India Off To The Moon

[bluemonday]

Clicky

 

All very well and I'm sure they're happy the launch suceeded.

However, given the conditions of poverty and disease that a subtantial proportion of the continent endure daily, is it a wise expenditure.

This continually amazes me, they had to have nukes because next door had them or vice versa.

 

Is it not time for a totally united worldwide programme without national pride having to be a priority?

 

Surely the exploration of space is a cause for a united mankind not various ad hoc efforts by various countries?

 

Couldn't the human race grow up and do it as a fully unified effort?

I know the technology and research does get shared but isn't space too big for flag waving?

[Jimcalagon]

Clicky

 

All very well and I'm sure they're happy the launch suceeded.

However, given the conditions of poverty and disease that a subtantial proportion of the continent endure daily, is it a wise expenditure.

This continually amazes me, they had to have nukes because next door had them or vice versa.

 

Is it not time for a totally united worldwide programme without national pride having to be a priority?

 

Surely the exploration of space is a cause for a united mankind not various ad hoc efforts by various countries?

 

Couldn't the human race grow up and do it as a fully unified effort?

I know the technology and research does get shared but isn't space too big for flag waving?

 

From comments on Radio 4 this morning - India is doing this to demonstrate its launch capabilities. It makes money from launching satellites for international clients. Think of it as a loss-leader.

 

I like the idea of a 'united mankind' space effort but to be honest, I think the people who are really going to get all of mankind's eggs out of earth's basket are the smaller private concerns who don't have massive multi-billion dollar budgets and instead have to find clever and cheap ways to get into space. The big problem facing the space effort is the cost-to-orbit. Bring that down and the universe is your oyster.

[jimbms]

Must resist comments about opening a convenience store on the moon

[Skeddan]

From comments on Radio 4 this morning - India is doing this to demonstrate its launch capabilities. It makes money from launching satellites for international clients. Think of it as a loss-leader.

 

I like the idea of a 'united mankind' space effort but to be honest, I think the people who are really going to get all of mankind's eggs out of earth's basket are the smaller private concerns who don't have massive multi-billion dollar budgets and instead have to find clever and cheap ways to get into space. The big problem facing the space effort is the cost-to-orbit. Bring that down and the universe is your oyster.

Why do you think countries with multi-billion dollar budgets to invest in satellite launch services don't invest some into R&D in the clever and cheap ways to get into space? In another thread you gave interesting link to JP Aerospace and their approaches. If those are realistic, why aren't these being looked at? (I don't question whether or not realistic - only wondering why more isn't put into such development).

[Lonan3]

Must resist comments about opening a convenience store on the moon

...or a call-centre.

[Jimcalagon]

Why do you think countries with multi-billion dollar budgets to invest in satellite launch services don't invest some into R&D in the clever and cheap ways to get into space?

 

Because rocketry is proven technology. You know how much it's going to cost you and can put forward a business plan based on a known LTO (launch to orbit) cost. Most businesses (and countries) nowadays want a quick profit and they can implement a rocket program with off-the shelf technologies (e.g. the chinese space program's Long March rocket is based heavily on its ICBM designs). It might be expensive but the cost is passed on to either the taxpayer or the customer who wants its satellite launched.

 

In another thread you gave interesting link to JP Aerospace and their approaches. If those are realistic, why aren't these being looked at? (I don't question whether or not realistic - only wondering why more isn't put into such development).

 

Well they are being looked at - JP Aerospace and other companies are looking at them. The big space agencies have become historically locked in to conventional rocketry - see below. OK most of these businesses/technologies won't stand a hope but if only one in 20 of them succeeds then we will have a new (and presumably) cheaper launch technology.

 

In NASA's (and it's forerunner's) early days there was a power struggle between the people who wanted a clever launch strategy and Wehrner Von Braun's rocketry team who advocated the big dumb rocket approach. There were other technologies, such as the spaceplane approach and the Orion launch system that were being developed but Von Braun convinced the US Government that the big rockets could reach the moon before the end of the 60s and all development effort was channelled into the Apollo project. Again, a short-term win but it did not result in a cheap launch system which allowed an on-going gradual expansion of manned spaceflight.

 

 

Historically there have been other novel launch strategies but they have often been closed down due to internecine political manouevring - for example the McDonnell Douglas DC-X

 

If you look at Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites company, they have come up with a launch strategy which is not new, indeed it is based on some very old ideas, such as the old X-Planes and the german Sanger idea (which dates to WW2). They have proven this works, cheaply, without massive one-shot rockets and, with the added investment from Virgin Galactic, they are looking to extend their model to genuine orbital craft.

 

This essay by Jerry Pournelle might make for interesting further reading.

[bluemonday]

Von Braun convinced the US Government that the big rockets could reach the moon before the end of the 60s and all development effort was channelled into the Apollo project.

 

And before the Russians after being out into second place by sputnik.

Which to my mind was the driving objective.

[Jimcalagon]

Von Braun convinced the US Government that the big rockets could reach the moon before the end of the 60s and all development effort was channelled into the Apollo project.

 

And before the Russians after being out into second place by sputnik.

Which to my mind was the driving objective.

