|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
UPDATE: Cosmos 1 Solar Sail Update - Spacecraft Signal May Have Been Detected
....A more official update from the Planetary Society:
------------------------------------------ At 12:46 PM (PDT) on June 21, 2005, Cosmos 1, a project of The Planetary Society and Cosmos Studios, was launched from a submerged Russian nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea. Cosmos 1 is the first solar sail spacecraft and is designed to sail on light, using photons for propulsion in Earth orbit. The following is a statement regarding the status of the mission at 9:40 PM PDT: We continue to search for the Cosmos 1 spacecraft. We have reviewed our telemetry recordings and have found what we believe are spacecraft signals in the data recorded at the tracking stations in Petropavlovsk, Kamchatka and Majuro, Marshall Islands. The review of data received at the tracking station in Panska Ves, Czech Republic also appears to indicate a spacecraft signal. If confirmed, these data will indicate that Cosmos 1 made it to orbit. We will continue to monitor planned telemetry sessions and will be working with U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to locate Cosmos 1. The Planetary Society will continue to post updates on its website at http://planetary.org as information on the status of the spacecraft becomes available. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, OM wrote:
...A more official update from the Planetary Society: At 12:46 PM (PDT) on June 21, 2005, Cosmos 1, a project of The Planetary Society and Cosmos Studios, was launched from a submerged Russian nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea. Cosmos 1 is the first solar sail spacecraft and is designed to sail on light, using photons for propulsion in Earth orbit. Launching satellites from a submerged submarine? Isn't that about the hardest place to ever to reach orbit from. In a polar orbit? Anything else that makes orbit insertion more difficult than usual? What are they doing? Why there? Don't they have easier places to launch from or are they showing off their their techological, (and possible military) command of space? The following is a statement regarding the status of the mission at 9:40 PM PDT: We continue to search for the Cosmos 1 spacecraft. We have reviewed our telemetry recordings and have found what we believe are spacecraft signals in the data recorded at the tracking stations in Petropavlovsk, Kamchatka and Majuro, Marshall Islands. The review of data received at the tracking station in Panska Ves, Czech Republic also appears to indicate a spacecraft signal. If confirmed, these data will indicate that Cosmos 1 made it to orbit. We will continue to monitor planned telemetry sessions and will be working with U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to locate Cosmos 1. The Planetary Society will continue to post updates on its website at http://planetary.org as information on the status of the spacecraft becomes available. Post here if you would, what becomes the the mission. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
William Elliot wrote:
At 12:46 PM (PDT) on June 21, 2005, Cosmos 1, a project of The Planetary Society and Cosmos Studios, was launched from a submerged Russian nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea. Cosmos 1 is the first solar sail spacecraft and is designed to sail on light, using photons for propulsion in Earth orbit. Launching satellites from a submerged submarine? Isn't that about the hardest place to ever to reach orbit from. In a polar orbit? Anything else that makes orbit insertion more difficult than usual? What are they doing? Why there? Don't they have easier places to launch from or are they showing off their their techological, (and possible military) command of space? you'll notice that this is a *private* satellite, 100% funded by non-government organizations. On a shoestring budget of $4 million IIRC. The Russians are still scrounging for cash, and they have all these ballistic missile subs that are too expensive to just scrap but are utterly without a mission anymore. So I'm guessing that the Planetary Society simply got a really good deal from the Russians to do this kind of launch, and they tried to do it as robustly as they could. Which is great, this is exactly the kind of experimentation and improvisation that we need to establish a robust private spaceflight capability. The upshot of that, though, is that you use riskier, untried materials and tactics. So you have much less expensive missions, but you probably get a higher failure/off-nominal-mission rate until you find something that works far better than the status quo. Again, that's wonderful, and the epitome of exploration and discovery. -- Terrell Miller "Suddenly, after nearly 30 years of scorn, Prog is cool again". -Entertainment Weekly |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article om,
William Elliot wrote: Launching satellites from a submerged submarine? Isn't that about the hardest place to ever to reach orbit from... What are they doing? Why there? Don't they have easier places to launch from or are they showing off their their techological, (and possible military) command of space? No, they're showing off their low budget. :-) Other things being equal, this is not a good way to launch something. But in fact, other things are *not* equal. For small payloads, launch on a Russian sub-launched missile is really cheap: the missiles are already built, the Russians have to launch them occasionally to maintain crew proficiency, and it doesn't matter much to them whether what's on top is a dummy warhead or an orbital payload. There are some inconvenient restrictions, but if for some reason you want a dedicated launch for a small payload, it's the cheapest way. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OM wrote:
