" A plane that can take off horizontally, burning atmospheric air while accelerating and climbing, which then switches to using its own on-board oxygen in order to reach orbit makes a lot of sense."
Until you look at the physics/economics. Extracting oxygen from the atmosphere isn't free. It shows up as drag, which requires more fuel to overcome. The liquid oxygen in a rocket's propellant tank has already had kinetic energy added to it. The oxygen you get from the atmosphere is at a much lower energy state, so you have to add energy to it. This makes high-speed airbreathers very difficult.
The "massive amounts of oxygen" you are saving are actually quite cheap. Liquid oxygen is one of the cheapest fluids you can buy. Cheaper than bottled water. The idea that it's going to be cheaper to manufacture it in flight than on the ground is inherently flawed. What you save in LOX, you lose in additional fuel. Moreover, the fuel needed to make these schemes work is not hydrocarbon (cheap) but liquid hydrogen (expensive). The structures needed to contain LH2 are also expensive, due to the low propellant density. These factors make airbreathing a non-starter.
"I reckon the "real" purpose of the program is to develop a mach-10 air-breathing aircraft"
Certainly not. Hypersonic airbreathers are extremely difficult, and there's an enormous difference between cruise missions (airliners) and acceleration missions (space launch). Airbreathers tend to perform well at a specific velocity (cruise speed) while rockets must perform well over a wide range of speeds.
Jess Sponable knows that, have seen what happened in the X-30 NASP program, and will not go down that route.
radiation hardening does NOT mean long lead times or ultra expensive components.
NASA are not idiots you're right, they also don't build microsatellites with off the shelf arduinos.
You need to do some research. NASA just successfully launched two PhoneSat satellites this year, which use Arduino as part of a watchdog circuit. They plan on flying more in the future.
Planet Labs was founded by two of the lead engineers who built PhoneSat. The founders of Nanosatisfi worked at NASA Ames, where PhoneSat was built, and EADS Astrium, a major satellite manufacturer.
Just because something appears in a parts catalog doesn't mean it's available for overnight shipping. You'll find that out if you actually try to order them.
The fact that someone is doing something differently than you would doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid or know less than you do. They may have good reasons for what they are doing, because they spent more time thinking about the problem than you did composing your Slashdot flame. Not to mention building actual hardware and testing it. If you believe you can do better, great -- build your own satellite.
"Nowhere do I see mention of these arduinos being special, radiation-hardened versions. Nowhere, is there mention about extended temperature range, vibration, etc. These are all important if the mission is expected to succeed."
Most small satellites do not use radiation-hardened components. Rad-hard chips provide 1/10 the power at 10 times the price, and thet aren't available when you need them. Generally, they're made to order with long lead times.
It's generally easier to add a watchdog circuit to reboot the computer when it crashes due to a radiation event. Even the laptops aboard ISS are not rad-hard.
In higher orbits and interplanetary space, radiation levels are higher and rad hardening becomes a bigger concern. Even there, techniques like spot shielding can reduce the number of components that need to be hardened.
You might want to consider the possibility that maybe, perhaps, people who have built and operated satellites professionally for organizations such as NASA are not idiots and have some idea what they are doing.
If there were no commercial ramifications you could use amateur radio licenses. People already talk to the ISS, bounce signals off the moon, etc. All you need is the ticket.
A failure on launch could result in releasing radioactive fission products over large areas.
That's why it's unlikely until we start to mine uranium on the Moon. (Not so much the chances of an accident but the perception.) I had a discussion about that with engineers at JSC, and everyone in the room agreed with that statement. Fortunately, finding uranium on the Moon is not out of the question. We know it's there.
Any launch from New Mexico is going to fly over other states, if not other countries, on its way to orbit. So yes, the interstate commerce clause could certainly apply if a New Mexico-launched rocket explodes and rains debris over Texas and Louisiana.
No, they will not overfly other states, and they aren't going to orbit. And again, you're confusing second- and third-party liability. Please do some research.
