Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Getting Into The Private Space Race

Posted by timothy on from the go-fast-don't-turn-left dept.

powerbarr writes "This article has an excellent description of the issues of getting into the rocket industry without government funding and focuses on one startup that is doing it. Sea Launch is a subsidiary of American, Russian, Ukrainian, and Norwegian companies that has cheaper, more accurate, and more reliable launch system that is trying to compete with all the government sponsored systems that are more expensive and less reliable."

29 comments

  1. Let's Slashdot Outer Space by stoborrobots · · Score: 3, Funny

    All us techies can get together, launch in to outer space, and knock the "bad people" out with our open source rockets!!! ;-)

    --
    "Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
    1. Re:Let's Slashdot Outer Space by Dr.+Photo · · Score: 4, Funny

      All us techies can get together, launch in to outer space, and knock the "bad people" out with our open source rockets!!! ;-)

      1. Cramped quarters in space craft.
      2. Stale, recycled oxygen.
      3. Elbow-to-elbow with hundreds of geeks; many having personal hygiene no better than you or I!
      4. Male-to-female ratio: let's just say a rounding error could kill off the species.
      5. "Open source rockets" would be a terrible way to thank the thousands of people who eagerly volunteered to help you pack.

    2. Re:Let's Slashdot Outer Space by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      Why do we need high-tech whizbangs like rockets and space planes? I think NASA is on to something with the X-4000 Launch Aparatus, a simple and inexpensive old school design.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  2. I get it ... by stoborrobots · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is just Boeing trying to edge out Lockheed Martin...

    This private venture is 40% owned by Boeing

    Methinks there might be opportunities for British Aerospace and Concorde to start launching space missions...

    --
    "Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
  3. Repeat competition comments from previous article by stoborrobots · · Score: 3, Funny

    #include "http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/ 03/2322221"

    --
    "Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
  4. Open source, not open door... by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

    1. Everything is roll-your-own... There's no way I'm letting anyone else on my rocket... There's a wall of fire =) around it...

    2. Fresh Hydrogen; 1atom/cubic metre

    3. See 1.

    4. The species is dead anyway... I just hope I find a single female to constitute an exception to 1.

    5. You're right... We should use proprietary rockets on them, and keep the open-source ones for ourself...

    --
    "Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
  5. uh... one launch? by kevin+lyda · · Score: 1, Insightful

    they've made one launch so far. that's hardly enough data points to compare them to nasa, esa or the russian space program.

    --
    US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
  6. SPAM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    excellent description of the issues of getting into the rocket industry without government funding
    Now, IS this the answer to our SPAMMERS?

  7. Rail Gun launches for payload planned ... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    http://www.totse.com/en/technology/science_technol ogy/railway.html

    quite alot to read to get the meat , but it is there .

    I think a high altitude rail gun suspended from a balloon
    platform at 160,000 ft would be best .

    NASA recently set a balloon record at 161,000 ft.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020 82 7063353.htm

    At that altitude it would not have to deal with the friction
    of 99% of the earth's atmosphere .

    At that altitude storms/weather does not affect launches ,
    there is no wind either .

    It would take ALOT of balloon power, but a good size payload
    could be shot into space repeatedly , and it could be powered
    by several different means .

    As hydrogen is light, it might be best as a fuel for the
    rail gun .

    Smaller ballons could carry up more hydrogen cylinders as
    needed .

    From 32 miles up firing at insane multi-mach speeds .

    Firing it once a day to get cargo into the same spot would
    put up so much more , so much faster for so much less than
    what the shuttle is currently doing .

    firing once a day would give you alot of time to charge
    the capacitor banks of the coil system .

    Peace,
    Ex-MislTech

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    1. Re:Rail Gun launches for payload planned ... by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know about that newton guy right? Had a unit named after him?

      1. You need a balloon that is 100 times bigger to lift the same amount of weight where the atmosphere is 99% thinner.

      2. For every action...

      When you fire this thing, the balloon is going to recoil just as much as the projectile.

      BTW-I thought the files on totse were old BBS files and a lot of really weird stuff.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Rail Gun launches for payload planned ... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 2, Informative

      As for the weight differential you are right, it would
      require an enormous amount of lift to pull it off
      even with hydrogen balloons .

      The credits for the information aka references were at
      the bottom of the page .

      Of course you already knew that as you read the whole thing
      real fast and rapid fire responded to me .

      Oh well ...

