|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX announces details on Falcon V
In article ,
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote: ...the long, slow spiral up through the Van Allen belts is very hard on electronics in general and solar arrays in particular. Must it be solar cells? What about a solar-thermal generator setup - it should have no problems with radiation. True, although you'd still have (lesser) issues with the other electronics. Trouble is, the technology is poorly developed. (It doesn't help that the main customers -- the comsat guys -- are the most conservative market you can imagine, wary of almost any innovation. They care much more about reliability than about price tag.) -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX announces details on Falcon V
In article , Dr. O
dr.o@xxxxx wrote: So would NASA be interested in putting a man in to orbit for $12 million (excluding capsule). Of course they would, as long as the capsule costs $100 million. -- David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX announces details on Falcon V
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , Earl Colby Pottinger wrote: ...the long, slow spiral up through the Van Allen belts is very hard on electronics in general and solar arrays in particular. Must it be solar cells? What about a solar-thermal generator setup - it should have no problems with radiation. True, although you'd still have (lesser) issues with the other electronics. Trouble is, the technology is poorly developed. (It doesn't help that the main customers -- the comsat guys -- are the most conservative market you can imagine, wary of almost any innovation. They care much more about reliability than about price tag.) No, thats no really the problem - the problem is that they do it and at the same time also don't fund microsats that could easily be used to explore such technology issues and also be launched basicly free. It is better when comms people worry most about reliability. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX announces details on Falcon V
On 14 Jan 2004 13:33:00 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(John Schilling) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: For chemical propulsion, it's never worth bothering with a tug. You wind up carrying a substantial ammount of propellant all the way to GEO for the sake of recovering some empty tanks with a bit of useful rocketry and guidance hardware attached. Easier and cheaper to launch a new bit of rocketry and guidance each time. Even with aerobraking? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX announces details on Falcon V
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 03:16:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: OK, but if you are going to complain about big aerospace relying on brochures and flip charts rather than actual hardware you should apply the same standards to SpaceX. The difference is the cost of the flip charts, and who pays for them... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX announces details on Falcon V
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX announces details on Falcon V
Rand Simberg wrote: On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 03:16:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: OK, but if you are going to complain about big aerospace relying on brochures and flip charts rather than actual hardware you should apply the same standards to SpaceX. The difference is the cost of the flip charts, and who pays for them... No argument with that and I don't doubt that SpaceX compares quite favorably with Lockheed-Martin and Boeing on flip chart costs. Just pointing out that beyond their initial Falcon I vehicle that should be getting close to first launch the later vehicles are in the flip chart stage. Mike Walsh |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX announces details on Falcon V
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
tugs (was SpaceX announces details on Falcon V)
In article ,
John Schilling wrote: For chemical propulsion, it's never worth bothering with a tug. You wind up carrying a substantial ammount of propellant all the way to GEO for the sake of recovering some [relatively cheap bits of hardware] Even with aerobraking? Aerobraking doesn't help with the GEO deorbit burn, which is roughly half the problem... Somewhat less than half the problem if you're willing to go via a lunar flyby, or just a leisurely loop up to very high altitude (where you make a very small burn) and then back down. (Yes, it costs rather less to boost from GEO to infinity than to drop from GEO to Earth.) Still not cheap, though, and rather more time-consuming. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SpaceX for Real? | ed kyle | Policy | 42 | December 15th 03 11:41 PM |
Elon Musk Lecture notes, Stanford 10/08/03 | Josh Gigantino | Policy | 4 | December 15th 03 06:42 PM |
Atlas V Vandenberg Pad | ed kyle | Policy | 2 | December 2nd 03 05:42 AM |
Air Force to serve as first SpaceX customer | Explorer8939 | Policy | 7 | October 27th 03 08:31 PM |