What if you could schedule your own cosmic observation from space - no clouds, no light pollution, no billion-dollar budget?
In a world where most CubeSats stare hungrily back at Earth, a small team is flipping the narrative. Bueche Labs, driven by startup veterans with a restless love for the stars, is on a mission to point affordable telescopes outward, opening the vastness of space to every passionate astro-imager, researcher, and curious dreamer on the planet.
Imagine a constellation of tiny satellites, each one a pocket-sized cosmic observatory. No more fighting for precious telescope time on billion-dollar platforms, no more watching from the sidelines as NASA grants access to a lucky few. Instead, you get raw, high-resolution images — or even short video clips — piped straight to you, ready to process or simply marvel at.
But as with any great vision, the devil lies in the details: million-dollar price tags, complex vendor negotiations, camera trade-offs, and the critical question of whether to go mono or color. There’s no real-time joystick control here — everything must be planned in advance, every maneuver scheduled like a cosmic dance. And beyond the technical battles, there’s a fundamental question: can you spark a revolution in astrophotography by taking a page from the playbook of smartphones, personal computers, and the internet?
Bueche Labs believes you can — and they’re betting pensions, 401(k)s, and every ounce of creative grit to prove it.
Welcome to a story of scrappy engineering, startup bravery, and the audacious dream to let anyone, anywhere, reach out and touch the stars.
Brad Bueche, founder and CTO of Bueche Labs, is no stranger to ambitious technology ventures. With roots in software development and decades of entrepreneurial experience, Bueche has joined forces with longtime colleague and seasoned tech executive Robert Klotz to disrupt the world of space-based astronomy. Together, they are leading Bueche Labs with a bold mission: to democratize access to space telescopes by leveraging CubeSat technology and the rapidly declining cost of satellite launches.
Klotz, serving as CEO of Bueche Labs, brings more than 25 years of leadership in technology development, data analytics, and business strategy. His career spans senior roles across high-growth startups and global tech firms, where he has consistently driven innovation at the intersection of software, operations, and data. With a proven track record of building and scaling SaaS platforms, generating multi-million dollar revenues, and leading global teams, Klotz complements Bueche’s technical vision with the strategic discipline needed to translate ambitious space projects into a viable, sustainable business.
We recently caught up with Bueche team, who shared the fast-moving, real-time evolution of Bueche Labs, from their public debut at NEAF 2025 to the detailed decisions behind camera selection, vendor negotiations, and spacecraft design. He offered an inside look at the technical, financial, and community-building challenges of launching low-cost telescopes into orbit, with the ultimate goal of bringing true space-based astrophotography within reach for amateur astronomers, researchers, and educators worldwide.
Bueche: Robert and I actually co-founded two startups together in the late 1990s during the dot-com boom, and we’ve known each other since 1995. Robert has gone on to lead three additional companies since then, while I worked on software solutions for monitoring Wells Fargo’s worldwide networks.
The idea for Bueche Labs started buzzing around in my head around September of 2024, and its call to be heard just kept getting louder. I sent a couple of emails to Robert in November and December of 2024. We then attended the Satellite conference in Washington, D.C., on March 10 and 11 to look at products and vendors we might be able to work with. It wasn’t until March 20 that I set up our Teams server, and we started daily communications with the clear intent that we were building a company.
Then, we managed to secure a vendor table at NEAF/NEAIC, which started on April 3—just 15 days later! And, the NEAIC organizer didn’t even charge us for the table. At any rate, our first public presentation and official existence as a company was on April 3. Now, we are planning to begin building a CubeSat by July 4.
Full Service Integrator tells us it will take approximately 14 months to put this launch together. That estimate came from their business development contact, and we specifically asked him for a SWAG (a scientific wild guess), so it’s not set in stone, but I imagine it’s in the ballpark. We told him we wanted the pointing accuracy that NASA’s ASTERIA mission achieved in 2017: 0.5 arcseconds RMS over 20 minutes. He wasn’t familiar with ASTERIA, so I sent him some documentation about it.