      As for for the transfer of forces, the ballon platform is
      not capable of moving at mach speeds, and also E=MC(squared)
      so the mass of the platform, MANY tons is greater than
      that of a 450kg projectile like the US is already planning to
      launch from a mountain based rail gun .

      Furthermore planes already fire incredible weapons at
      sutained cyclic rates , like the A10 warthog , and they
      can stall if fired long enough .

      This is going to have one helluva kick for a fraction of a second .

      As you read the entire large article soooo fast you already
      knew that too .

      Peace,
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    3. Re:Rail Gun launches for payload planned ... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Neither article was about launching satellites from balloons. One was about railguns, the other was about a large balloon. I skimmed them.

      What does relativity have to do with this? I kinda wonder what kind of education you military guys get, it seems to be pretty lacking on the theory side.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:Rail Gun launches for payload planned ... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, it is lacking on the theory side , your right .

      Yes, you are correct, none of the articles are
      about balloon launches .

      The ballon raised platform is my own idea .

      But a short burst recoil is not going to move a
      huge multi-ton platform that much and you have to
      consider time constants in equations as well .

      Also the platform is going to have drag against
      the recoil .

      The short time constant, aka firing time, and
      the drag of the platform , ie. converting
      the recoil into acceleration of the huge platform
      has to be figured as well .

      Like firing a machine gun, the last round fired
      kicks the hardest , and recoil absorbers have been
      made .

      In army boot camp that I have not attended they
      fire the m16 off sensitive body parts to demonstrate this .

      Recoil can be dealt with .

      Larger issues are dealt with daily ...

      Peace,
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    5. Re:Rail Gun launches for payload planned ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As yet another military guy (naval engi) I feel the need to interject.

      I think Ex- is sugesting that the surface area of the balloons will create enough frictional drag force to reduce the reaction energy from the firing action.

      And this is partially correct, except that the balloons will deform in shape first and so the air firction will not be near as great immediateley. Plus a railgun isn't fair to compare with a standard gun.

      An M16 standard round cannot compare with the forces generated by firing a multi ton projectile with an order of magnatude or more of force. I'll bet they didn't fire a 6" (155mm, think Paladin) off of a sensitive body part. And I think you would agree that wouldn't feel good if you did. Now remember that what we're firing is closer to the size/weight of a 16" gun projectile(i.e. main Battleship cannon), but with 10 times the # of class 1.1 charges as propellant.

      Also, the mass of platform is irrellavent. It still detracts the same amount of force in the reaction if you have a 1 ton or 100 ton platform. Just because it moves less distance doesn't mean it absorbed less force.

      If you know someone at the Army's Benet Labs, I think they can collabrate this somewhat.

    6. Re:Rail Gun launches for payload planned ... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Well anonymous coward,

      I posted another post that came up with the idea of
      hydrogen thrusters to compensate, and or a pneumatic
      or hydraulic slide recoil compensation system similar
      to what the paladin cannon itself uses .

      I am no engineer to be sure, but it can be done,
      things alot more difficult have been achieved to be sure .

      Also if you are scientifically astute as you say you realize
      that mass always matters .

      Ex.: in space me at 200 lbs. pushing off a rocks weighing
      2,000 lbs. I move roughly ten times faster away from
      point of origin as the rock moves away from point of
      origin .

      E=MC(squared) does apply to this situation as it applies
      to all things so far ...

      a 100 ton platform shooting a half ton projectile is going to
      have 200 times the mass, and the majority of the movement ie.
      99.5% will be in the projectile .

      But like I said I am not an engineer, just a Ex-MislTech .

      Well signing off for the day ... Take it EZ all ...

      Peace,
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    7. Re:Rail Gun launches for payload planned ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I posted another post that came up with the idea of
      hydrogen thrusters to compensate, and or a pneumatic
      or hydraulic slide recoil compensation system similar
      to what the paladin cannon itself uses .

      The hydrogen thrusters would provide counterforce and work. The recoil system simply prolongs the force imparted by the recoil of firing, it does not lessen it. The point of this is to reduce fatigue on the non-barrel parts. The recoil force, in the case of the paladin, is resisted by the ground (a luxury your system does not have since it is in midair)

      Also if you are scientifically astute as you say you realize
      that mass always matters .

      Ex.: in space me at 200 lbs. pushing off a rocks weighing
      2,000 lbs. I move roughly ten times faster away from
      point of origin as the rock moves away from point of
      origin .

