[HN Gopher] ESA advances its plan for satellites around the Moon ___________________________________________________________________ ESA advances its plan for satellites around the Moon Author : marsokod Score : 71 points Date : 2021-05-23 15:14 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.moondaily.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.moondaily.com) | helgee wrote: | _Disclaimer: I am one of the (many) engineers working on the | project._ | | Before COVID I worked for a European lunar exploration startup | and access to a constellation like this would have changed | everything. The plan was to provide an end-to-end payload | transportation service to the lunar surface and we wanted to fly | our own two rovers as a demo mission. | | While you can accomplish all communications (TM/TC, HD video) and | navigation (orbit determination, surface nav) tasks with | terrestrial ground stations, it is hellishly expensive. | | Just as an example, the good thing about the Moon (in contrast to | Mars) is that it is very close and you can drive a rover almost | in real time due to the comparatively low latency (that's what | the Russians did with the Lunokhods: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme). That means you | can cover more ground than on Mars which was also very important | to us because the plan was to drive to one of the Apollo landing | sites (where you must land outside the exclusion zone) and we | would have had only 10-12 days of daylight for our operations | until the lunar night would have killed our electronics. For that | you need good video feeds from the rover's cameras which again | required downlink via X band antennas due to the Moon's distance | from Earth. There are not that many X band ground stations and | all the interplanetary missions are constantly fighting for the | limited capacity. | | We would have then needed even more ground station time for | ranging operations, i.e. performing orbit determination during | the transfer and prior to landing and determining the rovers' | exact positions on the surface. In the end, we would have needed | to pay several million EUR for ground station time alone. A | reasonably priced Project Moonlight constellation would have been | a godsend and significantly reduced the complexity of our | operations. Cash-strapped startups are not the best customers, | though... | | I can only assume that all the companies in the NASA CLPS program | are facing the same issues. The problem is that they are planning | their missions and are designing their spacecraft now. If this | constellation becomes a reality, it will certainly be too late | for the first batch. | | As for the ideas about Starlink, satellites are designed around | their payloads, i.e. all subsystems (power, thermal, comms, on- | board computer, propulsion) are designed to fulfil the | requirements of a specific payload and its mission with some | margins. Very rarely can you swap or add additional payloads | without redesigning the whole system especially if your starting | point is as streamlined a design as Starlink's is. I am a huge | fan of all things SpaceX but they are not miracle workers. Also | Starship has not reached orbit (yet) and Super Heavy has not | flown (yet). | | Finally, the costs. As some others have commented, this is a | paper study right now which is comparatively cheap (no idea how | much exactly but my educated guess would be single digit | millions). Whether this will be funded for real and becomes an | actual program will be decided at ESA's next ministerial. In the | grand scheme of things this is not a lot. Compared to of ESA's | annual budget of ~6 billion EUR it is almost negligible. That | again is a joke compared to NASA's annual budget of ~22 billion | USD. Which still pales in comparison to the up to 1.3 _trillion_ | EUR that the German federal and state governments alone spent on | the mitigation of the pandemic | (https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/corona-novemberhilfen...) | or the economic cost of climate change which is also in the | trillions. Yes, space hardware is too expensive, there is too | much red tape, and frankly too much nepotism in OldSpace. But | taking the few billions spend on space every year away and | spending them on the "big problems of our time" would accomplish | very little. | | _TL;DR: The technical benefits are real whether it becomes a | reality and is commercially viable remains to be seen. SpaceX is | great, Starship is great, Starlink is great, but it is also not | magic. Space sounds expensive but really isn 't when you do the | math._ | Havoc wrote: | Not quite clear on how this will be "commercial"? Not much demand | for netflix on the moon I suspect | valuearb wrote: | " a commercially viable constellation of lunar satellites"???? | | " Commercial bodies could use innovative technologies developed | for the Moon to create new services and products on Earth, which | would create new jobs and boost prosperity." | | You know what the engineers working on this project could have | been doing instead? Work on projects that directly benefit earth | even more. Instead of this pork barrel project without a direct | use. | | The biggest factor by far in making lunar exploration and | development cheaper is mastering in-orbit refueling. That enables | hundreds of tons of cargo to be cheaply delivered to the lunar | surface. | | That means easily building lunar satellite constellations when | needed. It also means we won't need the bloody sores of the | Gateway to Nowhere and SLS bleeding exploration programs dry. | edgyquant wrote: | I will never understand this attitude. Large nation states are | able to work on more than one thing and expanding capabilities | on and around the moon will directly benefit the Earth one day. | IshKebab wrote: | That's not guaranteed by any measure. Projects can just be a | complete waste of