Sea Launch Success 44
After the spectacular failure of the last go-round, Kyle writes: "The commercial venture Sea Launch has successfully launched another communications satellite into geosynchronous orbit, restoring confidence in the floating launch system after a launch failure earlier this year. The video Webcast was entertaining, complete with hints that they threw a pretty good post-launch party out there in international waters." Reader marat points to CNN coverage of the launch. Isn't it neat how the space game is heating up?
Re:international spaces (Score:1)
The matter of fact, though, is that unless the ship/boat/vessle is worth big bucks and some country has a vested interest in seeing it not attacked, nothing will happen if some pirate jumps on board and starts killing people.
...and yes, that shit still happens in many parts of the world. So much so, that the mega rich have started ferrying their yatches from port to port via converted tanker transport vessles (really cool ships that flood and sink to allow the boats to be driven into a holding tank; the transport ship then unfloods... must cost an arm and a leg to use, but most of the vessles carried are the +100mil luxo-yatchs of the conspiciously wealthy).
...and to whoever provided the false link to the supposed havenco article: you're one sick fuck, seek professional help.
Re:Exhaust heat and armada storms (Score:1)
Exhaust heat and armada storms (Score:1)
the result is these huge storms called Armada Storms -- because you'd need an armada of butterflies to cause one.
(Of course, the solution is space elevators on the equator)
Wonder if launching rockets has changed the atmosphere to any degree (or, how long until it does)...
Orbiting Bisque (Score:1)
My
Quux26
Re:Irridium Satellites to be 'Deorbited' after all (Score:1)
Re:Exhaust heat and armada storms (Score:1)
Peter F Hamilton is entertianment. That's where it ends. Armada storms caused by rocket exhausts are there purely as an atmospheric setting, not inteded to be any kind of sensisble prediction.
Sure there is a lot of interesting tech in there. *All* of has surfaced before in other Sci-Fi novels. What makes PFH so entertaining is that he throws all of it, lock stock and barel, from '50s lensman space opera sagas to '90 cyberpunk wetware into one massive cauldron, and still manages to tell a readable story of pure fantasy.
Re:I hope (Score:1)
Re:international spaces (Score:1)
boy, i hope you never get sued
Seriously, I would think the old maxim "might makes right" will win this jurisdiction battle. Shit...it'll be more fun than domain disputes.
Re:I hope (Score:1)
oh well, its worth the karma loss
ok (almost) real post (Score:1)
here's what they said:
In addition to heavy lift capability (5,250 kg in 2000, growing to 5,700 kg in 2002), Sea Launch offers superior value, operational and cost advantages. Our marine operations reduce launch infrastructure, minimizing operational cost. Our continued focus is on customer satisfaction, mission assurance and evolutionary growth with emphasis on high performance, streamlined integration and efficient operations.
but that still doesn't make any sense. "...is on customer satisfaction" - what the hell is that? They selling these things on Value Vision? I think when someone (read: some big company or gov't) spends billions of dollars...they get to be called "Clients" neato isn't it.
Re:ok (almost) real post (Score:1)
shit i'll try to be serious. It really does sound cool. It would seem to be more efficient. I guess the real benefit is that it isn't under US control necessarily, (thats spelled wrong. flame me) and that lets them sell to any common consumer (read: "The -insert your favorite collective group of nation peoples- can't launch those on OUR U.S. soil") that they want.
Re:This could be useful for havenco (Score:1)
1. no one owns space
2. no one can say "hey you meddling kids, get away from my satellite or i'll shoot ya."
3. I figure the RIAA and MPAA are already working on a space missile for these things.
and as a side-note:
when consumer space trips are a reality, OJ Simpson could kill his next wife up there and save a whole lot of money and time.
(the humor comes from the fact that we all know that OJ Simpson did not really kill his wife)
(or maybe the humor comes from that previous parenthetical explanation....I'll let you decide today!)
Re:Just wondering.. (Score:1)
(the apparent humor comes from the fact that I really couldn't shoot down a satellite with a
but seriously, if no one has jurisdiction...it goes both ways. If you blew up a Chinese satellite, they gov't wouldn't be happy and that might have ramifications...if Pepsi Co. had one and it was destroyed, what they gonna do? sue you? muhahahah
Re:bah shaddup (Score:1)
I do have to argue with your comment.