The way we understand our situation right now is that nobody is really going to take us seriously or help crowd-fund this effort until we have something up in space. If Full Service Integrator has a 14-month lead time, that means we need to start right now, and we’ll have to do it with our own money. For me, that likely means pulling the majority of the funds from my pension, my 401(k), and probably running up some credit card bills as well.
Now, that’s not ideal, but I absolutely believe what we’re doing is both possible and necessary, and the time to do it is right now. Robert and I have both done startups before, and we understand that “timing is everything” is the cold, hard truth. The market has to be ready. So far, we haven’t spoken to a single person who doesn’t think this is a great idea. Initially, I was hesitant to lay the whole vision out to people because it feels like one of those V-8 moments, showing my age here, where you smack your forehead and say, “Why didn’t I think of that?” There’s a real sense of urgency. Yes, we might be a little early, but we need this time to grab the market first.
The issue we’ve run into, though, is that almost 100% of the cameras being developed and sold for the low-Earth orbit (LEO) space market are designed solely for Earth-facing imaging. I have yet to find a camera whose specifications aren’t focused entirely on how many kilometers of swath they can achieve for planet-facing imaging.
Bueche: Nobody is looking outward in the CubeSat low-Earth orbit (LEO) world. That’s another fact that made my spidey business senses tingle. There’s an obvious market here that isn’t being served. I do an enormous amount of reading (well, listening really) and I’m very interested in NASA as well as popular astronomy books. That’s how I became aware that NASA and academic institutions are paying around $100 a minute for telescope access in Chile. That was just one data point from a single book, but it sent me down the research rabbit hole, with a little help from Deep Research via ChatGPT.
I dug into the data for the high-end, 8-meter-plus, adaptive optics telescopes in Chile and Hawaii, and found that 80 to 87% of research applications for those scopes are denied. The rejection rates are nearly identical for space telescopes. On top of that, NASA spent $387 million, $386 million, and $388 million respectively on its space telescopes from 2022 through 2024. The truth is, CubeSats can handle some of this work. I’ve got NASA papers that say exactly that.
Here’s the other thing, there are thousands of amateur observers, imagers, and spectrographers out there who can, and will, add to our collective knowledge of the cosmos. But space telescopes have always been cost-prohibitive. We want to change that, just like the personal computer, the internet, and the smartphone, the mainframe in your pocket—already transformed how we share knowledge and push human capability forward.
There’s another frustration, though. Someone approached us at NEAF who wanted to invest, but they were focused on video, a webcam concept, designed to make live space imagery available to elementary and high school students. They even suggested the market is much bigger for a webcam than for astrophotography-specific capabilities. And while that might be true, it’s not where our hearts are.
Still, we thought, okay—video lays down images quickly. Those images can be 4K, they can be RAW. So maybe this works for all but the faintest deep-sky objects. After all, who knows what "no atmosphere" means for a camera with a 90mm aperture?
And that brings us to another challenge. If you’re not in the market for images from a space telescope that costs over $100 million, then… there’s nothing for you. Nobody is doing this. Nobody. I’ve resorted to watching long ISS video streams, grabbing portions of that footage, and running them through Topaz Video AI, just to get any decent space images from a non-$100 million telescope.
In a way, that validates our vision. We’re filling a niche nobody else seems to be aware of. But it also makes it hard to predict what images from specific fields of view, focal lengths, pixel depths, and so on will actually look like from LEO, with no atmosphere interfering.
Now, we’ve been made aware of the 14-month lead time for our first mission. We’ve been advised that if we’re putting a low-cost telescope in space, everything has to work perfectly. That means only using components that have performed well on several previous missions. Good advice.
So, changing the analogy slightly, if this rocket we’re on is going to reach its target in a reasonable amount of time, we need to light this candle in the next 14 days. I’ve been told it’s standard in the industry to pay 30% upfront. That means we need components selected, bank accounts emptied, and this thing launched within the next 21 days.
The vendor, Full Service Integrator, tells us they’ve worked with Simera Sense before. The Simera Sense camera has already flown successful missions in space. Full Service Integrator has a 100% success rate for CubeSat launches.
