Low budget space vehicle tracking

The problem is that I want to launch an unmanned rocket, and I want to
be sure I learn why it dies, if it dies.

It would be a "bad thing" to spend millions (or at least hundreds of
thousands) to launch a rocket - and learn nothing from it!

-David

Ian Stirling wrote:
Len wrote:
David Summers wrote:
So, assuming that we can build an orbital vehicle, get a launch
permit,
etc - what is the best (or cheapest) method of tracking the
vehicle
after launch?

...snip....

Unless the government requires close and continuous tracking,
I fail to see the urgency. When I learned to fly a little

It's very nice to have more-or-less continuous tracking and data
relay
if you are not sure of the device, or even if you are, and things go
wrong.

over six decades ago, the pilot navigated and told anyone
interested on the ground the aircraft's position. Perhaps

If you've got a pilot onboard, some of the problems go away (as long
as the pilot can communicate the problem to the ground in some
manner),
but for stuff like finding out on orbit that somebody put in the
solar array extend motor in backwards, and you need to try reversing
it
before the batteries run out, rapid comms is pretty much essential.

I'm oriented toward a commercial space transportation
system where the cargo should not dominate the mission.
Even though transportation costs have come down from
$1 million per lbm to perhaps $5k per lbm, we still
seem to be spending as much as $50 per lbm on payload.
This really becomes absurd, when transportation costs
get down to perhaps $100 per lbm. At some point, the
cost of the payload should be commensurate with the
cost of transporting it. When that happens, the
perspective should change with respect to how much
one should pay for knowledge of what happened--rather
than simply replacing the cargo and flying it again.
At some point we may stop putting the "cargo in front
of the horse."

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:36:26 +0000, Andrew Gray wrote:


Incidentally, a recent post on sci.space.history mentioned a couple of
Gemini research papers, which involved injecting water into the plasma
sheath during re-entry -

FLIGHT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALLEVIATION
OF COMMUNICATIONS BLACKOUT BY WATER
INJECTION DURING GEMINI 3 REENTRY
By Lyle C. Schroeder and Francis P. Russo
Langley Research Center

A method of overcoming reentry communications blackout by injecting
water into the flow field was demonstrated during the Gemini-Titan 3
(GT-3) mission. Significant levels of signal strength increase during
the early portion of the water injection sequence over an altitude range
from 272000 to 246000 ft (82.90 to 74.98 km) were noted by ground
stations on VHF telemetry (230.4 MHz) and VHF voice (296.8 MHz).


Interesting, I'd guess it cools the plasma so that it's not plasma anymore
and probably works best when the density of the plasma is low. You could reduce
the amount of water necessary by only injecting water into the flow every
so often to get a state update.

Craig Fink

Len wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
Len wrote:
David Summers wrote:
So, assuming that we can build an orbital vehicle, get a launch
permit,
etc - what is the best (or cheapest) method of tracking the
vehicle
after launch?

...snip....

Unless the government requires close and continuous tracking,
I fail to see the urgency. When I learned to fly a little

It's very nice to have more-or-less continuous tracking and data
relay
if you are not sure of the device, or even if you are, and things
go
wrong.

over six decades ago, the pilot navigated and told anyone
interested on the ground the aircraft's position. Perhaps

If you've got a pilot onboard, some of the problems go away (as
long
as the pilot can communicate the problem to the ground in some
manner),
but for stuff like finding out on orbit that somebody put in the
solar array extend motor in backwards, and you need to try
reversing
it
before the batteries run out, rapid comms is pretty much essential.

I'm oriented toward a commercial space transportation
system where the cargo should not dominate the mission.
Even though transportation costs have come down from
$1 million per lbm to perhaps $5k per lbm, we still
seem to be spending as much as $50 per lbm on payload.

oops. Somewhere I lost three zeros. This was supposed
to be $50k per lbm on payload.

Len

This really becomes absurd, when transportation costs
get down to perhaps $100 per lbm. At some point, the
cost of the payload should be commensurate with the
cost of transporting it. When that happens, the
perspective should change with respect to how much
one should pay for knowledge of what happened--rather
than simply replacing the cargo and flying it again.
At some point we may stop putting the "cargo in front
of the horse."