Boeing doesn't have legislation protecting them if one of their airliners crashes onto somebody's house.
So do rocket companies. You don't understand the difference between third-party liability and first/second-party.
There's a difference between sitting your house and having an airliner crash on it and going out to a spaceport and buying a ticket. One of those involves assumed risk. The other doesn't.
If affordable insurance isn't available from the private sector, the technology isn't safe enough for use by private parties.
"Private parties" are not allowed to decide for themselves what is and isn't safe enough?
Riding stables are protected by equine liability laws. So, I guess horses would be banned in your version of the nanny state? Or limited to the United States Cavalry?
It seems to be more about liability for accidents affecting passengers.
That's exactly the case, except that they're called "spaceflight participants," not "passengers." To regulators, these terms have very specific meanings.
.....we grant airplanes or automobile makers the same kind of liability. So why should this industry be granted the same?
The examples used in the open letter, skiing, skydiving, and bungee jumping, are considered "extreme sports". They are activities with a certain degree of personal risk. Space travel should not be in the same category..
Roughly 1% of all human beings who've gone into space have died in the attempt. That is more extreme than skiing, skydiving, or bungee jumping -- or even professional rodeo.
Both the FAA and the United States Congress have declared that spaceflight is an "intrinsically dangerous activity."
Also, this talk of regulation is moot anyway. It is only a matter of time before the Feds get involved and pre-empt all state regs.
They are already are involved. That's why the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation exists. However, it isn't clear that liability for a spaceflight that begins and ends in New Mexico falls under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Buyer beware. Interorbital has never launched a satellite. $8k gets you some not-very-expensive parts and a voucher for a launch to take place some time in the future. They say launches will start next year. They've been saying that for years but have seldom test-fired their engine.
The cost is about $40k if you can find someone who has extra space and will sell it to you at that price. There are more CubeSats than there are launches.
Most CubeSats are launched through NASA's ELANA program. The launch is free if you win the ELANA lottery. Most people who enter lotteries don't win them.
All launches at the moment are rideshares with larger payloads. There have been attempts to develop dedicated launchers for small satellites but none have made it to the launching pad. NASA created the Nanosatellite Launch Challenge to encourage development of a nanosat launcher. It was canceled before the competition began.
At the moment, most CubeSats are built as educational projects to train engineering students. Launching them into space is kind of a bonus, if it happens.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is working on an airborne launch system for small payloads (ALASA). The Army is working on its own launcher called SWORDS. It is not certain if these efforts will be successful or if the launches will be available for civilian payloads, if they are successful.
Every time I hear about the "commercialization" of space I wonder who is going to inspect all the payloads to insure that they are "harmless".
The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation, as specified by law.
It seems that "commercialization" necessitates "militarization".
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Space has been militarized for 70 years. Von Braun bombed London from space. People only complain about "militarization of space" when DoD proposes a new system that upsets someone's agenda.
Re:Total crap -- /. summary is wrong (stunning!)
on
The Great Meteor Grab
·
· Score: 1
These regulations are just clarifying that/yes/ meteorites are valuable minerals
On the contrary, the regulations specifically state that meteorites are not minerals but "antiquities." That's the whole point.
First come up with a way to mine an asteroid, then you can worry about the legal semantics.
It's notoriously difficult to get investors to put billions of dollars into developing something unless you can show you have the legal right to do it.
Look at the history of the Law of the Sea or mining in Antarctica.
Slashdot Mirror
" A plane that can take off horizontally, burning atmospheric air while accelerating and climbing, which then switches to using its own on-board oxygen in order to reach orbit makes a lot of sense."
Until you look at the physics/economics. Extracting oxygen from the atmosphere isn't free. It shows up as drag, which requires more fuel to overcome. The liquid oxygen in a rocket's propellant tank has already had kinetic energy added to it. The oxygen you get from the atmosphere is at a much lower energy state, so you have to add energy to it. This makes high-speed airbreathers very difficult.
