Iran launches observation satellite

[Ambassador]

In the picture, the solar panels are not deployed and it is impossible to say how the sat looks like when they are deployed. According to its design, they can have a surface of the double of the sat's size or the triple, if the side of the sat is also covered with a solar panel. *

[Insert something creative about eyesight] (it's just above the previous link... jesus). I really hope for your sake that it was on purpose. Take a close look again.

http://www.satreci.com/eng/ds1_1.html?tno=10#a49

Impossible to say how the sat looks like when it is deployed? Now I thought you were the perfect dimensional analyst!

It doesn't mutter much:*

Right... Not a surprise, I completely expected that response from you.

Well now.... let's try to find source for these again.

1- Look again at the pictures and examine how the camera is positioned on the Iranian sat. You'll find out that the sat was designed to have one side oriented toward the Earth. Therefore, it adapt it's position to make the sun enlighten 2 sides at any moment.*

That won't be surprising even if that proved to be the case because two-panel design for micro-satellites actually isn't very uncommon. Many micro-cubesats exactly use that design found in Navit for their solar panels. So even while assuming that Navid, unsurprisingly, utilize only two conformal solar panels for power, do you still have source for the two solar panels' total surface area? That's the most important mission given to you now - bring a source here to prove that the total surface of Iran's solar panels are indeed 0.25-0.36 sq.m as you initially claimed, or use this chance to improvise your calculation again, and find source to verify that new calculation too. Fail at this and I won't bother with you on this anymore.

2- Two sides of the sat can be enlightened in some stages of its orbit, but it won't produce an optimal electrical energy. Solar panel loose efficiency when the source enlightens them in sharp angles.*

There will never occur a moment that in which the enlightenment of 2 sides will be optimal. And when the enlightenment of a side will be optimal no second side will be enlightened.*

Right. That should surely be why countries like Japan, China, and Europe itself are building their micro-satellites off totally inefficient solar panel designs like this just like Iran.





How do you distinguish them from the Iranian micro-satellite? Are they all amateurishly based on inefficient designs or are they again somehow mysteriously not while using just the same low-cost COTS designing philosophy as Iran? Do you have the proper source to help form a credible argument towards that? Do you have source for the Iranian solar panels' comparative efficiency? And do you have source for how the panels' inefficiency, if they really are ineffcient, leads to unusually degraded performance for Navit for its given weight and intended mission compared to similar satellites (an excellent proof-of-concept micro-satellite)?

You came in with your Korean sat, so it's up to you to provide data. Try also to fond out what is the weight of the engine and the reserve of fuel.*

Wow.... I was obviously referring to the Iranian satellite. Go back, read again and find source for them.

The only part that consumes energy is the useful payload. And it should have the same weight if these 2 observation satellites, which have the same functions, were built with the same technology.*

Sure. Do you have well-sourced information on those for the Iranian satellite? You want to prove that this Iranian proof-of-concept micro-sat, built with commonly found COTS components and technology, use for proof-of-concept purposes, is unusually substandard by global standard. How do you prove that it is, and very importantly, with credible and reliable references and citations?

My arguments are very clear. And this time I'm reporting for continued personnel insults, because I'm getting tired of your arrogance.*

My argument is clear: Find the proper sources for the questions above and maybe we'll talk again as rational debaters. Fail to find them and we won't be.

Where did I say Israelis as a nation suffer from some kind of complex? I said that some forum members seem to have to trouble accepting some facts, which is indeed something I don´t understand. Becaus this is what the discussion is all about. Nothing more nothing less. I am not an Antisemite, Arab, Iranian or some Tahrir troll if that is your point. If you are looking for that kind of people you got the wrong one obviously.

Same, I wish no quarrel with Israelis in general. I just have some issue with a few particular people who seem to harbor this overwhelming prejudice that Iran should always have been building and defending the country with some sort of crap. Some of them just happen to be Israelis.

[DS73]

Thanks. Next?
FASTRAC (Formation Autonomy Spacecraft with Thrust, Relnav, Attitude and Crosslink)

From Mission statement.

"The objectives of the program are to educate and train the future workforce through a national student satellite design and fabrication competition and to enable small satellite research and development (R&D), payload development, integration and flight test."
This is stuuudent project. Student. 100000$ price tag.
Anyway the team did use hardened electronics and "space" COTS (for example integrally communication part).