We’re putting telescopes in space. We’ll started building the satellite in June and we expect to be ready for launch by July 2025. Ideally, we’d love to target July 4th for the launch, and even that is a conservative timeline.
Bueche: I realized that everything in the CubeSat market is focused inward, pointing back at Earth. But nobody is pointing out toward the stars. Yes, there are billion-dollar telescopes in space, but even NASA researchers struggle to get time on them. Around 80% of applications for observing time on NASA’s space telescopes are denied.
We want to change that by providing access to space telescopes for everyday observational astronomers and astro-imagers. In fact, serving the needs of astro-imagers is really the core driver for us. At the same time, we hope to provide a practical alternative for the 80% of researchers who are currently denied access to those billion-dollar telescopes.
We want to transform the entire field of astro-anything, astronomy, astrophotography, astrophysics, by making low-cost access to telescopes in space a reality. Our plan is to deploy a fleet of CubeSats into orbit. NASA explored this idea with the ASTERIA mission, which we intend to model, but it seems that initiative fizzled out.
The short version is this: lower launch costs, CubeSat technology, and the rapid commoditization of every part of the space industry have finally made it economically viable to remove the atmosphere as a barrier. In other words, the sky, at least from Earth, will no longer be the limit.
The vendor we’re working with, Full Service Integrator, has experience with Simera Sense, whose cameras have already flown successful space missions. Full Service Integrator themselves have a 100% success rate for CubeSat launches.
Bueche: One of the biggest lessons we’ve already learned is that the full-service launch vendor we initially wanted to work with, because they have a 100% success rate on their launches, turned out to be more like a Maserati dealer. And it quickly became clear that we’re actually in the market for a Hyundai dealer. Or maybe we need to track down a good Datsun B210 at CarMax.
Earlier this month, we received a ROM from one of the full-service satellite companies we’ve been evaluating. “Full service” in this case means they do everything. Neither Robert nor I are rocket scientists or aerospace engineers, we’re not building CubeSats in our garages. SpaceX already tore down the Berlin Wall of launch costs that once prevented hundreds, even thousands, of businesses from reaching space. Back when a single launch could cost $100 million or more, getting into orbit wasn’t an option for most. But now, you can secure a launch for under $100,000. And once Starship begins flying commercially, launch costs are expected to plummet by orders of magnitude. That’s when tens of thousands of space-based businesses will emerge.
Full-service satellite companies are part of that ecosystem. What do they do? Everything. They build the satellite. They build the “bus”, the structure that handles propulsion, power, solar panels, cooling, heating, communications, everything that isn’t the payload. In our case, the payload is the camera, telescope, control software, and the connections to both power and the communications system that sends our data back to Earth.
Beyond that, full-service companies handle payload installation, testing, launch readiness, orbital deployment, and even day-to-day operations after launch. All of this has become a commodity. All we need to do is clearly define our business requirements. Like AI, the commoditization of satellite technology, and the rapid drop in launch costs, is a mind-blowing paradigm shift. The changes this will bring make the rise of the internet and smartphones seem like minor milestones by comparison.
That brings me back to the ROM, the Rough Order of Magnitude, which is essentially a preliminary cost estimate to help companies quickly understand their expenses before diving into contracts or detailed planning. The ROM we received this month came in at $2.1 million. That was a bit of a shock, but we’ve accepted that these surprises are just part of the many, many lessons we’ll encounter as we work toward our goal of changing astronomy forever.
We’ve set up an advisory panel to guide our decisions along the way. Anyone is welcome to join. Cuiv and Nico are already on board, along with a customer who won lifetime access to all of our services, the door prize we gave away at NEAIC this year. We also have an aerospace engineer, an avid astrophotographer, with direct experience in satellite launch and operations. And we’re hoping to welcome NASA astronaut Colonel Nick Hague to the panel soon, he returned from the ISS in March after commanding the SpaceX Crew-9 mission. I’ll likely invite a few more YouTube astrophotography leaders too, people like Luca, The Space Koala, Dylan O’Donnell, and Ben Chappel from the Narrowband Channel.