time. | barbazoo wrote: | It's a zero sum game though. Every dollar spent on some far | away possibility somewhere in space is a dollar less spent on | issues that exist here and now and need crazy amounts of | money to solve. | devoutsalsa wrote: | You can always makes the argument that money can be better | spent elsewhere. It's just not a compelling argument. | wolverine876 wrote: | I don't understand the parent response: I'm sure you know | that money, time, and talent are all constrained, and | everyone, from a child with an allowance to the CEO of Google | to the President of the U.S. has to choose priorities. All of | economics is about allocating those resources. Even within | NASA, they have to choose some project and reject many more. | mturmon wrote: | Yes. Facilitating communications is just a general good | thing. | | The improvised relay system we have around Mars has been | important to fast relay of data from the rovers. It has also | allowed us to more closely observe EDL sequences so that if | something goes wrong, we will learn what it was so we can fix | it. | Shadonototro wrote: | different teams for different tasks | | you know, there are more than 1 people on earth | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | I don't know why people are automatically assuming you could just | do this with off the shelf starlink sats instead. There's a | _huge_ difference between an optical link in LEO that goes a | couple 100 km, and the moon which is nearly 400,000 km away. The | link has to be bidirectional and I don 't see how existing | starlink sats would have anything close to the optics or antennas | required for that. | | Let's not turn enthusiasm for starlink into poo poo-ing all over | any other plan for something in space. The ESA just wants concept | studies on what might work. That's perfectly reasonable. | notahacker wrote: | Even weirder to pooh-pooh government funded concept studies | when SpaceX is literally the poster company for governments | chucking money at private enterprises to come up with | innovative new solutions to variants of space problems with | already existent solutions (after a decade and three orders of | magnitude more funding) | | Not only is the requirement highly unlike LEO satellites, but | members of both consortiums have satellite tech of their own | (which is arguably both more mature and more relevant to the | requirements than Starlink) | | Just as well nobody decided it wasn't worth NASA wasting money | evaluating the PayPal guy's ideas when off the shelf space tech | existed, though... | _Microft wrote: | There are only two comments mentioning Starlink, one of which | is mine. As the other one does not go into details, your | comment seems to be talking about mine and seems to be based on | a misunderstanding of what I wrote. | | Feel free to ask if there is still something unclear after | reading it more closely. | dougmwne wrote: | I'm quite interested if orbiting satellites could handle the | backhaul connection to Earth or if larger and more powerful | ground stations or a Lagrange station would have a place. | Clearly we communicate just fine with existing Mars and deep | space probes, but the problem must change enormously when you | want a 100 gigabit uninterruptible connection. | slownews45 wrote: | Just to confirm you are aware that spaceX will likely have the | largest deployed fleet of satellites with optical links? They | will have not just studies, but hands on experience operating | these things at scale in space to space communication. | | Europe loves to come out with these white papers and industry | studies and collaborations. It's basically an exercise to | hoover up govt funding. The commercial side is very weak in | most cases. | | They've been pushing Galileo as taking over the market AND | making a ton of money in the GPS space. No way. "Due to be | fully operational by 2008, Galileo would have "a four-year | monopoly on the improved technology before Americans can catch | up," making the 4 billion system a profit center for the EU." | | Arianspace is supposed to be launched Ariene 6 at half the | price of SpaceX. ""Ariane 6 will have twice the mass and twice | the volume of the Falcon 9, at less than twice the price," | Bonguet said. SpaceX is at $50M retail launch price, and cost | like likely < $30M per launch internally. So this means Ariene | 6 pricing is going to be in $25M range? | | It can get a bit tiring to hear these things. | | The one thing Europe is good at is putting attorneys and | lawyers to take down US companies rather than actually | competing with them. | notahacker wrote: | You are aware that some of the bidding companies were | operating satellite constellations when Elon was at school? | Think their collective hands on experience of satellite | telecoms might even exceed SpaceX's beta program! And if I | was going to bat for the superiority of SpaceX (and US | programs) to the European space industry, accuracy of | projections and the proportion of revenue coming from | government really, really isn't where I'd focus... | kiba wrote: | I don't understand why we need concept studies? It's not like | we're doing anything particularly new. It's just engineering. | robertlagrant wrote: | Perhaps some vital ontology definitions, process mapping, and | enterprise architecture will need to be done. | slownews45 wrote: | The EU has 22+ languages and most studies and results have | to be translated. EU Charter of fundamental rights (art. | 22) and in the Treaty on European Union (art. 3(3) TEU). | | So the EU is a pretty good spot for translators. | | Britan is not part of the EU, but outside of the official | stuff, English is used in a lot of practical areas for | technical work. | morelisp wrote: | This is a deep cut I expect will go over the heads of a lot | of non-EU residents (though "enterprise architecture" might | still clue them in). | | I was shocked to find