      You're talking about momentum (mass*velocity), and I am talking about force (mass*acceleration). Force is what will determine the final velocity of the projectile when it leaves the barrel, after which point it'll be in the hands of your conservation of momentum argument.

      During firing of ground based artillery there is a positive force (exploding propellant) and several negative forces (friction in the barrel, air friction, gravity, and the reactive force of the propellant pushing the gun backwards).

      However, the gun gets pushed backwards into the ground and thus the ground pushes back against the gun because the gun can't move through the ground (much). This cancels out that last force against us.

      Friction of the barrel only last for the length of the barrel, so when the projectile leaves, that force stops too.

      Unfortunately the propellant also stops pushing the projectile when the projectile leave the barrel, so our only positive force stops too.

      This leaves us with only gravity and air resistance, both of which work against us.

      Now let's go to your space system. We have (due to high altitude) practically negligable air resistance. However we no longer have the ground to cancel out the reaction force of the propellant pushing the gun back. Unfortunately that force is much greater detriment than air resistance, and greater gun mass will not contribute to negating the reactive force (momentum, yes--as you pointed out).

      The result will be less force imparted to the projectile, which means lower muzzle velocity. In your example you never bothered to calculate how much force it would take to push you off from the rock to get a certain speed. You mentioned a 99.5% velocity retainment, but that was just the velocity difference between gun and projectile. You have to get the projectile up to that velcity first. That requires accelleration of a mass, which is force. It's going to be much harder to do that from your floating platform for the reasons above.

      As I hope you can see, this is why it's usually better to refer to things in forces than momentum. The reason everyone is imparting doubt on your thoguhts is that they feel your system won't have the exit velocity needed to reach orbit due to the force wasted in the reaction force (not the momentum wasted).

      There is another point, which is that the amount of lifting a balloon can do is limited. I believe a hot air baloon has a maximum lift weight of 2500lbs (thus the basket, burners,propane, and people must weigh less than this--This was on a DSC Monster Garage episode)). The number of balloons you would need to lift a 50 ton weight would be

      50 ton *2000 lbs/ton = 100,000 lbs
      100,000 lbs / 2500 lbs/balloon = 40 hot air balloons

      Remember that a hot air balloon doesn't go up to the heights you are talking about. At those hights, the air is thinner and a balloon has even less lift (meaning even more balloons, probably more than 100). And remember, iof we fire at a lower altitude, we _also_ have to consider exponentially more air friction as an additional force t

    8. Re:Rail Gun launches for payload planned ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KE=(1/2)m*v*v

    9. Re:Rail Gun launches for payload planned ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      E=MC(squared) does apply to this situation as it applies to all things so far ...

      The equation you're looking for is 1/2MV(squared), energy based on mass and velocity. The equation you're using gives you the energy when you convert mass into energy, eg. with nuclear fission.

      But what you really want is momentum, which is just MV. Whatever momentum you give to your projectile, is also given to your launch platform, in the opposite direction. But since it's MV, you're right, if the platform is 200 times bigger, the projectile will move 200 times faster.

      If the platform is too big to suddenly start moving at the requisite velocity, it'll rip apart, hence the need to use a big-ass spring, hydraulics, whatever, to spread out the impulse.

      Whether it's feasible takes more engineering chops than I have, I just about exhausted my knowledge of mechanics in this post.

    10. Re:Rail Gun launches for payload planned ... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      All the sme , thanks for the heads up .

      It would be a awesome thing to see too, a super cheap
      high altitude cargo fligging rail gun to get the parts
      for a space station or moon base .

      Like you said , it is going to take some TRULY brilliant
      folks to make it happen, I am just a dreamer, but I am
      sure it can be done by the right ppl .

      Peace,
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    11. Re:Rail Gun launches for payload planned ... by hplasm · · Score: 1
      This is a mass driver, rather than a railgun, unless your payload is hot plasma, no?:

      railgun [railgun.org].

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  8. This is Hardly a Non-Governmental Operation by kalamazoo904 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sea Launch is a joint project between Boeing, Energiya Ukrainiya, and a Norwegian company that makes oil platforms. All three are private companies, but they are tightly tied to their respective countries' military-industrial complexes. I'll take Elon Musk or Burt Rutan any day of the week and twice on Sunday over these guys. (Check previous Slashdot stories.)

    --
    Your friendly neighborhood nitpicker
    1. Re:This is Hardly a Non-Governmental Operation by powerbarr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, Boeing is leaving the company out to dry because of how cheap they are. They directly compete with Boeing's much higher cost Delta rockets and Boeing really wants the company to fail. This is because of their merger with Lockheed Martin that got them into the rocket business after Sea Launch was set up.