The first full-service vendor we’ve been speaking with is Full Service Integrator. We’ll also be talking with Dragonfly Aerospace and Blue Canyon. All of these vendors have been involved in recent NASA projects. In fact, we’ve been using NASA’s ASTERIA CubeSat, launched in 2017, as a model for our own CubeSat design. ASTERIA was designed to track exoplanets and achieved incredible pointing accuracy: less than 0.5 arcseconds of variance for 20 minutes. We’ve had to scale back our own positioning requirements, though, because achieving that level of precision requires expensive components that would push our project well beyond budget.
In terms of cameras, we first considered the TriScape 100 from Simera Sense, but its 10-bit output and 1080p video didn’t generate much excitement from our advisory panel. We then looked at the Phase One 150-megapixel camera, but at $300,000, and still requiring a telescope, that option wasn’t realistic either.
Now, we’re working with Kaya Instruments, whose Iron 661 camera offers serious potential. It delivers a resolution of 13,400 by 9,528 pixels, a 46.2mm by 32.9mm sensor with 3.45-micron pixels, 70.8dB dynamic range, a full well capacity of 9,825 electrons, and can shoot at 22 frames per second. We’ve also identified a silicon carbide telescope for this camera, configurable as either a Dall-Kirkham or Ritchey-Chrétien design, that can deliver around 1.1 arcsecond resolution within a 3U or 6U CubeSat.
The really big question for us now is: where do we get the funding to build our first CubeSat? And how do we keep that momentum going, funding the second build while the first one is still in its 14-month production cycle, and eventually scaling to multiple builds at once? For now, we’re continuing conversations with vendors, collecting additional ROMs, and learning what realistic pricing looks like.
One thing we’ve already decided, price has to be the first question. We can’t afford to waste time exploring options that are simply beyond reach right now.
That brings us to your next question, and the roadmap. To produce a CubeSat capable of meeting astro-imagers’ expectations, and generating stunning images that rise to the level of scientific research, we have to spread the word to as many astro-imagers, observers, and researchers as possible, and we have to do it now.
Not a single person we’ve talked to has doubted that this is a fantastic idea. But it’s hard to convey, in one conversation, just how much potential there is with a constellation of small, affordable satellites. This project can change astronomy forever. For the first time, people everywhere will have the ability to observe, image, and study space, from space.
As for camera control, yes, we absolutely intend to provide all the control features that make sense for astro-imagers. They’re our core design driver. That said, some features may not be necessary in space. For example, will lucky imaging even be relevant with a high-performance camera operating in low-Earth orbit? We’ll find out.
Bueche: We received our first quote from a full-service vendor. The quote covers all aspects of the bus, and our requested design also included the payload camera and all of its power and thermal requirements:
The price for just that list comes to approximately $1.4 million. Admittedly, this is still a ROM, a Rough Order of Magnitude estimate. In other words, it’s a very rough preliminary estimate provided by the full-service vendor so discussions can start with a line-item list of standard components and procedures, along with their estimated costs.
In terms of launch, which includes launch negotiations, scheduling, engineering oversight, and overseeing the connection of our CubeSat to the fairing components, we’re looking at roughly $350,000. Software licensing for mission control software and transferring our downloaded data to the cloud is approximately $75,000. A propulsion unit, which we’ll probably have to include, adds around $200,000.
As a full-service vendor, they also offer to monitor and maintain our CubeSat during its operational life in space. They would monitor everything on the bus, power, thermal systems, communications, and the connections from the payload, meaning our camera and telescope. This is operations support, and we will pay for it because we do not want to be in the business of running a 24/7/365 operations center. The annual charge for operations would be about $300,000. To train us in everything we’d need to know about all of this adds $50,000, though they may not yet realize there are only two of us in the company!
All together, roughly speaking, we’re looking at about $2.2 million (rounding high). Couple that with the 14-month lead time and… welcome to anxiety-ville. We need to find the best components we can afford for lucky imaging, one-shot color, and deep-sky imaging. And we need to secure over $2 million in funding. And even then, the rocket launch won’t happen until 14 months after we pull the trigger, when we light this candle, on all of the above.