Second project.
"the TacSat-1 bus, based on Orbital Sciences’ Orbcomm FM29 satellite"
khmm, United States have comercial "shelf" satellite production. You can find yourself how many Orbcomm satellites where made. COTS here is still "space". Hardened electronics specially designed for space.
Tacsat-2 again used "space" COTS pieces. i.e. Fairchild Imaging's principal client is NASA.
For launch they used good old Minuteman missiles. Also COTS (considering their number).

More examples?

With pleasure.

[Divinity]

I have one question

why 60w is considered not adequate for this type of satellite after all it's
just a camera and a radio with equipment to support them .
another question does the sat need more than 60w all the time they can
just put a power cell like the one in the laptops inside of it and when they
need more power use the power from it and when they don't need the extra
power just recharge that power cell.

[Ambassador]

From Mission statement.

"The objectives of the program are to educate and train the future workforce through a national student satellite design and fabrication competition and to enable small satellite research and development (R&D), payload development, integration and flight test."
This is stuuudent project. Student. 100000$ price tag.
Anyway the team did use hardened electronics and "space" COTS (for example integrally communication part).

Navid is a stuuudent project. Student. Did you miss that? Well I guess it's still entirely possible Iran did not have this $100000 budget for this student-built micro-satellite that it could not afford to harden the COTS components and turn them into "space"... because surely Iran must have been using PC hardware in their unmodified state. I mean, surely Iranians know jacksh1t about making a satellite. And they don't know how to search for affordable yet good performing "space" COTS from Asian countries like China, India, Japan, Korea etc. For example, the HanVision HVDUO-F7 camera used by TacSat-1 itself, designed and built in Korea. If Iran wanted to look for space COTS outside the US and Europe with a cheap budget for a student project, it's actually very easy. In the very unlikely case that Iran can't somehow harden the electronics on their own, the supplier country can do that for them.

http://hanvision.en.ecplaza.net/v2/products.asp

Second project.
"the TacSat-1 bus, based on Orbital Sciences’ Orbcomm FM29 satellite"
khmm, United States have comercial "shelf" satellite production. You can find yourself how many Orbcomm satellites where made. COTS here is still "space". Hardened electronics specially designed for space.
Tacsat-2 again used "space" COTS pieces. i.e. Fairchild Imaging's principal client is NASA.
For launch they used good old Minuteman missiles. Also COTS (considering their number).
With pleasure.

The HSI (High Speed Interface) module was designed specifically to serve as the bridge to capitalize on the Ethernet TCP/IP standards-based architecture and the OX.25 interfaces. HSI provides a 2MB synchronous serial bus connected to the spacecraft communication controller. The HSI hardware is implemented as a combination of FPGA hardware and a BSE ip-Engine general-purpose PowerPC 823 embedded processor. The HSI system allows multiple processes and Ethernet-connected computers to access the data stream sent to the spacecraft. The extensive use of TCP/IP-based systems and the common Linux operating system provided unique opportunities for a distributed development environment. The developers were able to test communications between payload elements at each step in the design process, from developing on a standard PC to final communications before inserting the custom hardware required to communicate with the bus.

https://directory.eoportal.org/prese...911/12060.html

Wow, sounds totally cool and advanced. Iran surely can't build such cutting-edge satellite communicaton technology that are, somehow, exactly based on PC hardware and software that you can find in your homes and offices.

You don't seem to get. Space COTS themselves are based on COTS that are initially developed for non-satellite use, that can be found in your homes, office, factories, inside your car, etc. That is exactly why launching micro-satellite for validating the effectiveness and practicability of hardening those cheap PC-like hardware for micro-satellites is important. Iran's Navid is as much a proof-of-concept device as TacSat-1 had been, proving the concept that COTS for effective and practical satellite use, hardened against space environment if necessary, is very possible using low-cost and everyday technology. Many countries have been there, done that. Turning your PC and home-use COTS for use in space is the next-generation of spacecraft design, in the US, in Japan, in Italy, and even if you don't want to believe that, even in Iran.