      I was not aware that Burt Rutan is working on large rocket engines to enable geosynchronous orbit. The article is about the commercialization/privatization of space and how it compares to the airline industry (still heavily government subsidized in some cases) which found cheaper ways to do things in order to bring it down to costs the public could afford.

    2. Re:This is Hardly a Non-Governmental Operation by powerbarr · · Score: 1

      Sorry, merger was McDonnell Douglas, not Lockheed Martin.

    3. Re:This is Hardly a Non-Governmental Operation by kalamazoo904 · · Score: 1

      powerbarr said:
      >I was not aware that Burt Rutan is working on large rocket engines to enable geosynchronous orbit.

      Well, he hasn't announced anything yet, and I don't know for certain that he has any designs yet as well. (Rutan is notoriously closed-mouthed about these things). But he has hinted that he has very broad plans beyond the rocket systems (SpaceShipOne/White Knight) that he has now.

      Your info on Boeing's attitude on Sea Launch is very interesting and explains much.

      --
      Your friendly neighborhood nitpicker
  9. relativity ... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

    E=MC(squared)

    You ask what this has to do with this ???

    Maybe your education was lacking on theory ???

    Rail Gun "energy" ??? Recoil "energy" ???

    Platform "mass" ??? projectile "mass"

    Time as the Constant ...

    I think it has a FAIR amount to do with relativity,
    then again ALL things do .

    Outside this is the drag of the platform during recoil .

    Once again I will relate the size of the balloons
    to a cloud city to hold this monster up at that
    high of an altitude , but it will make for weather
    free launch system for just cargo .

    The one day charge time will give it plenty of time
    to charge the bank of VERY lightweight capacitors .

    Firing once a day also has the desired effect of
    dropping the cargo in the same place in orbit .

    Due to the EXTREME cold -100 F at thoose altitudes
    you get to use super conductors too, another added
    fringe benefit of the extreme cold .

    Granted the cold is going to make other aspects
    difficult too, but then again we have overcome
    greater thins in many programs .

    Peace,
    Ex-MislTech

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  10. Kinda cool! by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this remind anyone else of S.A.L.V.A.G.E.?

    --
    How ya like dat?
  11. Re:uh... one launch? by powerbarr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, they've had one failure so far out of eight with another launch to occur on June 10. Still while only a few launches, this is pretty good start considering their competition and their costs are way less. Both XM Radio and Direct TV have used them to launch satellites.

    Here is a link to past launches

  12. Balloons and more ... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

    Well you make alot of good points .

    I still think it can be done, and a 2nd gun firing down
    with just a hydrogen blast could counteract alot of
    the rail gun recoil force if not all of it .

    Ex. the guns fire at the same time, one up , one down .

    NASA already used high altitude ballons to carry a 3/4 ton
    payload to 161,000 feet .

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020 82 7063353.htm

    Hot air balloons are not gonna work for this no way .

    I am talking about high altitude balloons using gases .

    Invariably it would require ALOT of ballons due to the
    weight of the platform and especially the rail gun .

    The cold of that altitude, about -100 F may let us
    use super conductors which would require much less
    power, and much less weight .

    So we might get that as side benefit .

    In the mass and velocity segment on me pushing off the 2,000 lb
    rock I still say I move ALOT further than the 2,000 lb rock
    from the point of origin in the same amount of time .

    All in all your formulas and math are good, and I guess I did
    not not make all of my points fully clear for you as to the
    balloons already being worked by NASA at that altitude .

    You know your physics better than I do , but I am going off
    projects that are already working .

    Just the rail gun recoil posed a serious concern for me until
    I thought of a hydrogen blast to compensate .

    It would have to be one helluva a blast too , lol .

    Perhaps several in a concentric reinforced ring around the
    the rail guns vertical axis .

    Be something to see too , lol .

    A super conducting monstrosity hovering in the sky , and multiple
    explosions of fire shoot out its backside as lighting crawls
    up it and glowing projectile streaks out at multi-mach speeds .

    Well it is all science fiction at this point, the nanotubes
    elevator too for that matter , but all of it is possible ,
    but none of it is easy .

    Peace,
    Ex-MislTech

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  13. Got to love the grammar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "entirely private large rockets carrying entirely private payloads" and "more cheaply". But I'm not the grammar nazi, just a concerned American who was instructed properly while young.