If this were a directions map at the mall, we’d be standing next to the “You Are Here” arrow. Right here, right now, late June 2025, this is happening in real time. I almost feel like I’m writing a daily journal.
This is where having the advisory panel becomes so valuable. (By the way, we would love to have YOU on the panel as well, if you’re interested.) We need to make decisions quickly, so we need to bounce information off people who, together, have a much broader scope of experience and knowledge than we do.
We connected with an investor at NEAF who wants to invest, but he wants to do a webcam. The idea is to give middle and high school students access to space imagery. The investor says the webcam market is significantly bigger than the astronomy or astro-imager world. That market may be bigger, but the much more important question is, are these people obsessed with astronomy, astrophotography, and constantly pushing the limits of what’s available to amateurs? Will they be willing to pay?
I don’t have any hard numbers to support either position right now. Personally, I think there’s a large enough market of astronomers, astrophotographers, and researchers who are willing to support our venture. But we need to make sure they know we exist, and how they can support us. The best way to do that is by working through the media outlets and publications that already speak directly to our core market of astronomers, astrophotographers, and space enthusiasts.
What we’re currently trying to spec is a good camera that’s at least 12-bit, can save in RAW, can do one-shot color, and has a frame rate of at least 22 FPS. That frame rate allows us to play frames in sequence so that it looks like video to the human eye, especially since, in terms of percentage of FOV, there should be very little movement. 22 FPS should also satisfy lucky imaging requirements. But that leaves us with the decision between mono and color. For this first CubeSat, it looks like we may have to go with color only.
On the other hand, if all of the above turns out to be outrageously expensive, we may have to stick with the camera that’s currently included in the ROM from the vendor, the Simera Sense TriScape 100.
That camera only costs $120,000. That’s over $250,000 less than two of the other cameras we’ve looked at!
If there’s extra space on the CubeSat, we’d love to install a literally off-the-shelf camera like the ZWO ASI662MC USB 3.0 color camera and fly it in space. We’d do this just to test how long it lasts and functions correctly in space. If it works in low-Earth orbit, where radiation is minimal, that could open the door to using much lower-cost cameras, and save us $100,000 to $200,000 per launch. Figuring out how to use a camera this affordable in space would be a huge breakthrough for us. We’re willing to take small, controlled risks like that.
For the first mission, though, unfortunately, we’ll have to stick with components that are proven and have performed well across multiple real missions. The first mission is critical. It’s how we prove to the world that we can do this, and that we’re going to see it through.
Bueche: Hopefully, we’ll be able to serve two different markets through our setup. One market will be similar to the target audience for today’s smart telescopes.
Even if we end up going with the Simera Sense TriScape 100, we’ll be able to save out shots as RAW files. We’re still waiting to verify that the cameras we’re considering can write out RAW color at 22 frames per second. That 22 FPS rate should be enough to “play” the individual shots in sequence so they stream like a video. We believe there’s a large portion of users who will want short videos of space. They’ll want their images in color, and we plan to generate short, color video files for them by converting the RAW pictures into video format.
We’ll also give all users the option to download their raw, untouched images as-is, or have them automatically transformed for them through the cloud-based AI software from Starpx. We first met the Starpx team at NEAIC back in April. They’ve provided a full description of what they do and how their system works through a recent TAIC show on YouTube.
Bueche: The first thing to know with a CubeSat, even a 6U, is that they are very small. Create something, cut out paper, or arrange boxes in a rectangle about 20cm wide by 30cm long. It’s very small. What that means is the camera and scope aren’t going to move independently of the CubeSat. To point at a target for a shot, the entire CubeSat has to be rotated and aimed. The whole satellite gets pointed at the target for the duration of the shot.
For this first version, we have to keep in mind that anything we add to the interface adds complexity. It has to be coded, integrated, and tested. As with anything, well, I’m used to software and IT infrastructure systems, there’s always a tension between delivering something minimally useful and the desire to add the next cool thing to your code or system. That’s why I’m building our panel and why we really wanted to get a substantial number of people involved on a Discord server. That way, we can foster learning-focused discussions and implement decision tools like polls, so it’s crystal clear where our users stand on which features have to be delivered in each version.
