Woodsat: A Space Agency Will Launch a Tiny, Wooden Satellite
npr.org
npr.org
In space, the equilibrium moisture content of wood is probably zero, or immeasurably close to it, whereas on earth, I don't think you can dry wood that far with typical drying equipment. Which is no doubt why they're using a thermal vacuum kiln, the vacuum bit being the key.
The challenge then becomes maintaining that level of dryness between drying and space. Typical wood finishes slow, but don't stop moisture exchange. And if you coat the whole damn thing in something exotic to maintain a super dry material, you likely torpedo the whole "green" aspect.
Plywood (and other manufactured wood products) moves much less than solid wood. I'm still curious if they're having to design around accommodating any movement in their mechanical design given the extremely uncommon atmospheric(?) conditions this will be subjected to upon launch. Moisture exchange will likely be the last of their concerns on reentry.
I, for one would be delighted lto serve as a wood movement consultant on future wooden spacecraft. Though, really, all the principles of sound solid wood construction on earth have been known for millennia and there's no shortage of sources on doing it right.
There's also stabilizing, in which you "fill in" all of the space the water left with a very thin resin. I'm sure you could find some all-natural stuff that would do the trick
For actually doing stuff on other worlds, vs sats/ships, it could be quite different though. Growing something like bamboo on Mars or wherever might well have quite favorable production ratios for bootstrapping vs shipping stuff.
----
0: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/12/wooden-satellites-an...
Apparently, balsa wood makes a good heat shield.
Even a large difference in materials price will be dwarfed by the cost of fuel and rockets if there's even a small weight increase.
While wood is a material that will burn up in reentry, there are many others without wood's weight and reliability concerns, and people are starting to look into different construction methods to help satellites burn up on deorbiting reliably. e.g. Instead of joining pieces with bolts, use an epoxy that will fail at reentry temperature, ensuring the satellite breaks up into many small pieces and burns up.
This is a fun stunt and good publicity for those involved, but wood probably isn't replacing materials engineered to be lighter and more predictable any time soon.
Overall strength is probably close enough to be irrelevant in many cases and construction costs could drop quite a bit. It’s not the cost of the carbon fiber that’s at issue it’s how difficult the stuff is to work with.
What is the basis for your < 1kUSD/kg estimate?
As a sanity check a Falcon gets 22,800kg (expendable) and 16,800 (reusable) to LEO. At 5k/kg that would be 84M reusable, apparently they’re charging ~85M for a reusable falcon Heavy launch and Falcon 9 is much cheaper.
Actual prices aren’t disclosed but the internal price are quoted at as ~40M new and under 15M refurbished, with 10 total launches per rocket. Assuming the last launch isn’t reusable by design that’s (40M+ 9 * 15M ) ~= 175M to get (16,800 kg * 9 + 22,800kg) = 174,000kg to LEO. That’s under 1k/kg, though I have seen 951$/kg quoted in terms of StarLink’s costs.
Clearly they charge customers more, but not 5k/kg more.
https://www.spacex.com/rideshare/
~~disclaimer~~ ~~disclosure~~ excited bragging: my strtup is launching a payload on next week's transporter mission. We payed full retail and have no regrets.
Anyway, clearly larger satellites are much cheaper in terms of cost to LEO, but it’s still a useful datapoint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_and_Overland#The_Wooden_S...