RDF-era ontology "research" - already | rightly a joke in my US-based undergraduate AI courses in | _2003_ - going on _en masse_ when I moved to the EU in | 2011. I 've gotten four job applications so far _this year_ | from people with MSc in whatever ontology trash their local | university was doing. | geertj wrote: | Interesting tidbit about lunar orbits: due to mass concentrations | in the lunar subsurface, there are only 4 stable low lunar | orbits. | valuearb wrote: | There are many lunar orbits low enough and stable enough to be | useful for crewed exploration. The HLS will be in one. That | Gateway won't be. | | It's only the super low orbits that the masscons screw up. | _Microft wrote: | Maybe something like this could be created comparatively easily | and inexpensively. | | NASA tested optical communication to Moon in 2013 already [0], so | the technological readiness level of some highspeed transmission | technology should be quite high already. | | If such an optical communications module were installed on a sat | that could also talk to off-the-shelf Starlink sats, this | satellite could serve as relay that connects Earth to a (very?) | small constellation of Starlink satellites. Beside the bespoke | relay satellite, this might be a rather inexpensive solution | (Starlink satellites are cheaper than $500k per piece already, as | far as I know). | | A counterargument I can think of is that Starlink satellites | might not be hardened enough to work outside of Earth's | protective magnetic field. | | [0] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LADEE#Lunar_Laser_Communicatio... | BuyMyBitcoins wrote: | I know that most orbits around the moon are unstable because of | uneven mass distribution. So I don't know how the shape of | constellation will affect things. | _Microft wrote: | Lunar mascons (mass concentrations) are only an issue for low | lunar orbits ("LLO") which we are not talking about here. In | fact you would want to maximize distance, not minimize it, so | each satellite can cover a larger area on ground. | [deleted] | nickserv wrote: | Interesting that they mention observation stations on the far | side of the Moon, when these satellites would presumably disrupt | certain observations. Obviously the level of interference will be | much much less than on Earth or even Earth orbit. But for really | pristine observation it seems the Lagrange points are better | candidates. | | In any case pretty excited about this. Having it run by the EU | will hopefully make it more of an equal access than if it was run | by the US or China. | throwaway894345 wrote: | Has the US been very stingy about its space science? I always | thought NASA in particular was pretty internationally | collaborative (or at least no less so than ESA)? In whichever | case, I'm excited for other countries (or unions of countries) | to join in on space science. | nickserv wrote: | The US specifically bans most cooperation with China. | themgt wrote: | Seems heavily over-hyped. Video I found was: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kUI4YtG0xY | | Which links back to: | | https://www.sstl.co.uk/what-we-do/lunar-mission-services | | Looks like this is a better article: | | https://spacenews.com/esa-awards-study-contracts-for-lunar-c... | | _The European Space Agency has issued contracts to two European | industry groups to begin concept studies of lunar satellite | systems that would provide communications and navigation | services._ | | "to begin concept studies" ... afaict they have no satellite | hardware built and no rocket launches booked. The NASA HLS | Starship selection really has thrown the entire Artemis program | and associated space pork into limbo. If you're landing 100 tons | of payload on the Moon on a reusable/rapid launch rocket stack | this entire sort of proposal "let's put together a working | consortium to study launching one pathfinder lunar comms sat in | 2023 and then study perhaps launching up to a handful more | undefined years later [at a cost of $100 million per launch]" is | just going to become "SpaceX dumped 100 spare Starlinks into | lunar orbit as a rideshare on this week's mission, so now we have | Moon internet" | inglor_cz wrote: | As far as paper studies of future tech developments go, we | Europeans are the undisputed masters of the genre. | | Too bad that the actual implementation rarely follows. The can- | doers mostly leave our shores with their diplomas still wet. I | am not very optimistic about the future of tech here, even | though the Common Market is pretty big. | | And as far as space goes, we are stuck with an obsolete | technology which sorta makes sense for 6 launches a year, but | cannot manage 60 or 600 launches without bankrupting the ESA. | To be fair, the Russians are not much better off. The future of | spaceflight will be a China vs. US competition. | dougmwne wrote: | And Starlink Moon edition will have a paltry 2.6 seconds of | roundtrip latency to Earth. Mars colonization gets all the | hype, but who in their right mind would want to be a 40 minute | roundtrip ping from the nearest AWS location? | oceanswave wrote: | I guess it's going to be Microsoft landing a datacenter-in-a- | shipping-container on Mars before AWS does something similar | at the rate that Blue Origin is going. | dougmwne wrote: | I am legitimately jealous of the engineer that gets to | design how that CDN cache operates. | _Microft wrote: | I will leave the following links here, just for the off- | chance that you might find them interesting: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay-tolerant_networking | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Internet | azernik wrote: | The relevant RFCs are also fascinating | | https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4838 | | https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5050 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-23 23:01 UTC)