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

Len wrote:

I'm oriented toward a commercial space transportation
system where the cargo should not dominate the mission.
Even though transportation costs have come down from
$1 million per lbm to perhaps $5k per lbm, we still
seem to be spending as much as $50 per lbm on payload.

ITYM $50k per ...

This really becomes absurd, when transportation costs
get down to perhaps $100 per lbm.

[ $48/lb (to equatorial LEO) ($950,000 for 9 metric tons cargo) ]

At some point, the
cost of the payload should be commensurate with the
cost of transporting it.

Yeaaay!! Right on.



It's a qualitative difference though, not just a quantitive one. And the
money men aren't used to it.

Your sat fails? send another one up. In fact, send up another one anyway,
just in case the first one fails. Or send two spares up, why not?

Your sat goes through 4 design evolutions at $5 million each? Send it up
after one and see if it works, and how well. Better, just do a half-assed
design and test that ...

No, don't just divide the cost per sat by 10, divide it by 100. Your new sat
now costs $500,000, not $50 million. You might need two ... total, including
launch, about the cost of a nice small house.

Or worse, the new sat, with the same capability, now costs $50,000 ...






Thing is, after some recent talks with a major sat operator/capital guy, if
you do that then their present fleet of comsats has to be devalued - which
affects their balance sheet adversely.

Which makes the owners of the present fleet of comsats a bit unwilling to
invest in launch capacity, or to encourage others to do so. And as they are
regarded by the Banks as the only people with space financial expertise ...

... no-one is really eager to invest the required large sums needed for
realistic CATS*.


like buying the newest computer - after a few years it will be worth
nothing. And for the operators, those few years are now, and unexpectedly,
shorter then the projected lifetime of the existing sats - or would be, if
there was a CATS.





*100 or two million is not enough for CATS, you'd need a bit more than one
billion to start, and ten billion would be a realistic minimum to control a
major share of the long term market, assuming governments would intervene
and try to compete later.





Of course the exclusivity of owning a sat wasn't mentioned: "I have a Sat,
and control some media, and you don't; but is that important?"

Like: "I have $5 billion, and you don't" wasn't mentioned either.








There is a doctrine that sats should be environmentally disposed of from GEO
at the end of their lives. I wonder if someone might now get a contract to
collect them at some point near (or in) GEO, which would be easier on their
remaining fuel than the alternative burn, and just store them until their
value as mass (or as scrap) was optimum?




So who's actually doing it all? I'm not ... yet

--
Peter Fairbrother

"David Summers" :

The problem is that I want to launch an unmanned rocket, and I want to
be sure I learn why it dies, if it dies.

It would be a "bad thing" to spend millions (or at least hundreds of
thousands) to launch a rocket - and learn nothing from it!

That is what 'Black Boxes' are for.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

On 2005-02-22, Peter Fairbrother wrote:

There is a doctrine that sats should be environmentally disposed of from GEO
at the end of their lives. I wonder if someone might now get a contract to
collect them at some point near (or in) GEO, which would be easier on their
remaining fuel than the alternative burn, and just store them until their
value as mass (or as scrap) was optimum?

I believe that whilst deorbiting is popular as disposal for LEO
satellites, it's less so for GEO satellites - instead, they're moved
into a stable orbit still some great distance out, but either higher or
lower than the one they were in, and not intersecting with GEO. This
keeps them out of trouble without needing to spend a great deal on
providing enough fuel to deorbit them.

--
-Andrew Gray

On 2005-02-22, Craig Fink wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:36:26 +0000, Andrew Gray wrote:


Incidentally, a recent post on sci.space.history mentioned a couple of
Gemini research papers, which involved injecting water into the plasma
sheath during re-entry -

FLIGHT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALLEVIATION
OF COMMUNICATIONS BLACKOUT BY WATER
INJECTION DURING GEMINI 3 REENTRY
By Lyle C. Schroeder and Francis P. Russo
Langley Research Center

A method of overcoming reentry communications blackout by injecting
water into the flow field was demonstrated during the Gemini-Titan 3
(GT-3) mission. Significant levels of signal strength increase during
the early portion of the water injection sequence over an altitude range
from 272000 to 246000 ft (82.90 to 74.98 km) were noted by ground
stations on VHF telemetry (230.4 MHz) and VHF voice (296.8 MHz).


