Falcon 1 Ready to Launch

DarkNemesis618 writes "SpaceX's new rocket, the Falcon 1 is set to launch February 8. Twice now it has been delayed for technological problems and then for structural. It's payload is set to be the FalconSat-2 satellite. What's interesting is that this satellite was built by the cadets at the USAF Academy. The satellite is going to be studying the effects of space plasma. It appears NASA & the shuttle are not the only ways for the government to launch satellites anymore."

Comments

Could Have been called

[captjc]

I guess if it launched 4 years ago, it could have been called the New-Millenium Falcon

Re:The Sea Launch Consortium

[slightlyspacey]

Uhm no. Nowhere in the Wikipedia entries for either SpaceX or Falcon 1 is there an association with the Sea Launch consortium. SpaceX was founded by Elon Musk and he is fronting all of the costs associated with the development and launch from his own personal fortune.

Also given the nature of his lawsuit against Boeing and Lockheed, I doubt that he would want to be part of an organization that is run by Boeing. Secondly, the launch is from a facility in the Kwajalein Atoll on solid ground, not from a SeaLaunch platform.

Re:Space Plasma?

[Markus Registrada]

Surely you're joking. Profound effects of space plasma on satellites have been well-known (by engineers) for decades.

There's practically nothing up there but plasma. The only places in the universe that aren't practically all plasma are planets and bits of space junk, a negligible fraction of the universe's (observable) mass. Maybe you're confused because you think plasma is some sort of exotic substance. Compositionally, the only difference between a gas and a plasma is that some fraction of the atoms in a plasma are ionized. That just means one or more of the electrons that, at lower temperatures, would be bound closely in orbit around the nucleus are instead banging around loose.

That seems like a small difference, but oh! what a difference. In a familiar gas, the atoms only interact when they collide, so at very low pressures nothing much happens. In a plasma, particularly at very low pressure, the particles interact with immediate neighbors, via the electric force, at distances of centimeters, and with large masses, via magnetic forces, at distances up to light years.

Plasma dynamics, the description of how masses of plasma behave, is fiendishly complex, largely because the positive particles (nuclei) are all at least 2000 times more massive than the negative particles (electrons). As a result, anything that accelerates a nucleus at X cm/s/s blasts any electrons at more than 2000X cm/s/s the other way. Furthermore, plasmas can be neutral, or biased positive, or biased negative. When a biased plasma moves, it produces a magnetic field, and any magnetic fields it moves in affect the its motion.

Even an ionization of one in 10 000 particles is enough to make celestial stuff behave by plasma-dynamical rather than ordinary gas laws. Under rather weak electric fields, the ions accelerate enough to ionize and re-ionize the neutral atoms, a process called "entraining". Motion of biased plasma amounts to an electric current, which self-generates a magnetic field that, in turn, concentrates the current (and particles of the conductive medium) into flux tubes, called "Birkeland currents", that span solar systems (e.g. producing the Aurora) and galaxies.

The equations that describe real plasma dynamics are fiendishly complicated, and the observed behavior exhibits so many fundamental instabilities, that nobody can solve typical problems mathematically. Serious researchers fall back on computer simulations and extrapolation from vacuum-lab observations. Most fall back, instead, on a (usually) distinctly unphysical approximation known as "MHD".

Typical astronomers and astrophysicists have had a semester of MHD, where they were misled about how little it resembles any phenomenon they will ever observe. As a result, most astronomers are ill-equipped to evaluate such observations. They tend to ignore them, instead, and to discount explanations that depend on awareness of actual plasma-dynamical phenomena. This causes them two problems: they have to explain what they see using only gravitation, stellar-core fusion, and shock waves; and they have to explain why plasma dynamics has no effect on the system. Their colleagues generally give them a pass on the latter. Such common plasma-dynamical phenomena as ultraviolet and x-ray emission have traditionally been easy to ignore.

Most of the working plasma dynamicists are not involved in astrophysics, and their contribution isn't generally welcome in astrophysical journals. Of course the most vocal of the ones interested in astronomy, and thus most easily found in web searches, are highly-motivated and ... interestingly quirky. Nonetheless, there's a lot to learn even from those of the catastrophism cultists who are also working physicists.