Since this is all playing out in real time, I have to keep coming back to this, updating and changing my answers and descriptions. That might negatively impact the flow of how I explain things, for instance, some of this may seem disjointed.
Every component and capability is still up in the air, and we’re learning a lot about working with and evaluating full-service CubeSat vendors, as well as the variance in pricing between different vendors.
We’re also seeing drastically different price estimates for the cameras, whether they’re CMOS or CCD. In some cases, the price difference is as much as $200,000. We need to understand the reasons for those differences and hopefully turn things in our favor, as in much lower prices for multiple items. For example, is the lower quote missing several additional pieces and processes required for the camera to work? Maybe the higher quotes were all-inclusive, covering integration, full build-out, and testing? This is the great thing about startups, every day, you’re learning something new.
Mid-term, we’d like to provide all the controls astrophotographers think they’ll need. We plan to constantly engage with the astrophotography community, right now, it’s just the panel, to make sure our direction and offering make the setup process as easy and straightforward as possible. We also want to follow conventions used in existing, popular software like N.I.N.A., SkySafari, or Stellarium.
Of course, the other side of this is, until we get the unit in orbit, we won’t really know how much removing the atmosphere from the equation improves the optics. It’s been extremely difficult to find that information online. Almost everything I can find in terms of space imagery takes you straight to a NASA billion-dollar telescope.
In the last ISS mission, though, Don Pettit took an enormous number of pictures from the ISS using his Canon and Nikon cameras. If I can’t get good pictures from those as examples, I’m just going to get in contact with Don Pettit and get his input, and maybe even ask him if he wants to be on our advisory panel. I doubt he’d have time for that, but it doesn’t hurt to ask!
Here’s where all the pictures from that last mission are. A lot of them aren’t fully cataloged, so it doesn’t always state who took them, but I suspect many were taken by Mr. Pettit. He also published a book called Spaceborne with his space photography back in 2016.
Bueche: The camera we’re currently looking at, and please, let me know what you think of it, is the Iron 661 from Kaya Instruments. It offers the ability to control both exposure and gain. It also provides “Color Control,” which allows you to adjust RGB offsets, set auto or manual white balance, and apply LUTs. In addition, it offers defect pixel correction, binning, subsampling (1x2, 2x1, 2x2, all configurable), auto or manual black level adjustment, flat field and fixed pattern noise correction, ROI (region of interest), and frame flip.
Bueche: We’re still investigating whether the vendor has already developed a control interface for the Iron 661, and, if so, how capable it is and whether it will run on Linux in the cloud. Based on what I’ve seen in the vendor’s documentation so far, we’ll probably need to code our own interface that can operate from within an app running on AWS or Azure. That will also allow us to maintain a consistent look and feel across all of our operations. Additionally, we have account, security, storage, and resiliency requirements that are specific to our implementation.
In terms of our software, nobody will be controlling the spacecraft in real time or directly. All setup will be done terrestrially, in the cloud. Then, configuration settings, target, exposure time, camera settings, will be scheduled and sent to the CubeSat at the appropriate time.
The cool thing about space, though, is that there’s never a cloudy night. There’s no bad weather! So you don’t have to schedule something only to have it ruined by the weather. In space, you can schedule something for 3, 10, 100 years from now, and it will always be a clear sky with good seeing.
The other reason to schedule ahead of time, just like using N.I.N.A. or another astro app to maximize your observing window, is that a single CubeSat will only have about 9 hours of astronomical darkness per 24-hour period. Once we have three CubeSats in orbit, we’ll always have at least one in astronomical darkness, 24 hours a day. That means we need to schedule tightly to get as much as possible out of each orbit.
We’ll be operating at the Starlink orbital altitude of 550 kilometers. From a business perspective, we need to keep the camera running constantly. Beyond just astronomical darkness, we can actually do solar astrophotography about 15 hours a day. So we’re investigating how to efficiently switch between astronomical darkness imaging and solar imaging without requiring any mechanical movement or operations.