 

Correct

[Skeddan]

Thanks for this Jimcalagon. One of the things that seems puzzling is how European Space Agency etc. look at big distant projects rather than space launch system. The Burt Rutan 'RASCAL' approach looked quite promising - then the project was cancelled - it seems because funds were diverted to 'more viable projects' (which I assume is proven technology). I guess this type of thing will be taken up again if it can be shown to have military application and the approach provides a solution that conventional ones wouldn't (e.g. the rapid deployment of marines which was recently in the news).

 

I'd also guess that low cost launch systems will become very much more attractive when there are low cost satellites (?) - if sending a sat costing $300m into orbit you want 'proven' type system - and can afford it - it's probably not that big a part of total project cost. If satellite cost was down to say $5m, then demand for low cost launch system would mean more effort might go into this. Since it takes megabucks to have sat or space exploration, then LTO cost of existing systems is not such a big issue. Maybe when there are low cost kitset type satellites this will help put greater efforts towards lower cost LTO?

[TerryMcCann]

I've always thought the Indians would be good at knocking up a rocket.

 

Explosive heat coming from the bottom seems somewhat fitting

[Stu Peters]

Must resist comments about opening a convenience store on the moon

...or a call-centre.

...or beads around the capsule windows...

[Jimcalagon]

Thanks for this Jimcalagon. One of the things that seems puzzling is how European Space Agency etc. look at big distant projects rather than space launch system. The Burt Rutan 'RASCAL' approach looked quite promising - then the project was cancelled - it seems because funds were diverted to 'more viable projects' (which I assume is proven technology). I guess this type of thing will be taken up again if it can be shown to have military application and the approach provides a solution that conventional ones wouldn't (e.g. the rapid deployment of marines which was recently in the news).

 

I'd also guess that low cost launch systems will become very much more attractive when there are low cost satellites (?) - if sending a sat costing $300m into orbit you want 'proven' type system - and can afford it - it's probably not that big a part of total project cost. If satellite cost was down to say $5m, then demand for low cost launch system would mean more effort might go into this. Since it takes megabucks to have sat or space exploration, then LTO cost of existing systems is not such a big issue. Maybe when there are low cost kitset type satellites this will help put greater efforts towards lower cost LTO?

 

 

According to the Jerry Pournelle article, the reason that satellites are so expensive is that they have to engineered to last a LONG time because it is so expensive to launch a replacement, not the other way round.

 

One of the sources of funding for the JP Aerospace proposal is the US military who think that a very high altitude floating platform would be a useful surveillance platform - they aren't interested in the second stage of the project, actually getting to orbit.

 

On the subject of other companies trying to develop alternatives to "big dumb rockets":-

 

Jeff Bezos - the founder of Amazon.com - has founded another company,Blue Origin,who developing their own reusable launch vehicle based on the McDonnell Douglas DC-X "Delta Clipper". Here is some

showing one of the test launches of their 'New Shepard' craft.

 

Also interesting:- Armadillo Aerospace (founded by John Carmack who developed the Doom and Quake videogames), SpaceX founded by Elon Musk, the founder of PayPal (seeing any pattern here?) and SpaceDev's "Dream Chaser" shuttle, .

[Skeddan]

According to the Jerry Pournelle article, the reason that satellites are so expensive is that they have to engineered to last a LONG time because it is so expensive to launch a replacement, not the other way round.

Interesting. From what I can pick up the life of the sat is abt. 14 years (?) and insurance costs are very high - 22% of total cost - with on-orbit failures being a high risk, so engineered for reliability - failure is expensive.

 

I also came across this about the NASA fastsat - they reckon $10m total cost for satellite in orbit. However this has fairly small payload and also short life (I think abt. 6 months in orbit). However notion behind this - simple design etc. fits with reliability.

 

Seems to me that if taking Fastsat concept, but with life of 3-5 years (maybe using new composites etc.) and using lower cost launch systems already available, this could be more attractive than conventional. (there is also risk that technology advances may make sat redundant, and can be ahead with latest rather than having to choose entry point - e.g. when to launch sat broadband service to last 14 years). $25m for 3 years could be a lot more attractive than £160m for 14.

 

So I wonder if perhaps there is a 1950s type paradigm of 'built to last' and with high cost heavily engineered big-heavy approach which is not suited to fast paced technological change . That traditional approach might be right for some, but I'd think there's a healthy niche for cheaper 'disposables' with mid-life range of 3-5 years. I'd think when these affordable placements appear, as they probably will, there'll be a major shift and expansion in satellite related industries.

 

I don't know if so, but I'm wondering if a breakthrough in affordable mid-life satellites would be the most pivotal in changing dynamics and economics of the industry, and there'd be more gains from that than in launch and rocket systems that seem to have attracted most investment and attention. I'd also think developing such a satellite 'system' could be a lot cheaper than developing new launch system, and perhaps being a satellite manufacturer (with zero tax in IoM?) is a sounder business proposition than space tourism. So what's the catch? Why aren't people doing this? (or are they?).

 

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/19nov_fastsat.htm

 

http://www.satellite-evolution.com/PDF%20F...0Issue/LMCS.pdf

[ans]

However, given the conditions of poverty and disease that a subtantial proportion of the continent endure daily, is it a wise expenditure.

 

It's ok, there are other countries happy to pick up that tab.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7198546.stm

[Jimcalagon]

EU funding Skylon space plane R&D

 

This looks interesting - they have a heat exchanger which can cool hot gas coming into the jet intakes from 1000 degrees C to -130 in 100th of a second?!??