The thread for space cadets!

[hobbsyoyo]

It has a unique configuration for a unique mission.

Instead of grid fins, it has this huge tubular control surface around the top for controlling the descent of the rocket.

 

[warpus]

Yeah that rocket looks odd. What's the equivalent SpaceX rocket, if there is one?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The grasshopper test vehicles came closest in purpose. They were sub-orbital test platforms for practicing landing operations. The first (with non-flight landing legs) was retired after a successful test campaign. The second (with more flight-like landing legs) was self-destructed when laggy throttle response led to the rocket falling outside of range safety requirements. It was not replaced as SpaceX had moved on to performing landing experiments during their actual missions. It's important to distinguish however, that unlike BO, these SpaceX vehicles were purely for testing, not ferrying tourists or experiments to the edge of space.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

One of the main Chinese rocket design firms (China Academy of Launch vehicle Technology - CALT) unveiled plans for a reusable first stage cluster.

The idea is that the solid rocket motors on the side will parachute down to Earth like the Space Shuttles while the center core will perform a retro-propulsive landing a la Falcon 9. The reasons given for this are to bring down costs and to avoid dropping stages on towns downrange from the launch site.

This second reason suggests that they are probably in the early stages of developing liquid-fueled strap on boosters or else a much larger center stage. Solid-fueled strap-ons can't control where they land so unless they have a drop point far short of the villages, that'll still be a problem. Though their fuel isn't nearly as toxic as most Chinese rockets so that's a plus.
http://spacenews.com/china-to-test-rocket-reusability-with-planned-long-march-8-launcher/

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's funny to me how most Eurpean/American/Russian/Japanese rocket companies are still in denial about reusability but the Chinese have jumped right into development. In addition to this major design house, there is a small start-up working on a much smaller vertical landing rocket.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The block 5 version of Falcon 9 is set to debut on Monday. It will launch Bangladesh's first geostationary communications satellite into orbit. This version is designed to be reusable up to ten times with minimal refurbishment.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Is price per launch cheaper or insurance more expensive if the rocket has been already used several times?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Is price per launch cheaper or insurance more expensive if the rocket has been already used several times?

Unknown at this time.

I suspect that at first there will be a premium for re-use, then a drop off in a couple of years if there are no accidents. Before SpaceX was re-using boosters, I remember reading an article where other launch providers complained that SpaceX was getting essentially the same rates as they were with a very limited track record. Launch insurance can cost almost as much, if not more than, the cost of the launch itself, so I assume that SpaceX is still getting very favorable rates in spite of their mishaps since they are still super competitive in the market.

The reason why insurance is so expensive is because usually the satellites themselves cost several times more than the launch vehicle themselves, plus satellites are the revenue generators for their owners. So while a rocket may cost $100 million, the satellite might cost $300 million (or more) and might be worth a few billion in future revenue. Insurers have to price all of that in.

That's why CubeSats are such a huge deal in the industry right now. Because they offer a lot of the same capability of the bigger birds but are so much less expensive to build and operate they are really shaking things up in the industry. Even companies that are not using CubeSats are getting huge knock-down effects in pricing as technologies that are tried out in CubeSats work their way up the food chain, so to speak. There will soon be a day when satellites no longer cost more than the launch vehicles that put them in orbit and the launch vehicles themselves are re-used, resulting in a massive spiral of overall price cuts which will allow more and more businesses to access this market.


Eh, I may have overdone the response to a very simple question, sorry.

---------------


NASA's next mission to Mars is set to launch tomorrow morning if weather holds. Mars InSight will explore Martian geology from the surface. It is launching from Vandenberg AFB in California and will be the first interplanetary space mission to launch from the West Coast.

InSight will be joined by the first two interplanetary CubeSats called MarCO which will provide a redundant communications link with the lander during entry and descent. My company provided the dispensers which will separate the CubeSats from the launch vehicle.

 

[red_elk]

They do have a movie about Gagarin called Gagarin (at least the American release is called that, I think it came out in 2014). Do you know if it is any good?

Just watched it. Can't say it is bad, but IMO it's like 5/10 comparing to the "Spacewalk" 8/10.
Overall impression is that the movie is kind of too pompous and actors play is so-so. Spacewalk had much better cast.

