Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DARPA's ALASA Could Pave Way For Cheaper, Faster Satellite Launches

Posted by timothy on from the cheaper-faster-better-ok dept.

hypnosec writes DARPA is all set to take its Airborne Launch Assist Space Access module (ALASA) program to the next level after the program has shown promising results toward its mission of sending 100-pound satellites into low Earth orbit (LEO) for just $1 million per launch." ALASA is a new program that seeks to streamline production and encourage re-usability and interchangeability in satellite systems.

4 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. Why is this coming from DARPA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And not, say, NASA? Somebody explain, please.

  2. Re:seems a bit shy... by tlambert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't understand why the idea is being implemented in such a modest manner. The animation has the rocket stage carried aloft for ignition at high altitude by what looks like an F-18. While I don't doubt the performance of the Hornet's engines, wouldn't it make more sense to extend the payload capacity with a larger carrier craft? Say something on the order of the 747-based shuttle carriers?

    Absolute ceiling on a Boeing 747 is ~51,000 feet. That's about the service ceiling for most military jets, and their absolute ceiling is much hgher than that. The SR-71 Blackbird had a service ceiling of ~92,000 feet; its absolute ceiling remains classified.

    That's 5,000 feet under the service ceiling of the F-14; A Mig-25 on a ballistic arc (after its air-breathing engines were no longer functioning, it was ballistic until it reentered the atmosphere) is recorded to have hit 123,000 feet in 1977. The ballistic arc on an F-18 should be substantially better than that, but I suspect if you want actual numbers, they are classified.

    The point is that the first part of getting up there is the hardest, and military and military-grade airgraft are substantially better at getting up higher because they can reach a higher altitude, and can be going multiple Mach at the time they go ballistic (think "muzzle velocity").

    So no, a commercial jet is a bad idea.

  3. Re:seems a bit shy... by phayes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What exactly makes you think that a F18, designed to go 1.5 Mach, would be able to go higher than a Mach 3 Mig25, designed to counter the SR-71?

    Much like for the pentagon's ASAT missilefrom the 80's, the best available US platform would be an F15.

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  4. Recyclers anyone? by gadget+junkie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hey, we have all this hardware and software laying idle, why not do a cost reduction exercise and sell the effing thingie in the commercial market?

    Seriously tough, I have to wonder if the Chinese, Russians and all the other minions (Iran, North Korea) are not thinking this is a brilliant disguise to be able to deploy an extensive Anti Satellite system.

    --
    "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)