I have a strong suspicion (bordering on certainty) that even if you totally shut down the whole Indian space programme and redirected all the funds into fighting poverty, the overall effect would be barely noticeable. It's like saying Europe should stop investing in high-speed railways and instead send the money to the UN to feed Africa. The end result of that would be Africa only negligibly better off, but Europe lagging behind in an important aspect of development.
The problem with space exploration is that it is very visible (no matter that we often grumble here that people don't know crap about it) and so is the cost. Media are of course more than willing to stress that a space probe costs a billion dollars, but they rarely put this in perspective by comparing the cost with other things countries do with public money*. In this respect, space programmes are often victims of their own success.
*-You mentioned Thatcher and milk for kids. Well, I remember that one of the previous social democratic governments in my country introduced something they called "pastelkovné", literally "colour pencils benefit" - a special bonus paid to parents with kids in their first years in primary schools, supposedly to help families with small children. In reality, most parents used the money for something different and the kids never really profited from it, but it costed our treasury a few hundred million CZK a year. It would be infinitely better to just take this sum and use it to fund a new science centre or something that would actually produce clear results and perhaps offer opportunities for young scientists. I guess this would help far more than a little money early on which really changes nothing.
Hell, I'm 99% sure the Raptor engine itself is being developed specificially for Mars. It's a closed-cycle engine that runs on Methane. Methane is slightly more efficient than Kerosene (which SpaceX's engines currently use) but has some disadvantages to it that have kept companies from actually developing engines that use it. However, you can synthesize Methane on Mars, so I think the whole point of this engine is to enable some key Martian infrastructure to be sent over in the not-too-distant future.
I am glad at least someone is actually *doing* something in that area, instead of talking endlessly about how good methane would be as fuel, without actually producing anything but PPT presentations.
SpaceX plans on flying the first stage back to the launch pad (which still comes across as black magic to me given how much propellant they would have to use I think) where it will land, be refitted and can reused within hours. They haven't worked out yet how to do the same with the 2nd stage but they are working on it.
On the one hand, I can sympathize with this basic argument even without agreeing with it. On the other hand, it is still FAR less stupid then pouring billions into nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, ICBMs and other toys India keeps buying to keep up in its ongoing dick-measuring contest with China. Investing in space exploration is a pretty good way of expanding high-value sectors of the economy, which in the end may help the huge malnourished masses either directly (satellite observation and monitoring to help with land management, disaster prevention, etc.) or indirectly (economic growth spurred by money flowing from the hi-tech sector).
It'd be very impressive if India actually used any of the economic growth to encourage real domestic development.
The fact that it can go to Mars yet struggles with improving the general domestic situation, I think, illustrates the problem nicely. That's not to say space exploration technology couldn't help, but that India is very poorly governed, indeed!
One benefit of having an Indian space program is it would ensure atleast some of India's brightest engineers,scientists have an option to do some work here itself instead of going abroad for such opportunities. i.e. reducing brain drain. It also enthuses kids about science, technology and engineering.
That said there is still widespread poverty and lack of any useful social security net. People below poverty line have the option of working in a rural employement scheme. It basically gives 100 day employment in labor intensive work like road laying in remote parts of the country with 2$ per day wages.
Problem with that being widespread corruption in the employee figures, manual labor and lack of knowledge. The infrastructure constructed is mostly useless due to a mixture of poor quality materials used by the contractors(more $$ for them) and untrained workers.
It'd be very impressive if India actually used any of the economic growth to encourage real domestic development.
The fact that it can go to Mars yet struggles with improving the general domestic situation, I think, illustrates the problem nicely. That's not to say space exploration technology couldn't help, but that India is very poorly governed, indeed!
The budget for the Mars mission is very small. If you throw it on the huge problems India has, it won't make and difference. This at leasts contributes some science and raises the country's profile.
As I said earlier, far better than spending billions on nukes, ICBMs, nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, and other things India buys while it receives humanitarian aid from the West.
I am glad at least someone is actually *doing* something in that area, instead of talking endlessly about how good methane would be as fuel, without actually producing anything but PPT presentations.
Aside from using a methane architecture to enable long-term Mars missions, there really isn't a reason to do anything with Methane. It has 5-10seconds better Isp than RP-1 (rocket-grade kerosene) and has a ton of other drawbacks to it. Which is why no one but dreamers without a clue talks about using it. Am I missing something?
I'll believe it when I see it. Reusability, well, maybe. Within hours? On what still amounts to a pretty conventional rocket? Hmmm
And uh...are they just going to mate a new 2nd stage to it or something*? And that will take less than an hour?