[Camera]

[Insert something creative about eyesight] (it's just above the previous link... jesus). I really hope for your sake that it was on purpose. Take a close look again.

http://www.satreci.com/eng/ds1_1.html?tno=10#a49

Impossible to say how the sat looks like when it is deployed? Now I thought you were the perfect dimensional analyst!

1- By looking at the picture, one can say how these panels will deploy, but he can’t say if, once deployed, they can adjust their orientation in a way to optimize solar capitation at any moment of the filght. If the mechanism has this function it can optimize its solar panels during the flight.

2- The sat that was photographed with its camera oriented towards us. For that reason, there is an hidden side we can not see in this photo.
A study of the other Korean sats on this same link, allows to safely assume that this sat has a solar panel at each one of its sides, except the one of the camera. Therefore, we should assume it has, 3 solar panels, like the Iranian one. (Except that the solar panels of the Korean sat are deployable.)

Right... Not a surprise, I completely expected that response from you.

Well now.... let's try to find source for these again.

Yeah… let’s do it again, because you failed to understand the issue.

That won't be surprising even if that proved to be the case because two-panel design for micro-satellites actually isn't very uncommon. Many micro-cubesats exactly use that design found in Navit for their solar panels.

It is common because this design is simple and cheaper, but it is less effective.

So even while assuming that Navid, unsurprisingly, utilize only two conformal solar panels for power, do you still have source for the two solar panels' total surface area? That's the most important mission given to you now - bring a source here to prove that the total surface of Iran's solar panels are indeed 0.25-0.36 sq.m as you initially claimed, or use this chance to improvise your calculation again, and find source to verify that new calculation too. Fail at this and I won't bother with you on this anymore.

Two solar panels of Navid can be exposed to sunlight indeed, but before answering to your request, let’s study first your own calculations:

(…)

you also mysteriously forgot that Navid too has solar panels on at least two surfaces, not just one (even possibly three). Again, very elementary mistake. Even assuming that your dimensional analysis of 0.5-0.6m for the panel's length/width is perfectly true, the combined surface area of the two solar panels is 0.5-0.72m², double the 0.25-0.36m² that you obviously simply squared from the dimension above, which in even your own unreliable and unsubstantiated standard should be equivalent to 80-120W of power.

Your are completely wrong with your calculation of power, because these panels are not deployable. What is important is not the addition of the two surfaces, but the quantity of sun rays they can capture in order to produce electrical power.

------------------------------------

SURFACE OF SHADOW (theoretical power production)

Being un-deployable, the capture of solar energy by the two panels of the Iranian sat is function of the surface of their combined “shadow“. This maximum surface of “shadow” is reached only at two points of the orbit: when each of the 2 panels is oriented at 45° towards the sun. To calculate this maximum shadow, use Pythagoras laws:

MAXIMUM SURFACE OF SHADOW = (cubic root of 2) X (0.25-0.36 meters) = 1.41 X (0.25-0.36 meters) = 0.35-0.50 Sq.m.

As said, this maximum surface of shadow is obtained twice by orbit. The rest of the time, the shadow is smaller and so is power production.

But this MAXIMUM POWER of 56W-83W is unrealistic,because we ignored in this calculation the phenomenon of LIGHT REFLECTION.

------------------------------------

THE REFLECTION OF LIGHT (and effective power production)

“Dark Body“ is a theoretical physical concept that does not exist in reality.
In reality, there’s no “body” that can absorb all the light that reaches its surface (in order to transform it into electrical power in our case), because a part of this light is reflected by the surface of the body.
Absorption by the body is optimized when the light hits the body at 90° angle. (The sharper the angle is, reduced the absorption is, and greater is reflection.

Therefore, the MAXIMUM POWER of 56W-83W will never be reached, because we didn’t take into account the percentage of reflected light at an angle of 45° (because we lack data about the recovery of the Iranian sat).

----------------------------------------

CYCLES AND STATISTICS

As said, this maximized shadow occurs only 2 times for each orbit.
While the surface of minimal shadow of 0.25-0.36 Sq.M. occurs 3 times at each orbit (because this sat has three sizes covered with a solar panels each). At these 3 moments per orbit, reflection should be minimal and absorption maximal.

Therefore, during its flight the sat will be positioned statistically more often at a the electrical production of 40-60W range.