..." If confirmed, these data will indicate that Cosmos 1 made it to orbit. We will continue to monitor planned telemetry sessions and will be working with U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to locate Cosmos 1. The Planetary Society will continue to post updates on its website at http://planetary.org as information on the status of the spacecraft becomes available. " The latest update sounds less encouraging. "http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/latest_update.html" "11:45 pm PDT (6:45 UTC, June 22): Update From Moscow Project Director Louis Friedman cautioned that some data point to a launch vehicle misfiring, one that would prevent the spacecraft from achieving orbit. He said, "That the weak signals were recorded at the expected times of spacecraft passes over the ground stations is encouraging, but in no way are they conclusive enough for us to be sure that they came from Cosmos 1 working in orbit." The Russian space agency indicated that the Volna rocket may have had a problem during its first or second stage firing. "This," Friedman noted, "would almost certainly have prevented the spacecraft from reaching the correct orbit."" I wonder why they didn't use a proven Dnepr or Rokot instead of an unproven space launch vehicle. - Ed Kyle |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
Ed Kyle wrote: I wonder why they didn't use a proven Dnepr or Rokot instead of an unproven space launch vehicle. Almost certainly, because they couldn't afford them. Shtil and Volna (Volna is the older and smaller SLBM) are *really* cheap -- you'd have to fly as a secondary payload (which has its own hassles, especially if you need an unusual orbit) on a Dnepr or Rockot to match Shtil/Volna prices for a dedicated launch. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article om, William Elliot
says... On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, OM wrote: ...A more official update from the Planetary Society: At 12:46 PM (PDT) on June 21, 2005, Cosmos 1, a project of The Planetary Society and Cosmos Studios, was launched from a submerged Russian nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea. Cosmos 1 is the first solar sail spacecraft and is designed to sail on light, using photons for propulsion in Earth orbit. Launching satellites from a submerged submarine? Isn't that about the hardest place to ever to reach orbit from. In a polar orbit? Anything else that makes orbit insertion more difficult than usual? What are they doing? Why there? Because a submarine submerged off Russia's arctic coast is the *easiest* place to reach the continental United States from, if we recognize the additional constraint that the launch site must be securely Russian and protected from American attack. The Russians have long had and will long have an arsenal of rockets capaple of lofting a ton or so onto the continental United States. They will from time to time test-fire one of these rockets just to keep in practice. It costs them a lot of money to do so, but it is entirely worth it to them on national security grounds. And they want to keep those rockets securely Russian and protected from American attack. When they practice rocketry, they obviously have to aim the rocket somewhere other than at the continental United States. One place a rocket capable of lofting a ton or so to CONUS can go, is Low Earth Orbit. You have to shave the payload down to a couple hundred pounds, but you don't need a payload for a test shot in the first place. So if there is someone out there with a bit of payload that they want to put into LEO, and a bit of cash to pay for it, it is pure profit for the Russians to load it onto one of the rockets they are going to practice launching from a submarine under the Arctic Ocean anyway. -- *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * * for success" * *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
John Schilling wrote:
The Russians have long had and will long have an arsenal of rockets capaple of lofting a ton or so onto the continental United States. They will from time to time test-fire one of these rockets just to keep in practice. .. When they practice rocketry, they obviously have to aim the rocket somewhere other than at the continental United States. One place a rocket capable of lofting a ton or so to CONUS can go, is Low Earth Orbit. .. So if there is someone out there with a bit of payload that they want to put into LEO, and a bit of cash to pay for it, it is pure profit for the Russians to load it onto one of the rockets they are going to practice launching from a submarine under the Arctic Ocean anyway. I wonder how many of The Planetary Society members who helped fund this project realized that they were helping Russia test the readiness of a missile system designed to kill United States citizens by the tens of millions. - Ed Kyle |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Kyle wrote:
John Schilling wrote: The Russians have long had and will long have an arsenal of rockets capaple of lofting a ton or so onto the continental United States. They will from time to time test-fire one of these rockets just to keep in practice. .. When they practice rocketry, they obviously have to aim the rocket somewhere other than at the continental United States. One place a rocket capable of lofting a ton or so to CONUS can go, is Low Earth Orbit. .. So if there is someone out there with a bit of payload that they want to put into LEO, and a bit of cash to pay for it, it is pure profit for the Russians to load it onto one of the rockets they are going to practice launching from a submarine under the Arctic Ocean anyway. I wonder how many of The Planetary Society members who helped fund this project realized that they were helping Russia test the readiness of a missile system designed to kill United States citizens by the tens of millions. Half of which having voted for bush. Greetings! Volker |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Kyle wrote:
I wonder how many of The Planetary Society members who helped fund this project realized that they were helping Russia test the readiness of a missile system designed to kill United States citizens by the tens of millions. Did this (apparently unsuccessful) launch test improve or harm the security of the United States? Unreliable deterrents are worse than no deterrents at all... -jake |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fw: ISAS Deloyed Solar Sail Film in Space (Forwarded) | Boris Stromar | Policy | 1 | August 12th 04 05:59 AM |
Scientists Report First-Ever 3D Observations of Solar Storms Using Ulysses Spacecraft | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | November 17th 03 04:28 AM |
Voyager Spacecraft Approaching Solar System's Final Frontier | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | November 5th 03 07:56 PM |
NASA Wants You to be a Solar System Ambassador | Ron Baalke | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | September 12th 03 01:32 AM |
ESA Sees Stardust Storms Heading For Solar System | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | August 20th 03 08:10 PM |