"....or they'll throw them in jail."
no my friend, Litigation. yes. Ligitation.
or maybe the gov't will promote a policy of consolidation of the alien species into our own as a way of encouraging competetion.
(the humor is that i paraphrased the New York Times's comments about the Clinton Administration's Policy, but instead of aliens, its really big and large corporations. Jee that is some lashing wit!)
No video of the launch (Score:1)
It's the DC-X (Score:1)
NASA mothballed it because it crashed and burnt and Buzz Aldrin stepped over too many toes.
I agree with you totally (Score:1)
I always like Rotary and their wacky but workable idea. (Rotating the combustion chamber using the centrifugal force as compressors, thus saving weight by chucking the massive turbopumps).
It's sad that the demise of Iridium had brought so many great ideas to a halt.
I HATE NASA I HATE DAN GOLDIN! It's all politics.
Lockheed-Martin is the Micro$oft of the space industry. It's just sad that there is no "grassroots" to combat this monopoly.
(Conestoga is another launch vehicle that is cool, cheap and not-politically connected, which means it died a painful death.)
Re:Space game heating up? (Score:1)
My last glimmer of hope is Beal Aerospace, not because they have any groundbreaking new ideas in their design
Beal is actually breaking new ground in one way: they are designing a disposable rocket that is CHEAP, rather than one that is adapted from ICBM technology. Unfortunatley, they probably can't get launch below about $1000/lb this way, which isn't enough to break the threshold described in the SAS article. However, you might be right that they at least cause a resurgence of interest in the field.
And they hit the mark right on with that last article; it takes a billion dollar initial investment to develop a new launch system...
Acutally, that's where I have to disagree with you (and SAS, though I don't think Henry really believes it has to cost that much; it just has historically). It costs several billion to design a new launch system when it's done by government agencies and large companies that have huge bureaucracries. It doesn't have to cost so damn much. Rotary Rocket budgeted $150 Million from start to first flight. We got as far as we did (working combustion chambers, and a demonstrator that flew as a helicopter) on a mere $30M, and alot of that went into infrastructure (they spent $5M on buildings, for example; really bad move, IMO). We probably could have done it for $150M. Double that, and we would have done it for sure.
$150M is alot of bucks, but it's really not that much in the context of governemnt programs, or, for that matter, internet VC. And that's what really burns me: the money is out there. There are people who could underwrite the whole program for less than 10% of their net worth, and for that price they get to totally change the way the world works. But no...
Did Timothy not read the last SAS newsletter when it got posted to Slashdot? (Big thanks to whomever did that one, by the way; I'd advise interested readers to check out the archives too).
You're welcome.
Why NASA dumped the DC-X (Score:1)
This is Space Access Society's take on it:
Lockheed (by this point, Lockheed-Martin) won the X-33 competition with their by-then renamed "Venturestar" lifting body rocketship. One of the reasons NASA gave for selecting this bid was that it *required* more new advanced technologies [and thus higher risk] than any of the other vehicles bid. So much for the KISS principle.
quoted w/o permission from issue #91 of their newsletter; full text is available here [space-access.org]. Scroll down about a page to "The Last Five Years: NASA Gets The Ball, And Drops It"
Re:Exhaust heat and armada storms (Score:1)
Besides, there aren't enough rockets to worry about- you should be far more worried about cars.
Incidentally rockets aren't as inefficient as you might suppose. They have very high thermodynamic efficiency because they run at extreme temperatures. Aeroplanes crossing the atlantic use not dissimilar quantities of fuel. It's only that a lot of rockets use hydrogen fuel that rockets get to be so big. (Hydrogen is many times less dense compared to say, gasoline, for the same energy.)
So somebody clip it, (Score:1)
And significantly increase your karma (unless AC)...
Every secretary using MSWord wastes enough resources
Re:ok (almost) real post (Score:1)
Launching from sea also has the (very attractive) benefit of being able to place a satellite into a low-inclination orbit without using any on-board systems (i.e. fuel on the spacecraft). With other launch platforms (i.e. land-based launch sites, the lowest possible inclination orbit which can be maintained from that site is equal to the launch site latitude. With a mobile platform, you can achieve a wide variety of inclinations with a single launch setup.