---------------------------------------

CONCLUSION 1

Your calculation were completely wrong.
My calculations were a reasonable approximation.

---------------------------------------

CONCLUSION 2

I finished my studies almost 30 years ago. As you are still a student, I would suggest you to revise: geometry, physics and statistics.


---------------------------------------

CONCLUSION 3

If things were as simple as you thought they were, the Korean sat would not need to have a heavier and a complex system to deploy panels.

------------------------------------

CONCLUSION 4 (a problem in geometry)

Your calculations regarding the SK sat were not sufficiently accurate.

This sat has 3 panels. (Each of them has a surface of some 0.5 Sq.m according to your data).
Like for the Iranian sat, all 3 panels contribute to generate electricity.

Variant 1 of the satellite deploys one panel, and produces 150W.
Variant 2 deploys two panels and produces 200W.

How many Watts produce the un-deployed panel of Varient 1?

Right. That should surely be why countries like Japan, China, and Europe itself are building their micro-satellites off totally inefficient solar panel designs like this just like Iran.

How do you distinguish them from the Iranian micro-satellite? Are they all amateurishly based on inefficient designs or are they again somehow mysteriously not while using just the same low-cost COTS designing philosophy as Iran? Do you have the proper source to help form a credible argument towards that? Do you have source for the Iranian solar panels' comparative efficiency? And do you have source for how the panels' inefficiency, if they really are ineffcient, leads to unusually degraded performance for Navit for its given weight and intended mission compared to similar satellites (an excellent proof-of-concept micro-satellite)?

You were the one who brought to this thread the pictures of the electronic cards of the SK sat. You sustained that the “PC assembler” technology was perfect for micro observation sats, even though it is an energy hungry technology.

Being built with the same technology, for the same functionality, both the Iranian and the SK sats should have similar electric production for similar electric consumption. But we just saw that it's not the case. Using the examples you brought, we can deduce the Iranian sat has reduced functionalities.

It should not be surprising, because for the Iranian sat, the functions are secondary, regarding this multi-million project. The ballistic demonstration of the launch is the principal. Iran just put in orbit the maximum weight she could.

[Ambassador]

Right, your posts are too long and even if I read them all, I don't want to suffer through endless circular arguments with you anymore. But let me just say that many repeated instances of very preventable mistakes like this is why I really strongly suspect that you don't interpret the many sources I give you correctly. I'll give you only one example right now but that doesn't mean it's the only one among extremely many.

This sat has 3 panels. (Each of them has a surface of some 0.5 Sq.m according to your data).

Why this comment is rubbish from the very moment it's uttered is the fact that...

SI-100 platform, whose size is 0.65 m in width, 0.6 m in length and 0.85 m in height, has volume and mass suitable for piggy-back satellite launchers. For fixed solar panels, 1 or 2 deployable panel configuration is feasible for maximum 200 W generation upon requirements.

http://www.satreci.com/eng/ds1_1.html?tno=10#a40

Another view of the satellite:



It's clear from those irrefutable references that this satellite I made example of, to which you responded, has only two solar panels.

If I can't rely on you to interpret even very simple information like this correctly then I'm afraid I'm not willing to risk your incomprehension in far more complex issues that must be tackled to continue discussion on the topic. I spent more than enough time here.

[Camera]

Right, your posts are too long and even if I read them all, I don't want to suffer through endless circular arguments with you anymore. But let me just say that many repeated instances of very preventable mistakes like this is why I really strongly suspect that you don't interpret the many sources I give you correctly. I'll give you only one example right now but that doesn't mean it's the only one among extremely many.



Why this comment is rubbish from the very moment it's uttered is the fact that...



Another view of the satellite:



It's clear from those irrefutable references that this satellite I made example of, to which you responded, has only two solar panels.

If I can't rely on you to interpret even very simple information like this correctly then I'm afraid I'm not willing to risk your incomprehension in far more complex issues that must be tackled to continue discussion on the topic. I spent more than enough time here.

Revise your school books.
You provided the SI-100 sat with links as an example. Read your own data.

[Ambassador]

Revise your school books.
You provided the SI-100 sat with links as an example. Read your own data.

