Prompt Guide

For each major feature on this part, recommend the best tool, machining strategy, feed, and speed based on geometry, material (7075 aluminum), and accessibility.

You are a mission/orbit design engineer. Propose 2–3 viable orbit options for a spaceborne SAR mission and justify the trade.

Mission needs:
- Target latitude range: [e.g., global / ±70° / specific region]
- Required revisit: [e.g., <24 h / 3 days / weekly] at [incidence angle range]
- Desired ground resolution: [m] and swath: [km]
- SAR band: [X/C/L], imaging modes: [Stripmap/Spotlight/ScanSAR]
- Spacecraft constraints: mass [kg], max power [W], max downlink [Mbps], max slew rate [deg/s]
- Ground segment: # ground stations and latitude(s)

Deliver:
1) A short list of candidate orbits with (altitude, inclination, LTAN if SSO, repeat cycle, max access/revisit, beta angle implications).
2) For each orbit: expected coverage/revisit for the target region, key SAR geometry impacts (look/incidence angle ranges, Doppler/PRF considerations, shadow/layover risk).
3) A decision matrix (revisit, coverage, resolution geometry, downlink opportunity, drag/lifetime, radiation, cost/complexity).
4) Final recommendation and what requirements it best satisfies. State assumptions explicitly.

This part contains thin walls and deep pockets and will be machined from 6061 aluminum on a standard 3-axis mill. Generate a machining strategy that minimizes deflection and vibration, including tool selection, stepdown strategy, and finishing passes.

Review the generated machining plan and explain the reasoning behind tool selection, feeds, speeds, and operation order. Identify which decisions are conservative, which are aggressive, and where a senior machinist might reasonably choose a different approach.

Compare reaction-wheel ADCS vs magnetorquer-only ADCS for a nanosatellite and recommend an architecture for the stated mission.

Inputs:
- Platform: [1U/3U/6U/12U], inertia estimate or dimensions: [ ]
- Pointing: accuracy [deg/arcmin], stability [deg/s or arcsec/s], knowledge [ ], jitter limit [ ]
- Agility: max slew [deg] in [s], retarget frequency [per orbit/day]
- Environment: orbit [LEO/SSO], altitude [km], geomagnetic latitude range (if relevant)
- Payload sensitivity: [imager exposure time / antenna beamwidth / SAR?]
- Constraints: power average/peak [W], volume [U], cost, reliability class

Deliver:
1) Disturbance torque estimate (aero, gravity-gradient, magnetic residual dipole, SRP) and control authority comparison.
2) Mode table (detumble, coarse point, fine point, momentum management) for each architecture.
3) Sizing guidance: wheel torque/momentum capacity and required magnetic dipole moment; duty-cycle and power impacts.
4) Risks/failure modes and mitigations (wheel saturation, bearing failures, MTQ-only limitations, eclipse operations).
5) A decision matrix + recommended architecture for the given pointing/agility needs.
Assume reasonable values if inputs are missing and show sensitivity to key assumptions.

Create a realistic power budget for an Earth-observation CubeSat and give typical ranges by bus size.

Inputs:
- Bus size: [3U/6U/12U/16U], orbit: [SSO/LEO], altitude [km]
- Payload: [RGB imager / multispectral / hyperspectral / thermal], resolution goal [m], duty cycle [min/orbit]
- Comms: band [UHF/S/X], downlink rate [Mbps], contact time [min/day], TX power [W]
- ADCS: pointing class [coarse/fine], actuators [MTQ / wheels], star tracker? [Y/N]
- Ops concept: imaging per day [ ], downlink windows [ ], safe mode assumptions

Deliver (with a clear table):
1) Subsystem power (avg/peak) + duty cycle: OBC, EPS losses, ADCS, payload, comms, thermal, propulsion (if any).
2) Orbit-average energy balance: sunlight/eclipse fractions, required solar array average power, battery Wh and DoD.
3) Example configurations for [3U, 6U, 12U] showing "typical" and "high-performance" cases.
4) Key design drivers and quick checks (margin %, worst-case eclipse season, panel pointing losses).
State assumptions and provide ranges when values vary widely.

Design a Concept of Operations (ConOps) for a sample extraction and return mission. Use a mission-phase structure and be explicit about timelines, autonomy, and ground operations.

Inputs:
- Target body: [asteroid / Moon / Mars / comet], launch window constraints: [ ]
- Sample type and amount: [g/kg], acquisition method: [drill/scoop/corer], containment requirements: [planetary protection level]
- Return mode: [direct Earth entry capsule / rendezvous in Earth orbit / lunar return], max mission duration: [ ]
- Comms: [DSN class?], autonomy level: [low/med/high], navigation: [optical/LiDAR/radar]
- Constraints: total mass [kg], power [W], propulsion type [chemical/EP], risk posture [demo/flagship]

Deliver:
1) Mission phases with entry/exit criteria: cruise, approach, proximity ops, landing/touch-and-go, sampling, ascent, departure, cruise back, Earth return & recovery.
2) A step-by-step operations timeline (sequence of events) including comm passes, decision points, contingencies, and safe modes.
3) Roles and responsibilities: flight software autonomy vs ground-in-the-loop, fault protection, verification checkpoints.
4) Interfaces: GNC sensors/actuators, sample chain-of-custody, thermal/contamination controls, recovery ops.
5) Top risks (technical + ops) and mitigations; include "what-if" branches for off-nominal cases.
Make assumptions as needed and label them clearly.