I'll believe when I see it indeed.
*because it's going to be years and billions of R&D dollars before they can bring one back and even if they could it would likely take days to line up a proper reentry
Aside from using a methane architecture to enable long-term Mars missions, there really isn't a reason to do anything with Methane. It has 5-10seconds better Isp than RP-1 (rocket-grade kerosene) and has a ton of other drawbacks to it. Which is why no one but dreamers without a clue talks about using it. Am I missing something?
inorite?
And uh...are they just going to mate a new 2nd stage to it or something*? And that will take less than an hour?
I'll believe when I see it indeed.
*because it's going to be years and billions of R&D dollars before they can bring one back and even if they could it would likely take days to line up a proper reentry
A bit off topic, but I just watched Europa Report, and wanted to highly recommend it to all interested parties. I rented the DVD (for the extras), but it's also on Netflix.
Spoiler:
In fact, I wanted to ask Hobbs and any others about something interesting I noticed. When the Russian(?) crewperson, Katya, does her extravehicular sample-gathering on the surface of Europa, there's an ongoing camera closeup of her face. As she proceeds, the pupil on her left eye begins to tear (desintigrate?), until just before her death, her entire iris is almost gone. She doesn't seem to notice it. Readings aboard the ship indicate only a slight rise in radiation (which we later learn is a sign the "life form" is near). No abnormal readings from her suit.
I looked around on the Web - wiki, movie reviews, etc., and noone seems to have noticed or mentioned it. Yet it's a close-up, her damaged eye is right there in the middle of the screen. The director obviously meant us to see it. What could it be?
Aside from using a methane architecture to enable long-term Mars missions, there really isn't a reason to do anything with Methane. It has 5-10seconds better Isp than RP-1 (rocket-grade kerosene) and has a ton of other drawbacks to it. Which is why no one but dreamers without a clue talks about using it. Am I missing something?
Well, supposedly methane is more "storable". I don't know if RP-1 can be stored for a long time in deep space (doesn't it, I don't know, freeze?), but I often read about CH4/O2 propellant in connection with storability. Both substances are mildly cryogenic, but supposedly the better overall Isp should provide advantages over the hydrazine-type storable fuels that are used today.
But I guess the difference would only really be worth the bother on large probes/manned spacecraft.
(BTW, I heard that we could produce methane even on on the Moon, because the polar ices contain frozen CO2 as well.)
And uh...are they just going to mate a new 2nd stage to it or something*? And that will take less than an hour?
In fact, I wanted to ask Hobbs and any others about something interesting I noticed. When the Russian(?) crewperson, Katya, does her extravehicular sample-gathering on the surface of Europa, there's an ongoing camera closeup of her face. As she proceeds, the pupil on her left eye begins to tear (desintigrate?), until just before her death, her entire iris is almost gone. She doesn't seem to notice it. Readings aboard the ship indicate only a slight rise in radiation (which we later learn is a sign the "life form" is near). No abnormal readings from her suit.
I looked around on the Web - wiki, movie reviews, etc., and noone seems to have noticed or mentioned it. Yet it's a close-up, her damaged eye is right there in the middle of the screen. The director obviously meant us to see it. What could it be?
Hm, I haven't noticed it. But I am very sceptical radiation would cause any visible damage to the human eye. I heard that if you receive REALLY high doses of radiation, you see a blue haze around you, due to Cherenkov radiation being created in the liquid inside your eyeballs. But that basically means you'll be dead within an hour.
Astronauts usually see light flashes while in space due to cosmic rays going through eyeball and producing cherenkov radiation in the liquids there. Dont know if it would destroy your eyes given enough time but cant be very healthy either.
The thermodynamic properties of Methane demand a larger engine and tanks to make it workable as a propellant compared to kerosene. The extra mass offsets the very small efficiency gain (~10s of additional specific impulse) that methane can provide and cuts into the payload a methane rocket can lift. Also, methane has to be stored cryogenically at 111K, which, while similar to what LOX has to be stored at, is an additional hurdle to overcome as Kerosene is not cryogenic (although really it's not a huge deal in the end). The additional mass comes from the high chamber pressures that methane operates under inside the engine as well as the fact that methane is cryogenic and has a very low density so the tanks must be accordingly larger to accommodate those two problems.