Again, SI-100 has two solar panels, not three.

For fixed solar panels, 1 or 2 deployable panel configuration is feasible for maximum 200 W generation upon requirements.

Power Generation 150 W/@ EOL/2 deployable panels

It's SI-200 that has three 1.6m² solar panels for 330W power output (which btw, means it's even more inefficient than your calculated model of Iranian solar panels), but that's not the satellite that we are discussing.

http://www.satreci.com/eng/ds1_1.html?tno=10#a42

I find you a very unreliable interpreter of my source materials. And you still don't allow me to see your sources for all your calculations and assumption.

[Camera]

Again, SI-100 has two solar panels, not three.





I find you a very unreliable interpreter of my source materials. And you still don't allow me to see your sources for all your calculations and assumption.

As for the Iranian sat, the picture of SI-100 doesn't permit see the side of the sat, opposed to the sat of the camera. This side is positioned in the direction of the sun. It is safe to assume it is covered with a solar panel for a total of 3, like the other sats in the same page, and like the Iranian sat.

[Ambassador]

As for the Iranian sat, the picture of SI-100 doesn't permit see the side of the sat, opposed to the sat of the camera. This side is positioned in the direction of the sun. It is safe to assume it is covered with a solar panel for a total of 3, like the other sats in the same page, and like the Iranian sat.

SpaceEye-1 based on SI-300 which is quoted to have four solar panels has exactly four panels on the side facing the sun. And you must read my edited post.

http://www.satreci.com/eng/ds1_1.html?tno=10#a36

Unlike you, I'm of the mind that Iran did not use deployable solar panels on Navid not because it did not have the very basic technology to produce them, but because it wasn't unnecessary to use them for the time being. How do you prove, using reliable sources, that I am wrong? Reference to which expert gave you the confidence that Iran did not use deployable solar panels due to lack of technology as you say?

[Camera]

Again, SI-100 has two solar panels, not three.





It's SI-200 that has three 1.6m² solar panels for 330W power output (which btw, means it's even more inefficient than your calculated model of Iranian solar panels), but that's not the satellite that we are discussing.

http://www.satreci.com/eng/ds1_1.html?tno=10#a42

I find you a very unreliable interpreter of my source materials. And you still don't allow me to see your sources for all your calculations and assumption.

On the contrary, 330W for 1.6 Sq.m. is a very efficient system. If its is the case, I suspect this sat to have mobile solar panels that adjust their orientation towards the sun in order to get light at an optimized 90° angle at any moment.

[Ambassador]

On the contrary, 330W for 1.6 Sq.m. is a very efficient system. If its is the case, I suspect this sat to have mobile solar panels that adjust their orientation towards the sun in order to get light at an optimized 90° angle at any moment.

Another failure. The three panels together have nearly 5m² surface area. What's your explanation for that mistake this time?

[Camera]

SpaceEye-1 based on SI-300 which is quoted to have four solar panels has exactly four panels on the side facing the sun. And you must read my edited post.

http://www.satreci.com/eng/ds1_1.html?tno=10#a36

Unlike you, I'm of the mind that Iran did not use deployable solar panels on Navid not because it did not have the very basic technology to produce them, but because it wasn't unnecessary to use them for the time being. How do you prove, using reliable sources, that I am wrong? Reference to which expert gave you the confidence that Iran did not use deployable solar panels due to lack of technology as you say?

That is something I never said. It is something you presumed.

Iran put in orbit the heavier system it could (50 Kgs) with their improved launcher. There's no way a 500-1.000 meters resolution observation is worthy for a multi-millions launch. Iran launched the sat because the ballistic demonstration is worthy the spendings.

[Camera]

Another failure. The three panels together have nearly 5m² surface area. What's your explanation for that mistake this time?

The date you provide changes all the time. Give me a link to this sat.

[Ambassador]

The date you provide changes all the time. Give me a link to this sat.

I just referred it to you... it's right below the SI-100 link. It's not even half a scroll away.

http://www.satreci.com/eng/ds1_1.html?tno=10#a41

1.6m2 is the initial approximation I made for one panel from the given dimension. But now I think I could be wrong by a few ten centimeters. It could be somewhere in the range of 3-4.5m2 for all three panels, for 330W.