/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11263207
Just launch a rocket in an isolated area with plenty of escape routes, they can't do shit beyond the ground

>>11263207
Nice ambition OP.

>>11263207
Built one in my undergrad, we spent 200k on it and it took 5 years. The cost was mostly because we used commercial parts which are "cheap" but still several thousand to tens of thousands per part.

Passing certification testing is not difficult depending on your launch provider, but you will need access to proper testing facilities, primarily shock, vibe, and thermal testing capabilities. Many cubesats these days launch through NanoRacks which goes through the ISS and those certifications get much more expens9ve because it's "crewed" spaceflight.

Your biggest issue will be getting a launch. Paying your own way will run you about 300k so most groups go through NASA CSLI. However, CSLI won't select a cubesats without educational or scientific purposes.

>>11263263
What about TubeSat? Are they more lenient? They appear to be the cheapest option.

>>11263263
If you had balls you'd @RichardBranson your ideas

>>11263207
First step is obviously size and weight reduction. Next step is projectiling it into space. I suggest buying a plane ticket in the exit row aisle and jumping out with your suitcase which was really a massive bottle rocket kit.

Godspeed OP. We have faith.
If you plan this right, bravo team will be there to intercept you before you hit the ground

>>11263479
Or better just recruit /pol to get it done on an ICBM.

>work in the space industry
>develop software for our cubesats
>it is technically mine
>i launched my cubesat for free

Why launch a literal cubesat? Why not launch a square block of wood or something just so you can flex and say you launched a satellite into orbit? That way you don’t have to deal with electronics, impact loading, etc.

>>11263573
>just so you can flex
To teach you reading with understanding.

I can make my own circuit boards and shield components from radiation unlike most of you faggots on this board.

Eat a dick with your weight reduction, 700 grams is more than enough for me.

>>11263601
>and shield components from radiation
For cubesats this is actually a hilariously minor concern. The PhoneSats, which are literally just a smartphone in a solar panel box seemed to do fine, and $50Sat lasted almost two years while being made as cheap as possible. They'll likely fall out of orbit before radiation does anything.

>>11263344
>TubeSat
They're the cheapest option for a reason. You only get the promise that one day they'll have a launch vehicle to put your satellite on. And even then there's a huge wait list. They were selling the same (well, an older version) kits with a promise of a cheap launch most of a decade ago, and they're only marginally closer to a real launch.

>>11263709
>most of a decade ago
Make that over a decade ago: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/04/tube_sat/

>>11263207
godspeed, op, godspeed

>>11263207

we're a very very very small crypto company with potential to take off later on down the road. you have some good ideas. if you share a disposable email, i'd like to talk to you briefly and maybe a year or two down the road if we work out, we can get you funding for the ideas.

>>11264013
You could tie the satellite to a blockchain and make it broadcast comments on each newly mined block.

>>11263673
I asked the Russians how much for a PocketQube launch, wonder if they reply.

>>11264171
Is that a fucking converted ICBM ?

>>11264281
yes

>>11264281
After the soviet union collapsed they ended up with lots of surplus military tech. The word was they were willing to send tourists into space for 1 million. Also their space shuttle Buran was left to just rot away in a hangar. The reason ISS exists is so that their scientists don't go to the middle east like Von Braun and his guys went to US.
https://youtu.be/JF5OCFBbbvA?t=65
https://youtu.be/JF5OCFBbbvA?t=65