Thus, though the spacecraft will most likely still have to have some form of attitude control system (thrusters, torque rods, etc), added weight (and therefore cost) and complexity won't be wasted just to get the spacecraft to a lower-inclination orbit. This maneuver, by the way is very expensive in terms of how much fuel you have to spend for each degree of inclination change.
Re:Just wondering.. (Score:2)
Re:The BiFrost project (Score:2)
The deceleration would instantly turn all food into soup, which would then be cooked by the fuel as it exploded. All future space flight would have to navigate carefully around the huge cloud of orbitting bisque.
international spaces (Score:2)
Well, IANAW (I am not a Whatever), but at sea, also international territory, if your vessel, oil platform, or what have you gets attacked, the government who's flag that ship flies is supposed to have jurisdiction over it. Attacking a U.S. boat is like attacking the united statess, and I would assume space would work the same
A Few interesting points in the video... (Score:2)
At 2:13 are a couple of interviews with people.
They get the signal from the satellite about 2:26:30, after which they have a speach about the launch.
Re:The BiFrost project (Score:2)
ie, food + fuel. Very useful thing to be able to slingshot (either metaphorically or literally) into space, neh?
.02
My
Quux26
Re:equitorial advantage... (Score:2)
The problem is that any gun big enough to make space lauches cheap is a real threat to the national security of any nation that is along the line of fire. If you can get the payload into [near] orbit, then that includes a lot of land.
Actually, the biggest usefulness of the gun wouldn't be to reach orbit directly (very high muzzle velocity needed), but rather to get rid of the need for the first stage booster. I read somewhere that x% of the fuel of a standard rocket is used to get it the initial y meters/sec velocity (where x is high and y is low).
Re:The BiFrost project (Score:2)
Nice and easy, w/o the mess of all the rumbling and shaking before the rocket lifts off?
Re:Space game heating up? (Score:2)
What about active/dynamic/unstable/whatever-it's-called steering, like we see in the newer fighter aircraft?
Wouldn't that be a feasable solution?
Irridium Satellites to be 'Deorbited' after all (Score:2)
Looks like we will be getting some late fireworks this year, I recommend they plan the deorbiting to coincide with the beginning of the millenium.
Help [206.253.208.199]
Re:Space game heating up? (Score:2)
The Space Access Society has occupied an important niche. What they seem to be doing with that niche is not as important as what they are doing with it.
And they hit the mark right on with that last article; it takes a billion dollar initial investment to develop a new launch system
Excuses, excuses...
It doesn't take a billion dollars to develop a new dragster [slashdot.org].
Those boys will frequently build new engines the way the Wright Brothers did in their bike shop [nps.gov] for their first airplane. Yeah, they blow up a lot of their "innovative" engines, but if you are so much of a pussy you can't deal with regular occurances of high energy events that produce large quantities of metal fragments zipping around hunting for your vitals, you shouldn't be into high power systems in the first place.
Of course, everyone in the US aerospace industry these days is a pussy.
Working Link (Score:2)
This is great! (Score:2)
Re:Exhaust heat and armada storms (Score:2)
--
Just wondering.. (Score:2)
The BiFrost project (Score:3)
Such a coilgun would be most effective in launching LARGE cargo, not small. Think "space-station" sized. The second problem is the deceleration upon exitting the tube.
You have this 2 meter crossection of ceramic slamming into our atmosphere at close to 18k/s - that has a tendancy to cause things to vaporize. Not only that, but the deceleration shock would be in the several thousands of g forces.. not good for any electronics.
The third and easiest to solve problem is the EMF created by the coilgun. You have an absolutely HUGE EMF operating at high frequency. Effectively, it's a localized EMP aimed right at your electronics. Without shielding, you'll have molten slag for ICs - you absolutely must shield the equipment.
Just some thoughts...
Re:ok (almost) real post (Score:3)
Two and a half hours of video..... (Score:3)
...is a lot to watch, especially when most of it's "Well Bob, there's the rocket" "Yep Cindy, we launch in one hour".
So skip through to about 35 minutes to see the lead up to the launch. Once it gets to around 48 minutes they're back to info-graphics and repeating what the flight control crew is saying.
"We're at L+5, that's five minutes after the launch time (Ed. No shit?), and I've just heard that the flight is nominal". Argh, so did we.