The "massive amounts of oxygen" you are saving are actually quite cheap. Liquid oxygen is one of the cheapest fluids you can buy. Cheaper than bottled water. The idea that it's going to be cheaper to manufacture it in flight than on the ground is inherently flawed. What you save in LOX, you lose in additional fuel. Moreover, the fuel needed to make these schemes work is not hydrocarbon (cheap) but liquid hydrogen (expensive). The structures needed to contain LH2 are also expensive, due to the low propellant density. These factors make airbreathing a non-starter.
"I reckon the "real" purpose of the program is to develop a mach-10 air-breathing aircraft"
Certainly not. Hypersonic airbreathers are extremely difficult, and there's an enormous difference between cruise missions (airliners) and acceleration missions (space launch). Airbreathers tend to perform well at a specific velocity (cruise speed) while rockets must perform well over a wide range of speeds.
Jess Sponable knows that, have seen what happened in the X-30 NASP program, and will not go down that route.
Even SpaceX does not use rad-hard components because of the expensive.
Well, some people think that global monitoring of crop patterns, rainfall, land usage, climactic shifts, etc. is useful science.
If you don't, that's okay.
radiation hardening does NOT mean long lead times or ultra expensive components.
NASA are not idiots you're right, they also don't build microsatellites with off the shelf arduinos.
You need to do some research. NASA just successfully launched two PhoneSat satellites this year, which use Arduino as part of a watchdog circuit. They plan on flying more in the future.
Planet Labs was founded by two of the lead engineers who built PhoneSat. The founders of Nanosatisfi worked at NASA Ames, where PhoneSat was built, and EADS Astrium, a major satellite manufacturer.
Just because something appears in a parts catalog doesn't mean it's available for overnight shipping. You'll find that out if you actually try to order them.
The fact that someone is doing something differently than you would doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid or know less than you do. They may have good reasons for what they are doing, because they spent more time thinking about the problem than you did composing your Slashdot flame. Not to mention building actual hardware and testing it. If you believe you can do better, great -- build your own satellite.
"Nowhere do I see mention of these arduinos being special, radiation-hardened versions. Nowhere, is there mention about extended temperature range, vibration, etc. These are all important if the mission is expected to succeed." Most small satellites do not use radiation-hardened components. Rad-hard chips provide 1/10 the power at 10 times the price, and thet aren't available when you need them. Generally, they're made to order with long lead times. It's generally easier to add a watchdog circuit to reboot the computer when it crashes due to a radiation event. Even the laptops aboard ISS are not rad-hard. In higher orbits and interplanetary space, radiation levels are higher and rad hardening becomes a bigger concern. Even there, techniques like spot shielding can reduce the number of components that need to be hardened. You might want to consider the possibility that maybe, perhaps, people who have built and operated satellites professionally for organizations such as NASA are not idiots and have some idea what they are doing.
If there were no commercial ramifications you could use amateur radio licenses. People already talk to the ISS, bounce signals off the moon, etc. All you need is the ticket.
Not legally.
Instead of "guesstimating a timeframe ," they could simply ask.
It's not like rocket companies have unlisted phone numbers or won't take a phone call from the FCC.
SpaceX has been working on Dragon a longer than Lockheed's been building Orion. I was first heard about it back in 2003.
A failure on launch could result in releasing radioactive fission products over large areas.
That's why it's unlikely until we start to mine uranium on the Moon. (Not so much the chances of an accident but the perception.) I had a discussion about that with engineers at JSC, and everyone in the room agreed with that statement. Fortunately, finding uranium on the Moon is not out of the question. We know it's there.
Any launch from New Mexico is going to fly over other states, if not other countries, on its way to orbit. So yes, the interstate commerce clause could certainly apply if a New Mexico-launched rocket explodes and rains debris over Texas and Louisiana.