Also, there is a good movie "Taming of the Fire", 1972, about early Soviet space program. It is mostly about Korolev, but includes other historical figures too, like Tsiolkovsky, Kurchatov, etc.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Thank you!

 

[warpus]

It's funny to me how most Eurpean/American/Russian/Japanese rocket companies are still in denial about reusability but the Chinese have jumped right into development. In addition to this major design house, there is a small start-up working on a much smaller vertical landing rocket.

I asked a bunch of "space people on reddit" once why other companies are still investing into launch systems that are about to become obsolete. "Can't they see these numbers?". The answer seemed to be that they can see the numbers, but oftentimes for political and/or economical and/or contractual reasons they have to stick to existing models and ways of doing things. I guess China is more flexible in terms of all that, and they probably see an opportunity to get in there and try to be competitive in the future

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Just watched it. Can't say it is bad, but IMO it's like 5/10 comparing to the "Spacewalk" 8/10.
Overall impression is that the movie is kind of too pompous and actors play is so-so. Spacewalk had much better cast.

Also, there is a good movie "Taming of the Fire", 1972, about early Soviet space program. It is mostly about Korolev, but includes other historical figures too, like Tsiolkovsky, Kurchatov, etc.

I started Gagarin, it seemed fine so far. One thing though is that because I have to read the subtitles, a lot of the actor's subtleties (or more correctly, their lack thereof) is completely lost on me so I can't judge them fairly.

I asked a bunch of "space people on reddit" once why other companies are still investing into launch systems that are about to become obsolete. "Can't they see these numbers?". The answer seemed to be that they can see the numbers, but oftentimes for political and/or economical and/or contractual reasons they have to stick to existing models and ways of doing things. I guess China is more flexible in terms of all that, and they probably see an opportunity to get in there and try to be competitive in the future

There's another huge aspect that I guess the reddit guys missed out on with regards to China. They are essentially frozen out of the commercial market by the US. Not having many commercial prospects frees them to do whatever they hell they want to innovate. There's no launch insurance to fuss over, no fickle customers to please and they're funded by the government almost regardless of performance. This freedom means they are a real threat to everyone because eventually they will be back on the commercial market and they'll have upgraded designs and rock-bottom labor prices that will put them at the top of the food chain. Really SpaceX and Blue Origin's biggest long term threats are not each other (the commercial market actually pays above-market to maintain independent launch companies) it's the Chinese.



Everything they said is still true though -
Arianespace is a multi-national effort and every company involved has a say in launcher development. Europe did allow the parent corporate group to buy out most of the national stakes in the company (i.e. sold government-held stock back to the company) in order to lessen this interference. However, they did this after they thoroughly messed with the Ariane 6 design. It was originally going to be very similar to Orbital ATK's Omega rocket with all-solid first and second stages topped by a hyrodolox upper but that would have shifted too much work to France (they produce the solid rocket motors) so they forced them to redesign it into basically an upgraded Ariane 5 with a big, expensive hyrdolox first stage.

Russia does not have the capital to invest in all new rockets. They have started a new Soyuz design but it's competing for a very small pool of funding with the Angara series. Instead the lion's share of Russian R&D money has so far been sunk into upgrading their current Soyuz and Proton designs. This has delivered cost savings and made the vehicles attractive on the market but the recent spate of quality issues has caused them to lose a ton of ground commercially. They are basically doing the best they can with constrained resources - developing a reusable system may win out in the long run but in the short run it is orders of magnitude more expensive than just finding cost efficiencies in their proven designs. I also think overall that there is a lot of closed-door infighting going on at the various Russian design bureaus that are to blame for the angonizingly slow Angara development and the creation of yet another new vehicle in the new Soyuz.

There is also military interests at work too and a general conservative mindset of the engineers and managers in aerospace. With something as expensive as space travel, no one wants to spend a ton of money be the first company to figure out how to do re-use incorrectly.

 

[red_elk]

I started Gagarin, it seemed fine so far. One thing though is that because I have to read the subtitles, a lot of the actor's subtleties (or more correctly, their lack thereof) is completely lost on me so I can't judge them fairly.

Oh, well. There are good Russian movies too, just so you know!

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Was going to post this in the Brexit thread but thought twice..

