for about $40,000 and launched into low-earth orbit for another $40K. At that price, the birds are proving popular with everyone from high school classes to Romanian scientists. Unfortunately, although assembly can be a DIY affair, you still can't launch it yourself, no matter how much time you spent firing off Estes rockets as a kid (launches are done back at Cal Poly).

[Via CNet]

[Ruben Kalath @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

what does this satelite do? i want a satellite that lets me spy on people and stuff. like i want a live picture of the world. i want to see people walking around!

[mike @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

And what, exactly is preventing me from launching it myself?

Is this merely a launch-regulations control issue? Because 'regulations' are breakable.

I think $40k could probably build a launch vehicle with the aeronatical and avionics-tech capacity to enter low orbit. What's missing on my end, is the developmental know-how to do so. However some of my mathematics and computer science engineer friends could probably cover that.

[Scott @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

What's stopping you from launching it yourself? You mean apart from the big ass rocket, launch pad, and control systems? Well, nothing. If you think you can do all that for $40k, you've got a profitable business plan.

"What's missing on my end, is the developmental know-how to do so."
No crap. And the only thing stopping me from developing a workable cold fusion reactor is the know-how to do so.

The reason these guys can do it for 40 grand is because they are launching a bunch of them on the same rocket. This is a very small and light satellite.

[MikeV @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

I can see this being popular for ham radio operators. A few years ago, the US Naval Academy launched a LEO satellite called PCSAT, used by ham radio operators for beaconing GPS positions through. It was a rather small box, and used metal measuring tape for antenna elements. Certainly a satellite on the cheap, but it shows what can be done. :)

http://web.usna.navy.mil/~bruninga/pcsat.html

[Google Nazi @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

What does this sattelite do?
Why would it cost 40k to launch it? overpriced mathimeticians?

If I wanted to launch something into outer space I would use what I have learned in physics class, and create something reasonable in price comparrison or save that $80k and invest it so when private shuttles become consumer available I could afford it.

This seems like a waste of $80,000 and my / your time.

[Helo @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Can I launch one with a giant mirror that will take sunlight and focus it into a single beam that will burn things? Neato.

[Talkin Ape @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

mmm remote back up!

[Randolph Lee @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

For more info on this chap see the sept issue of Discover
New entrant in the space race
17 September 2005
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

The contrast could hardly be greater. While NASA dithers over its next generation of launch vehicle, which is unlikely to get off the ground in the next five years, internet billionaire Elon Musk announced last week that he would build the world's most powerful rocket in two years.
Musk's company SpaceX, which he funded by selling the internet payment company Paypal to eBay, plans to launch its first rocket in the next month or so from an atoll in the Pacific. Falcon 1 is powered by a single motor, which has been undergoing tests for the past year.
Last week, SpaceX said it would skip plans to build a rocket powered by an array of five of the same motors and instead build one using nine motors. Falcon 9, the company says, will be capable of placing a heavier payload in low-Earth orbit than any other launcher, and for a quarter of the cost. The first launch is planned for 2007.
Meanwhile, NASA is stumbling over its plans for the future, says Keith Cowing of the website NASAWatch. The long-delayed "space architecture" document laying out future exploration of the moon and Mars was due to be unveiled earlier this year but is now expected later this week. SpaceX already has one firm customer lined up, while NASA is not expected to launch a new rocket for at least five years, and a moon landing a decade away at best.
From issue 2517 of New Scientist magazine, 17 September 2005, page 5

[UFG @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Watch out. The borg are coming.

[shrinkydinx @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

i cant believe it took 8 comments for the first borg reference :)

[Sarah @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Go Poly!! (The San Luis Obispo one, not pomona)

[Timothy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

This is the best Revolution controller mock-up yet.

[Google Nazi @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

To #12 lmao!!!

[Eddie @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Now I know Poly's made it: we're on Engadget. :P Viva fellow Space Twinkies...

[AH @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

I like the idea of a realllyyyy remote backup. Put some solar cells onto it and have it link up to whatever satellite is controlling the little borglings and put in a few hard drives.

[John Stracke @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

The real reason it's cheap is that the launch vehicle is an ex-Soviet missle, which means the Russians don't have to recover the costs of building it.