No, they will not overfly other states, and they aren't going to orbit. And again, you're confusing second- and third-party liability. Please do some research.
Boeing doesn't have legislation protecting them if one of their airliners crashes onto somebody's house.
So do rocket companies. You don't understand the difference between third-party liability and first/second-party.
There's a difference between sitting your house and having an airliner crash on it and going out to a spaceport and buying a ticket. One of those involves assumed risk. The other doesn't.
If affordable insurance isn't available from the private sector, the technology isn't safe enough for use by private parties.
"Private parties" are not allowed to decide for themselves what is and isn't safe enough?
Riding stables are protected by equine liability laws. So, I guess horses would be banned in your version of the nanny state? Or limited to the United States Cavalry?
It's not just the passengers - it's also the guy who sues for $1 million claiming that the rocket exhaust caused his asthma to flare up,
No, it's not. This law does not affect third-party liability, which is already covered by FAA regulations and insurance requirements.
It seems to be more about liability for accidents affecting passengers.
That's exactly the case, except that they're called "spaceflight participants," not "passengers." To regulators, these terms have very specific meanings.
Roughly 1% of all human beings who've gone into space have died in the attempt. That is more extreme than skiing, skydiving, or bungee jumping -- or even professional rodeo.
Both the FAA and the United States Congress have declared that spaceflight is an "intrinsically dangerous activity."
Also, this talk of regulation is moot anyway. It is only a matter of time before the Feds get involved and pre-empt all state regs.
They are already are involved. That's why the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation exists. However, it isn't clear that liability for a spaceflight that begins and ends in New Mexico falls under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Virgin already has immunity. They want a law extending that immunity to their suppliers and manufacturers.
Except that Virgin recently acquired The Spaceship Company. So, they are now the manufacturer as well.
No, you can't. Just having technical discussions with a foreign citizen falls under ITAR control.
Buyer beware. Interorbital has never launched a satellite. $8k gets you some not-very-expensive parts and a voucher for a launch to take place some time in the future. They say launches will start next year. They've been saying that for years but have seldom test-fired their engine.
Most CubeSats are launched through NASA's ELANA program. The launch is free if you win the ELANA lottery. Most people who enter lotteries don't win them.
All launches at the moment are rideshares with larger payloads. There have been attempts to develop dedicated launchers for small satellites but none have made it to the launching pad. NASA created the Nanosatellite Launch Challenge to encourage development of a nanosat launcher. It was canceled before the competition began.
At the moment, most CubeSats are built as educational projects to train engineering students. Launching them into space is kind of a bonus, if it happens.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is working on an airborne launch system for small payloads (ALASA). The Army is working on its own launcher called SWORDS. It is not certain if these efforts will be successful or if the launches will be available for civilian payloads, if they are successful.
Every time I hear about the "commercialization" of space I wonder who is going to inspect all the payloads to insure that they are "harmless".
The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation, as specified by law.
It seems that "commercialization" necessitates "militarization".
You say that like it's a bad thing. Space has been militarized for 70 years. Von Braun bombed London from space. People only complain about "militarization of space" when DoD proposes a new system that upsets someone's agenda.
These regulations are just clarifying that /yes/ meteorites are valuable minerals
On the contrary, the regulations specifically state that meteorites are not minerals but "antiquities." That's the whole point.
i fail to see how NOT being subject to mining laws would adversely affect space mining.
Because mining law is what protects your claim. That's why it was created in the first place.
Imagine if your house was suddenly declared "not real estate" and anyone could move in, tear it down, make alterations, shelter livestock, etc.
First come up with a way to mine an asteroid, then you can worry about the legal semantics.
It's notoriously difficult to get investors to put billions of dollars into developing something unless you can show you have the legal right to do it.
Look at the history of the Law of the Sea or mining in Antarctica.
Why worry about US mining laws when no country has claim on the rocks in space?
Because if you don't have legal title to your property, you can't defend it in court when someone else tries to take it away.