Interesting, I'd guess it cools the plasma so that it's not plasma anymore
and probably works best when the density of the plasma is low. You could reduce
the amount of water necessary by only injecting water into the flow every
so often to get a state update.

Yeah, there's a couple of papers on NTRS about it (one report on the
experiment, one description made beforehand); will hopefully get around
to reading through them sometime soon. Doesn't say if much *data* was
transmitted, mind you...

It also only needs to be done to the area around the antennae, and even
then the amount is limited; it certainly looked at first glance like a
viable concept, although I guess it was felt to be more trouble than it
was worth (especially since re-entry communications class as "nice, but
not essential"). And these days, of course, it's a lot less critical
what with TDRS and the like.

--
-Andrew Gray

True, but the Earth is a big place - and with no telemetry there would
be a lot of places to check. Most likely it would hit ocean and sink,
so having it "phone home" would be unreliable at best. I want to know
what happened (as in what failure caused deorbit), when it happened,
and where the vehicle ended up.

-David

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Len wrote:

I'm oriented toward a commercial space transportation
system where the cargo should not dominate the mission.
Even though transportation costs have come down from
$1 million per lbm to perhaps $5k per lbm, we still
seem to be spending as much as $50 per lbm on payload.

ITYM $50k per ...

Yes, an error I caught in a later message.

This really becomes absurd, when transportation costs
get down to perhaps $100 per lbm.

[ $48/lb (to equatorial LEO) ($950,000 for 9 metric tons cargo) ]

At some point, the
cost of the payload should be commensurate with the
cost of transporting it.

Yeaaay!! Right on.



It's a qualitative difference though, not just a quantitive one. And
the
money men aren't used to it.

Your sat fails? send another one up. In fact, send up another one
anyway,
just in case the first one fails. Or send two spares up, why not?

Your sat goes through 4 design evolutions at $5 million each? Send it
up
after one and see if it works, and how well. Better, just do a
half-assed
design and test that ...

No, don't just divide the cost per sat by 10, divide it by 100. Your
new sat
now costs $500,000, not $50 million. You might need two ... total,
including
launch, about the cost of a nice small house.

Or worse, the new sat, with the same capability, now costs $50,000
...






Thing is, after some recent talks with a major sat operator/capital
guy, if
you do that then their present fleet of comsats has to be devalued -
which
affects their balance sheet adversely.

Which makes the owners of the present fleet of comsats a bit
unwilling to
invest in launch capacity, or to encourage others to do so. And as
they are
regarded by the Banks as the only people with space financial
expertise ...

... no-one is really eager to invest the required large sums needed
for
realistic CATS*.


like buying the newest computer - after a few years it will be worth
nothing. And for the operators, those few years are now, and
unexpectedly,
shorter then the projected lifetime of the existing sats - or would
be, if
there was a CATS.


*100 or two million is not enough for CATS, you'd need a bit more
than one
billion to start, and ten billion would be a realistic minimum to
control a
major share of the long term market, assuming governments would
intervene
and try to compete later.


Lots of good thoughts and analysis, Peter. I pretty
much agree with what you have said. However, I do
think that $200 million could be enough for a space
transport system capable of carrying about one tonne
at a time. One just needs to be somewhat clever about
the design and the development plan.

The need for big money comes afterward to pay for
the application--e.g. 4000 LEO comsats at $1 million
each for manufacture and launch. However, I think the
big money can come once you have a space transport
operational and have shown proof of concept for the ap.
Big LEO comsats have never been tried in a proper way.
Done right, the economics and performance can be
truly compelling.




Of course the exclusivity of owning a sat wasn't mentioned: "I have a
Sat,
and control some media, and you don't; but is that important?"

Like: "I have $5 billion, and you don't" wasn't mentioned either.


There is a doctrine that sats should be environmentally disposed of
from GEO
at the end of their lives. I wonder if someone might now get a
contract to
collect them at some point near (or in) GEO, which would be easier on
their
remaining fuel than the alternative burn, and just store them until
their
value as mass (or as scrap) was optimum?

Perhaps another good ap--once you have the space transport.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com



So who's actually doing it all? I'm not ... yet

--
Peter Fairbrother