To answer Winner's question, I don't have a good idea on how they keep propellants like Kerosene from freezing on orbit. The only things I can think of is that based from my own design experience, you place your electronics and batteries in such a way as to heat the tank. There are also simple heaters you can place around the tank to keep the propellant from freezing. The other thing is that for upper stages that need to be restarted in space after being on-orbit for a while might not use Kerosene but instead use other propellants such as hydrazine that are easier to store long-term.
Here is a very interesting article where they analyze the two propellants in support of an abandoned project to turn the Ariane 5 into a fly-back reusable booster.
Spoilerconclusion of article :
The aim of this study was to compare and assess the
merits of methane and kerosene as propellants for a
reusable booster stage. Some initial findings confirmed
already frequently cited statements, e.g. that the
specific impulse of a LOX / methane motor is about
10 s higher than for a LOX / kerosene engine with the
same cycle. The comparison of the performance of
both propellant combinations for a complete vehicle
revealed however interesting new results. The study
showed that the advantage of the higher energetic
content of methane was counterbalanced by an
increased motor mass and an increased booster size,
hence higher aerodynamic drag and increased mass.
The payload performances of the reusable kerosene and
methane booster are therefore almost identical with
some edge for kerosene. In view of the increased size
and dry mass of a reusable methane booster stage, one
can expect a cost disadvantage for CH4 from a launch
vehicle system level point of view.
A bit off topic, but I just watched Europa Report, and wanted to highly recommend it to all interested parties. I rented the DVD (for the extras), but it's also on Netflix.
Spoiler:
In fact, I wanted to ask Hobbs and any others about something interesting I noticed. When the Russian(?) crewperson, Katya, does her extravehicular sample-gathering on the surface of Europa, there's an ongoing camera closeup of her face. As she proceeds, the pupil on her left eye begins to tear (desintigrate?), until just before her death, her entire iris is almost gone. She doesn't seem to notice it. Readings aboard the ship indicate only a slight rise in radiation (which we later learn is a sign the "life form" is near). No abnormal readings from her suit.
I looked around on the Web - wiki, movie reviews, etc., and noone seems to have noticed or mentioned it. Yet it's a close-up, her damaged eye is right there in the middle of the screen. The director obviously meant us to see it. What could it be?
I thought that it was a reflection of the glowing alien creature in her eye. At first it's under the ice and the reflection is small and blurry. Then when she falls under the ice the creature is right up next to her so the reflection was bigger and more defined (though still basically undecipherable as to what it is).
The radiation environment of Europa is pretty harsh as IIRC Europa orbits within Jupiter's massive Van Allen Belts. That alone would rule out the type of mission from the movie from being manned with current technologies. It could be done, I suppose, but the amount of shielding required would be pretty enormous. However, I don't think the radiation would be so severe as to melt your eyeballs in an hour. I really just think it was a reflection in her eye of the alien but my guess is as good as anyone's.
It was interesting to me that it seemed that the alien itself seemed to be radioactive as whenever it was near the surface of the ice the radiation spiked and there was camera interference. Maybe that's how it keeps warm under the ice?
_______________
Oh and to what Winner said about insurance costs for SpaceX reusable boosters --
In a rational market I'd completely agree with you but at the moment the launch insurance providers are so bullish on SpaceX that they are acting a bit irrationally to be honest. Even after the 2nd stage anomaly of the recent Falcon 9 v1.1 launch, the insurers decided to go ahead and insure future launches of the booster. That caused a bit of a controversy as observers in the space industry noted this amounted to favoritism (more or less) and irrational exuberance about the abilities of SpaceX.
To be completely fair to SpaceX, however, they test fire every single one of their rocket motors before launch and have hold-down systems on the pad. This is why the Falcon 9 is the diameter that it is - they wanted to make it bigger but the current size is the maximum diameter that is allowed on US Highways. The drive each rocket from the California plant to Texas where they test fire it, then drive it out to either Vandenberg or Cape Canaveral for launch. This provides a ton of reassurance to launch insurers and customers as it provides solid data to verify and characterize each rocket motor before it's launched. Also, the hold-downs on the pad mean that after the engine fires, it's literally held down for a moment to ensure that it is operating correctly. If there is an anomaly, the launch is scrubbed and the engines are shut down. If it operates fine, then the hold downs are released and off it goes. This also provides a great deal of certainty to customers and insurers.
Then factor in SpaceX's pretty good track record to date and I can understand some of the willingness to take risks in insuring them. But all it will take is one botched mission to really screw things up for everyone in the industry as multi-billion dollar insurance claims tend to gunk up everything for everyone.
Astronauts usually see light flashes while in space due to cosmic rays going through eyeball and producing cherenkov radiation in the liquids there. Dont know if it would destroy your eyes given enough time but cant be very healthy either.
