Lillefix
I'm serious. You can.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 5,699
ASAP is not the vocabubary of civilian, intergovernmental organizations with over 20 member states.
The thread for space cadets!
- Thread starter hobbsyoyo
- Start date
ASAP is not the vocabubary of civilian, intergovernmental organizations with over 20 member states.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Blue Origin is getting ready for paid tourism and research flights with their New Shephard rocket and capsule. They have performed numerous tests since 2015, including this incredible launch abort test. Skip to about 00:50 to see the capsule rocket off the stack. Remarkably, the rocket survived the separation and continued on to its maximum altitude and then came in for a successful landing. This video does not show the instability of the capsule as it approached its own maximum escape velocity. It tumbled quite aggressively and would have been hazardous (though likely not lethal) to those inside. I'm sure they'll fix that soon or already have.
They are also building a factory in Florida to build their massive New Glenn rocket. The two stage version of this rocket will be about the same lift capacity as the Falcon Heavy while the 3 stage version will quite a bit more powerful and only somewhat less powerful than the fully upgraded SLS Block II rocket (which will never fly but that's a whole other thing).
For some reason I can't find the official New Glenn unveiling video on youtube but here's an unofficial video someone put together that gives an overview of it and New Shephard. New Shephard is capable of landing on a landing pad while New Glenn will land on a huge barge like the Falcon does for GTO missions.
True story!
They do have time to turn things around if they start now. However, the architecture they chose for Ariane 6 was outdated before it left the drawing board. At that time, SpaceX had not yet landed or re-used a rocket yet so it's somewhat understandable that they went the route they did. Unfortunately for them, they were very short sighted and chose to ignore the real progress SpaceX had already made and have continued to ignore that progress as it's gone from concept to proof of concept to operational re-use flights. That there is now 2 US companies pursuing re-use and a few Chinese start ups doing the same with state-backed money should be freaking them out.
warpus
In pork I trust
I thought I remember seeing in the specs that the BFR is going to make the New Glenn obsolete. But that could have just been a dream. What says you?
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Unclear. It will come down to cost, launch cadence and a bunch of other factors that are unknown at this point. I doubt it would make New Glenn obsolete. But NG, FH and BFR will all obsolete the SLS.
And the commercial, civil and military markets all like to have multiple providers and often pay premiums to ensure that, so I cannot see one launcher coming to take over everything. I do see one launcher making the economic case for other launchers untenable which will mean that governments will have to step in to support them as the US did with ULA's rockets when Arianespace took over the commercial market and it is likely the EU will step up subsidies for Arianespace in turn as they lose market share to Falcon.
Russia, China, India and Japan all support their own launchers already to a greater extent than the US and EU do for their. Possibly not if you judge solely by the size of the subisidies, but the US and Europe are high wage countries such that any subsidies offered have to be massive in dollar amounts even if they are smaller as a percentage of the total business those companies do.
And the commercial, civil and military markets all like to have multiple providers and often pay premiums to ensure that, so I cannot see one launcher coming to take over everything. I do see one launcher making the economic case for other launchers untenable which will mean that governments will have to step in to support them as the US did with ULA's rockets when Arianespace took over the commercial market and it is likely the EU will step up subsidies for Arianespace in turn as they lose market share to Falcon.
Russia, China, India and Japan all support their own launchers already to a greater extent than the US and EU do for their. Possibly not if you judge solely by the size of the subisidies, but the US and Europe are high wage countries such that any subsidies offered have to be massive in dollar amounts even if they are smaller as a percentage of the total business those companies do.
warpus
In pork I trust
All very interesting
I found this video in which Musk explains the specs and advantages of the BFR in more detail.. stumbles on a lot of his words, but it's worth watching
I found this video in which Musk explains the specs and advantages of the BFR in more detail.. stumbles on a lot of his words, but it's worth watching
Don't know if this has been brought up here already or not, but apparently Trump is now pushing for the ISS to be fully privatized by 2024, which is apparently when the US government will stop providing funding for it.
What's the general consensus on this? Good? Bad? Meh?
From what I've read about it though, not only is there bipartisan opposition to this plan, but the private sector doesn't really seem all that interested in the ISS since it is primarily a research facility and there's no real way to make a profit from it.
What's the general consensus on this? Good? Bad? Meh?
From what I've read about it though, not only is there bipartisan opposition to this plan, but the private sector doesn't really seem all that interested in the ISS since it is primarily a research facility and there's no real way to make a profit from it.
There are plans to lease Russian segment of the ISS to S7 (currently works as airline operator) after 2024. The company will convert it to private spaceport to use as a hub for further expansion to Moon and Mars. Probably, as alternative to Deep Space Gateway project. It also plans to use nuclear powered transport ships, which are being developed in several research institutes.
Don't know how viable this project is, but the company is real and has "Sea Launch" as its subsidiary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S7_Airlines
Also, different elements of nuclear propulsion system were being tested in 2015-2017. First flight tests are planned on 2020.