@hobbsyoyo, which is the most freaking awesome system? GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, the Chinese one, the indian, the japanese... When will we will see an Andorran system?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

GPS because it's complete with plenty of spares and is continually replenished and upgraded.

GLONASS is just *barely* complete and due to the Russian budget situation could lapse back into partially complete with just one or two on-orbit failures. Galileo is incomplete and has serious clock issues that will set it back. BeiDou (China's system) is incomplete but allegedly will have greater accuracy than GPS when it's complete. India's system (NAVIC) is purely a regional system that will allow them to continue using it if other networks are shut down and also enhances accuracy within the Indian region. Unfortunately it uses the same clocks as Galileo and has run into the same problems. Japan's Quasi-Zenith system is also regional and incomplete.

I don't think Andorra will ever have a system though I wouldn't be surprised if Luxembourg puts up a system given how big of a player they are in the space industry. (totally serious)

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Seriously? How can anyone get lost in Luxembourg?

Anyway I think you are being biased here. Galileo precision is crazy and very superior to GPS and the name is way cooler. It will always be known as GPS though, benefits of being the first...

 

[Lillefix]

Seriously? How can anyone get lost in Luxembourg?

Anyway I think you are being biased here. Galileo precision is crazy and very superior to GPS and the name is way cooler. It will always be known as GPS though, benefits of being the first...

Possibly, but the big advantage for GPS is that it has been up and running for years, while Galileo is unfinished and has teething problems. One bird in the hand and so on.
Things might change in a few years.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Seriously? How can anyone get lost in Luxembourg?

Anyway I think you are being biased here. Galileo precision is crazy and very superior to GPS and the name is way cooler. It will always be known as GPS though, benefits of being the first...

Possibly, but the big advantage for GPS is that it has been up and running for years, while Galileo is unfinished and has teething problems. One bird in the hand and so on.
Things might change in a few years.

I mean yeah, I stated my reasons why pretty clearly. When Galileo (or BeiDou) are up and running without issues they will take the crown. Though I'm not sure if the newest GPS satellites aren't as accurate (or even moreso) than what other constellations offer. And that's another huge strength of GPS that I'm not sure we'll see from Europe (though probably will see from the Chinese) - the deep, multi-decadal commitment to build, maintain and continually upgrade the constellation. I'm not saying Europe won't do those things but I also can't say for sure that Galileo won't be 'one and done'. Not that they'd abandon the network but that they may not continually launch upgrades for decades on end like the US has and China likely will.

It's easy to knock GPS as it stands right now if you discount how long it's been up and how many upgrades it has gotten and will continue to receive.


I don't think Luxembourg would build the network for their own use - rather if there is a business case to be made selling GNSS services then they would be the ones to find and exploit that business case. I don't think it likely - just that I wouldn't be surprised if it came to pass. That said with so many networks basically free to use I don't see any business case in it.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I will graciously concede that GPS will always be the original true stuff.

Btw, any reasonable reason to think Galileo is not going to be properly maintained and replaced in the future?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I will graciously concede that GPS will always be the original true stuff.

Btw, any reasonable reason to think Galileo is not going to be properly maintained and replaced in the future?

The EU is in large part reliant on the US for defense. While they recognize that potentially losing access to GPS in various scenarios was a significant disadvantage that they had to change that, it is probably not a sufficient reason to continually upgrade the constellation to be cutting edge forever. The US on the other hand has this massive obsession with their military and so will always upgrade their constellation to maintain technological parity, if not outright supremacy. I just don't see that same level of military commitment in Europe.

I also feel (and will be happy if I'm wrong) that huge, multinational space projects are harder for the Europeans to pull off than they are for the US due to the need to balance all of the national industrial concerns/desires of the individual nation states. European space projects can get pretty messy with basically France and Germany fighting each other over who gets to build what with all the other countries in the Union trying to elbow their way into programs. You can see this in the Ariane program where time and again balancing national industrial concerns have compromised the design from a cost-optimization perspective. That Arianespace has been so successful had as much to do with US withdrawal from the market and collapsing Russian quality assurance as it does with the technical or cost prowess of the Ariane rockets themselves. Their rockets are good but they are expensive and are ill-suited for the potential dawn of re-usable rocket fleets sweeping the market.

I do think Galileo will be properly maintained, I am just less sure that Europe will push through the same kind of major upgrades that the US has and is continuing to do for GPS.