The first option we’re looking at is a method that switches electric voltage using either a Liquid Crystal Tunable Filter (LCTF) or an Electro-Optic component, like a prism or MEMS mirror. There are also about three other methods we need to explore as well.
Bueche: If we use the Aperture, which we can pair with any camera if the current camera we’re looking at doesn’t end up being the final choice, we’d like to go with solutions from Aperture Optical Sciences. Specifically, we’d like to use their Dall-Kirkham or Ritchey-Chrétien telescope designs.
Bueche: We need to stay within the 1U form factor, which is 10cm by 10cm by 10cm for height and width. For length, we’re really trying to keep it at 30cm, essentially a 1U by 3U size. Beyond that, the price starts to increase significantly.
Bueche: We really don’t have any good examples of images from space using telescope and camera technology that costs less than hundreds of millions of dollars. What I’m currently doing as a test is getting high-resolution images, larger than 8K by 8K, from the ISS and then cutting out sections that show the blackness of space and all the stars. Of course, that will most likely only reveal wide star fields, but we’ll see.
Bueche: Right now, we’re trying to set up a meeting with Aperture Optical Sciences to talk with them about their RC solutions. If we go with Dragonfly’s Camain or Chameleon cameras, the scope, or lens, is part of the package. The Simera Sense TriScape 100 also comes with a scope or lens. However, neither the Dragonfly nor the Simera Sense options offer all the control that the Kaya Instruments Iron 661 does.
Bueche: I haven’t seen cooling capabilities specifically called out in the specs for these space cameras yet. Unlike what we’re used to with typical astrophotography cameras, like ZWO or QHYCCD, cooling just isn’t highlighted the same way in space camera specs. That’s something we’re actively looking into as part of our evaluation process.
Bueche: Calibration isn’t something I’ve fully researched yet because we haven’t made a final decision on the camera. Also, the vendor we’ve been looking at for the telescope, Aperture Optical Sciences, hasn’t responded to any of the emails we’ve sent them so far. That was unexpected. We’ll try reaching out a few more times, but if we don’t hear back, I guess we’ll have to find another solution.
Our original option, the Simera Sense camera, comes with a lens. We’ll need to follow up with them to ask whether that lens will require re-calibration in space.
I’ve also been reading up on Innovations Foresight. They offer calibration solutions that don’t require hardware adjustments. I still need to go through their technical documentation, though, it’s not immediately clear to me how their system works. It looks like they make several hardware components that fit into the imaging chain, so I believe that’s how they handle calibration.
Bueche: Initially, we’re launching just one, due to financial constraints. But as soon as we get that first one in orbit, we’re hoping the revenue it generates will help cover part of the next launch. We also expect that the press coverage and YouTube attention from the first launch will help us reach a wider audience for a second Kickstarter campaign, and ideally bring in partners who want to work with us. We’ll see what kind of in-kind trades or partnerships could come out of that.
I think we’re projecting that we’ll need at least three CubeSats in orbit before the venture becomes fully self-sustaining, both operationally and in terms of funding ongoing growth. We don’t ever plan to stop launching more satellites, and with each new one, we want to increase capabilities beyond anything we’ve released before. We’re committed to constantly disrupting ourselves.
And after that, who knows? There are higher orbits, GEO, Lagrange points, the Moon, Mars, there’s no telling where this stops.
Bueche: We’re planning to have A and B components for the compute and software systems. We won’t be able to afford full redundancy on the first launch. After that, it really depends on how much revenue and support we can generate in time to get the second CubeSat launched as soon as possible. Keep in mind, the design, build, and testing period for these things is about 14 months.
Bueche: We’re still working through those details, but the goal is to make access flexible. We want to have pricing models that work for amateur astronomers, educators, and researchers alike. That likely means offering both subscription-style access and per-hour options, along with special programs for schools, citizen science groups, and research institutions. The hardcore astronomers crowd is a big part of this, but it’s not the only audience we want to serve.
Address:
1855 S Ingram Mill Rd
STE# 201
Springfield, Mo 65804
Phone: 1-844-277-3386
Fax: 417-429-2935
E-Mail: hello@scopetrader.com