Don't know how viable this project is, but the company is real and has "Sea Launch" as its subsidiary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S7_Airlines
Also, different elements of nuclear propulsion system were being tested in 2015-2017. First flight tests are planned on 2020.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Not to nuclear spatial pollution. Protect the astrosystem and all the aliens living there. Lets make the Sun a biosphere reserve.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I'm sorry but not a single one of those programs are credible. Russia has been announcing some new breakthrough project every 6 months or so for the last 5 years. They haven't committed real funding to any of them and the announcements serve as propoganda pieces. I really, really wish all that wasn't the case and I 100% favor Russia doing cool stuff in space but it's just not been a funding priority for them while they focus instead on rebuilding their ICBM and bomber fleets. Plus they are on the hook for one or two more ISS modules per their international agreements that they have de-prioritized due to lack of funding and are several years late. I can't see them pulling together a new station of their own volition and their own funds if they can't already meet their own commitments to finish the ISS modules they have agreed to.
Sea Launch is a failed venture and what's left of it is a shadow of what it used to be. They had a neat set up to launch Ukrainian rockets from an oil drilling platform but after a catastrophic launch failure the company floundered and went bankrupt. The drilling platform and service ship stayed locked up in port in Long Beach while Boeing (one of the partners in the venture) sued their Russian counterparts in the venture over failure to pay. Eventually they won a huge settlement.
While the new Sea Launch did pick up what was left of the old company's assets, those did not include the rockets (they will have to develop a new one or retrofit existing rockets for platform launch) and I believe it did not include the drilling rig and support boat either.
Cool video of Sea Launch pad explosion:
Space is bathed in radiation by default. You can't meaningfully pollute non-LEO space, it's so vast that anything you dump into it vanishes into the void. Nuclear propulsion would not harm anything out there.
Note they are not going to use this propulsion method for take-offs or landings. It would be purely for burns in space, so there is no risk of contaminating anything. And even if they did say, use this to land on Mars or an asteroid, those bodies are already heavily irradiated and a stream of hot hydrogen will dissipate and escape back into space very quickly.
Thanks for sharing. Yeah he's not the greatest public speaker but it irks the hell out of me when people pick on him for it (not that you are here, just talking in general). I mean I get it, a billionaire doesn't need defending but public speaking is hard af and he's got a mild stutter to begin with. I'd like to see the legion of trolls on the internet do better.
Yeah I posted it here a few days ago but I'm glad someone is talking about it.
The plan is universally loathed by everyone. It's essentially a cop-out for this administration to get out of paying to support the ISS and to unwind international commitments. The proposal has not been thought through and there are 0 details on how they would pull this off logistically (Who will buy the station, how will they operate it without nationalized launch services?) or legally. The US only owns 51% of the station so we can't just sell it even if they wanted to. Also, the non-Russian segment is not self-contained even on paper, so if they began dissassembling it they would have to launch more modules to replace the ones that get pulled off. The Russian segment is self-contained on paper, which is why the Russians have been saying they are going to take their portions off to build a new station for the last few years. However, I suspect that the devil is in the details and that any real efforts to separate the Russian segments would involve a ton of work and new modules and space tugs just to get basic functionality.
You're right in that the ISS is not set up to make anyone money. It has no facilities for industrial-scale work which would absolutely be required to turn any sort of profit given how expensive it is to get to and from the space station. Even craftwork, hyper expensive, one of a kind products that might could be produced there would invoke hundreds of millions of dollars in set up costs. And to set up a large industrial base for say, making novel computer chip wafers or pharmaceuticals would costs billions easily.
Truth be told, without the shuttle or commercial crew flying, the ISS isn't really that great for research either. Right now the station cannot be fully staffed due to how small the Russian capsules are. Because of this, the staff on hand spends a ton of their time doing maintenance instead of research because they don't have people to spare. And as the station gets older, the worse these maintenance problems have gotten. Plus, a lot of the really useful science apparatus that were planned for the station have been cancelled which further reduces the utility of the ISS as a research outpost. It does do useful, world-class and unique research but at a volume so low I'm not sure it justifies the price we pay for it - much less to justify a business case built around it.
As with so many of Trump's projects, this one is poorly thought out and pisses off everyone on both sides of the debate. Not that there is a huge pro-privatization segment in the first place.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I think it far more likely that US will cut off funding for the ISS and the whole thing will be deorbited because the US is incapable of long-range planning in space at the scale of the ISS. There is a good chance that Congress would save it thanks to all the jobs it supports but in a battle between funding the ISS and the military or the ISS and social security, those other priorities will win. Given the shape our budget is projected to be in by 2024, I don't see how even Congress will be able to continue supporting it.
But the real news, as far as I understand, is leasing the ISS to the private company (which goes along the lines of "de-prioritizing" by the government). So while the government is unwilling to invest into the station, S7 might be able to finance it and find the way to make profit? At least if the company wants to invest into the project, probably they estimate the chances of success as quite high.