Well, (Score:3)
---
equitorial advantage... (Score:4)
of shoting stuff into space with a huge fscking cannon was much more elegant:
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/SGbull.h
[...]
The Israelis, in September 1988, had successfully launched their own Shavit rocket into orbit, an event that had much impressed, and depressed, the Arab League. Bull promised the Iraqis a launch system that could place dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Arab satellites into orbit. *Small* satellites, granted, and unmanned ones; but their launches would cost as little as five thousand dollars each. Iraq would become a genuine space power; a minor one by superpower standards, but the only
Arab space power. And even small satellites were not just for show. Even a minor space satellite could successfully perform certain surveillance activities.
[...]
When you combine that with SkyCorp's robust component satellite assembly system, you wouldn't have to have a floating platform and a 1000' long ship to support you launch acctivities. In fact, the average fortune 500 company might be able to single handly fund and carryout launch activities. Still, 10,000 Gs is a s*itload of force. Maybe if someone were able to develope a hybrid rail gun/megneto-levo/cannon system that would accelerate payloads at lower Gs which would then link up with inertial launch component post explosive acceleration (at the muzzle perhaps)
http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/06/11a.html
http://www.themacjunkie.com/archives/6.13.00.wi
http://www.sky-corp.com/
maybe you could even do some weird shit like putting the railrun/megneto-levitation system underwater (pointed at the surface) and use Cavitation to get the payload upto hypersonic speeds before it joins up with the inertial launch component on a platform at the equator.
Timing would be critical... I'm not sure if computers currently have the resolution required to solve those timing issues. Probably have to use some weirdo-analog-hack to get the payload and inertial components in same spot at the right place.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/07/23/162
Space game heating up? (Score:4)
Rotary Rocket [rotaryrocket.com] has been gutted of engineers and CEO, and their current progress is destined to be mothballed unless they find a magic money tree somewhere.
Ok, so they were a long shot. But Kistler [kistleraerospace.com] was playing it relatively safe with their design (after ditching an initial wacky idea), didn't hit any big technical or political snags, but simply is in limbo now trying to raise the last third of their funding.
Did Timothy not read the last SAS newsletter when it got posted to Slashdot? (Big thanks to whomever did that one, by the way; I'd advise interested readers to check out the archives [space-access.org] too). The SAS seems to be the group most interested in low cost access to space, rather than in lobbying for a larger NASA budget. And they hit the mark right on with that last article; it takes a billion dollar initial investment to develop a new launch system, there are only two aerospace companies left who can afford that kind of investment, and they've both got good reason to love the status quo.
Oh, but what about government research? The X-33 [nasa.gov] is a joke. It was never designed as a simple, cheap launch vehicle, just as a way to be a "technology demonstrator" for as much flashy stuff as necessary to win a NASA contract. Of course, except for the aerospike engine, most of that flashy stuff is looking worse and worse. The lifting body shape may need control fins the size of wings, or ballast (yes, ballast on a spacecraft) to keep the center of gravity ahead of the center of pressure. They've just about given up on a high-tech composite tank after discovering it damaged in tests, and will probably have to use plain old aluminum for their wacky, multilobed design.
And did I mention that they're running years behind schedule, over budget, and despite previous agreements that Lockheed-Martin would pay budget overruns, they may renegotiate or scrap the project anyway?
Sea Launch's success isn't even in the same class as these failures. They're trying to squeeze a few extra pounds onto the usual work-intensive expendable rocket, not to reduce the gross costs of space launch by an order of magnitude.
My last glimmer of hope is Beal Aerospace [bealaerospace.com], not because they have any groundbreaking new ideas in their design, but because they've got a sugar daddy financer who can afford all the capital investment before they get up and running. And even if they get started with tried and true booster technologies, they'll be a profitable new space company with no vested interest in squeezing the largest launch prices out of the government as possible. And that might actually heat things up.
Re:The BiFrost project (Score:4)
I don't see any of the problems you just listed. In fact, they say a human rated launcher can be built.
Later
Erik Z
Re:ok (almost) real post (Score:5)
There set up is also pretty cool, they have two "ships" one is an unmanned oil platform where they keep/launch the rocket, the other is a control ship where a crew of (mostly Russian) engineers controls the launch. They seem to use a lot of Russian parts as well.