I attended an talk by three alumni-astronauts recently and they stated that they are all at risks of cataracts (and I think glaucoma as well but I'm not sure) due to this. All of the astronauts have periodic check-ups and tests done even after retirement to collect data to better characterize the long-term health effects of a microgravity environment with relatively high radiation doses.
From what the astronauts said, being in space was not good for their health but also wasn't so large of detriment as to dissuade anyone gung-ho about space (aka astronauts )
I do know that there was talk about whether or not the Dennis Tito's Inspiration Mars mission would be allowed to succeed due to the radiation. He basically wants to fly-by Mars in a 2 or 3 man ship and then come back to Earth. The radiation dose they would expect to receive is well above Federal work-safety limits and there is speculation that a launch license would be denied in the US for that reason. It's all speculation of course as we don't know where they would launch from and there are lots of arguments that can be made against strictly applying the work-safety limits.
Then there's the issue of whether or not the mission will ever happen in the first place and on that I am extremely pessimistic.
I am of the opinion that people who demonstrably understand the risks should be allowed to take them, even if the risk of death is potentially pretty serious.
I mean, we allow people to parachute from airplanes for sport, even though every n-th jump ends with a parachute failure and death. We let people climb mountains, even though every year dozens of people fall to their deaths. We allow people to dive for fun, even though a lot of people die in various underwater accidents. Basically anything that is exciting and fun carries some level of risk to your health or even life.
The government is there (speaking of this issue) to ensure that *commercial* companies meet certain safety standards; in other words that they don't cut corners and lie about this to their customers. Space travel is still far, far, FAAAAAR from being an ordinary thing, like air travel has become in the past four decades. We assume that people who sign up for it understand the risks far better than any politician, journalist, or bureaucrat. If they are willing to risk their lives in space, let them. We didn't stop the (Ant)arctic exlorers either.
I've been wondering lately how Mars could have been a temperate planet capable of supporting water. When it supposedly had water flowing on the surface the Sun was actually significantly colder than it is now
I've been wondering lately how Mars could have been a temperate planet capable of supporting water. When it supposedly had water flowing on the surface the Sun was actually significantly colder than it is now
Much denser atmosphere, big greenhouse effect, lots of heat trapped in the troposphere. Even today, Earth would be a frozen wasteland if it wasn't for the greenhouse effect heating.
Comet ISON was shining only at magnitude +8.5 on Monday (Nov. 11) morning — more than six times too dim to be visible to the unaided eye. But by Wednesday morning, the comet’s brightness had increased three-fold brightening to +7.3.
If that was a surprise, an even bigger one was waiting for Bortle on Thursday morning (Nov. 14).
"Ready to go at 4:45 a.m. but I couldn't figure out what the funny-looking, blotted, star that came into view was," Bortle said. "[Was my] seeing that bad? But, no, the 'blotted star' was, in fact, at the comet's position! Getting to the point, the little but intensely condensed, globular cluster-looking comet was a whopping magnitude 5.4 — two full magnitudes brighter than just 24 hours ago! This makes for a three magnitude total rise since my observation on Monday."
On Thanksgiving Day (13 days from now) it will be at perigee. It may not survive this trip - someone was mentioning that the behavior of the comet is very similar to that of LINEAR back in 2000, which wound up breaking apart.
The comet can be seen just before sunrise, low in the east. Because, you know, it's about to go around the sun. Good viewing is this week and early December. I've got a 6 story building blocking my eastern horizon from my roof, but I know if an elevated parking lot above a shopping center than I might head to. I've got a camera and a tripod (not an equatorial mount, though), so I might try to get some shots. If I do I'll definitely post them here as well as in reddit.com/r/astrophotography
Right now I think I'd still need binoculars to resolve the comet due to it's proximity to the sun and light pollution.
On Thanksgiving Day (13 days from now) it will be at perigee. It may not survive this trip - someone was mentioning that the behavior of the comet is very similar to that of LINEAR back in 2000, which wound up breaking apart.
The comet can be seen just before sunrise, low in the east. Because, you know, it's about to go around the sun. Good viewing is this week and early December. I've got a 6 story building blocking my eastern horizon from my roof, but I know if an elevated parking lot above a shopping center than I might head to. I've got a camera and a tripod (not an equatorial mount, though), so I might try to get some shots. If I do I'll definitely post them here as well as in reddit.com/r/astrophotography
Right now I think I'd still need binoculars to resolve the comet due to it's proximity to the sun and light pollution.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