As for nuclear engine, it isn't being presented as major breakthrough, rather as a result of long underfunded research, which hopefully will produce results in the near future. There is nothing revolutionary in this technology.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Just leasing out the modules doesn't in and of itself make a new space station. There will be a ton of legwork to make this a reality and a ton of costs that either the government will have to bear to make it happen or will shift onto a private company to somehow fund. I just do not see it working out unless the state kicks in a lot of money they don't have and have been unwilling to commit so far.
A spaceworthy nuclear engine would be a major breakthrough given everyone gave up serious testing and development of them in the 60's and 70's. A lot of the infrastructure that existed for those projects are gone and international agreements related to nuclear testing would mean a total re-think of how they would do this development and testing today compared to the old days.
Open-air test fire around 6:00 m
Intentional open-air explosion of a NERVA engine:
Sure, the concept isn't revolutionary that's totally fair. But actual, serious development and testing of a new nuclear engine would be revolutionary given the field has been totally moribund for decades. And materials science and nuclear power advancements since the 60's would mean the engines would be fairly revolutionary compared to the tests run back then. They would be completely different animals.
Random aside -
In college I worked on a NASA sponsored mission to the moon. We proposed two propulsion systems, one that ran on hydrazine and the other was a pulsed-fission reactor to be developed in our schools research reactor facilities.
Guess which one NASA green-lit and which they turned down? They were kind of gung ho about about the reactor idea because NASA has really wanted to do nuclear engine development all along but can't do so themselves for a lot of reasons. Getting a bunch of university students to do it was fair game for them so they were excited.
But they pointed out that playing with hydrazine was just too dangerous.
Well, I'm not a specialist, but from the news the project seems to be alive, funded and at its late stages. Different components were tested already and ground tests of the whole device are scheduled for this year.
Electric power of the reactor is 1 megawatt, specific impulse of the engine 70 km/s. I read about it in a couple of blogs, but for me it's just pop-science, I can't evaluate how feasible it is.
Hopefully the project is not a "Potyomkin Village" and billions of funding since 2009 weren't wasted. If they were, project leaders may be in a big trouble, because the "nuclear space engine" seemed to get Putin's attention last year.
warpus
In pork I trust
It's actually the first time I really noticed it. Well, I've noticed that he sometimes stutters and his speech isn't perfect, but for "speaking in front of large groups of people" purposes I thought it was better than average and usually good enough to not really distract the audience or make it noticeable. But in this particular video he seems to gotten a bit nervous after the slideshow didn't progress the way he thought it would, and for the remainder of the video after that his is speech noticeably unfocused, or whatever you want to call it.
As someone who has had issues with social anxiety when facing large crowds, and has had big problems focusing in situations like that, and has been working hard over the years to improve that... I generally see Musk as someone who can express himself clearly in stressful situations. In this case it's interesting for me to see him struggle. In a way it's good to be reminded that nobody's perfect, and in another it's inspiring to see someone who seems to at times have similar issues as me be so cool and suave in most other interviews I've seen
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Sarcasm detector warning light was blinking furiously. You didnt check your instruments properly.@hobbsyoyo said:
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Agree 100%
Oh haha sorry, I'm used to knee-jerk anti-nuclear sentiments so I thought you were serious. There have been protests in the past over the use of RTG's on NASA probes which, while radioactive, are not nuclear reactors and would create no real contamination in most catastrophic scenarios.
You're totally right on this and I skipped over it in a moment of thoughtlessness. The larger your nuclear system, the greater the risk of a launch failure or premature de-orbit causing problems. There was at least one Soviet full-on nuclear reactor that re-entered over Canada but it was small enough that there were no lasting damages. A nuclear rocket engine would be another matter entirely though once it gets to orbit, even a de-orbit scenario would spread out the debris to such an extent that it would likely not be a threat. Though that really depends on the design itself which may be sturdy enough to survive the whole way down which would be a big problem, as would a launch failure during early ascent.
Edit: So apparently some of the pieces of the failed Kosmos 954 mission were lethally hot but when you consider it was spread out over a huge area of uninhabited Canada that it wasn't a huge deal. If it had come down over a city it would have been something of a nightmare but the public reaction would have far outpaced any real danger by a few orders of magnitude IMO.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
It's definitely possible to go this route. The SNAP RTG's that Apollo brought were nigh-indestructible for this reason. There's one sitting at the bottom of the Mariana trench from Apollo 13 that survived in tact and as far as anyone has been able to measure has never leaked. But you're right, this would increase the costs dramatically.
On the other hand, a good nuclear stage would be so large it would almost have to go up in pieces by definition so it may not be that much more expensive to properly protect the core (or core materials) since it'll all go up in pieces anyways.
On the other hand, a good nuclear stage would be so large it would almost have to go up in pieces by definition so it may not be that much more expensive to properly protect the core (or core materials) since it'll all go up in pieces anyways.
Similar threads
