Curiously, there was something similar idea the Europeans had called NETLANDER, which would have landed a network of 4 geophysical stations on the surface of mars. Unfortunately, the project was cancelled in 2003.
Out of curiosity, do you have an estimate for how much astronomers would be willing/able to pay for telescope time on a telescope with Hubble's capabilities (or something like Hubble built with modern tech). I've sometimes speculated about the feasibility of a for-profit space telescope, and figure that'd be an important bit of data to know.
One thing I didn't entirely follow from the articles, though I didn't read them all, is this going to be placed in high enough an orbit that it won't decay enough to hit the atmosphere before its useful lifetime is up.
The proposed telescope would be at 750km, whereas the original Hubble is at 600km. For comparison, the ISS ranges between 340km and 400km. The Space Shuttle can only go as high as 643km, and wouldn't be able to service the proposed probe.
Re:um, car's aren't rockets...
on
Hondas in Space
·
· Score: 1
It really is not feasible to mass produce rocket ships in this manner.
Why not? We mass-produce jumbo jets, which seem to have an order of complexity comparable to that of a rocket. And when something important on a jumbo jet breaks, usually everybody on board dies.
Are you sure about that? I hear lots of conflicting things regarding the reusability (or lack thereof) of the Falcon I first stage.
I could be wrong, but now I'm under the impression that they're planning on recovering the first stage, and salvaging data/parts from it (rather than reusing it entirely).
I don't know if Musk has owned a Ferrari, but he does own a $1 million McLaren F1. Presumably he did some shopping around and informed himself about Ferraris before he bought the McLaren.
I submitted the story as Science/Space, and was wondering the exact same thing. I guess some editor thought it'd be clever to include it in the "Upgrades" category, which I guess meant it had to be in IT. Or something.
I'm not so sure. Some estimates have put the cost of a Hubble repair mission at $2 billion. Let's say you had $3 billion to spend: Would you want to build 1 new telescope and repair 1 old telescope, or would you use the same money to buy 3 new telescopes?
I submitted the story, and because of some sloppy wording on my part a number of people now think that the $1 billion doesn't include the cost of launching the rocket. In actuality, it does include this cost already.
From their poster, here are the figures which go into the cost estimate (written as low/high estimate):
According to the HOP's poster, the proposed telescope would mass 11,600 kg and be in a 750km orbit. They will be using an Atlas 531, with a cost of $150 million.
The $6 million Falcon I, cool as it is, can only lift 430kg to a 750km orbit. The $16 million Falcon V (the Falcon I's successor) will be able to still only lift 4,780kg to that altitude. It's possible that the rumored "Big F -- king Rocket" mentioned in the Fast Company article could lift it, but I think it'll be a few years at least before we see that available.
Actually, now that you mention it, such a "BFR" rocket could very well be available by the time the HOP is set to launch. Hmm...
Oh damn, I really should have reworded that. The $1 billion includes the costs of not only construction, but of the launch as well. From the release:
Norman told the committee that it would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to launch HOP, which he stated would continue and even expand upon the flow of science and discovery that has made the original Hubble Space Telescope a "national treasure."
Re:It is not about how much rocket costs..
on
Hondas in Space
·
· Score: 1
No used parts are actually going on the rocket, at least according to the article. The only used parts they bought are a theodolite (a surveying tool to help align the rocket) and an old rocket fairing (to run some tests on, not put on the rocket).
More info on SpaceX
on
Hondas in Space
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I tried submitting a story on SpaceX a couple of weeks ago, but it was sadly rejected. Here's the text of the submission, along with some other interesting info:
Spaceflight Now has an article on SpaceX, a low-cost space launch company started by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk (he is no longer with PayPal). The article describes SpaceX's small-size Falcon I rocket, scheduled to launch a military imaging satellite on its maiden flight in March, and their medium-size Falcon V rocket, scheduled to lift a prototype Bigelow inflatable space habitat next year. Interestingly, the Falcon V has enough capacity to lift a Gemini-style capsule with 5-6 people to orbit. Both rockets have per-pound launch costs approximately one-fifth that of comparablerockets. Long-term plans call for evolving the basic design to heavy-lift and super-heavy lift rockets, assuming SpaceX survives its legal battles with defense giants like Northrup Grumman. Musk believes that ultimately a launch cost of '$500 per pound or less is very achievable' (compared to $10,000 per pound for the Space Shuttle). Elon Musk is a member of the Mars Society, and started SpaceX after he realized that current launch costs would be a large barrier to his plans for a philanthropic mission to put an experimental greenhouse with food crops on Mars.
This radio interview with Elon Musk from 2001 is pretty neat, and has some information I haven't seen elsewhere.
Hubble Origins Probe: replace instead of repair?
on
A Star of Space and Film
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Below is a relevant story I submitted a few days ago, which was unfortunately rejected. I might try submitting it (or a related story) again soon, and would appreciate any tips on how I could improve the chances of the submission being accepted (besides, you know, tossing in random comments about Linux/SCO/Doom3):
An international team led by Johns Hopkins University astronomers have proposed an alternative to sending a robotic or manned repair mission to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope. Their proposal is to build a new Hubble Origins Probe, reusing the Hubble design but using lighter and more cost-effective technologies. The probe would include instruments currently waiting to be installed on Hubble, as well as a Japanese-built imager which 'will allow scientists to map the heavens more than 20 times faster than even a refurbished Hubble Space Telescope could.' It would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to build, approximately the same cost as a robotic service mission.
On that note, here's another rejected space-related submission which I probably won't be trying to submit again. Someone else is more than welcome to try submitting it, though.
As reported in Space Race News, this Sunday Volvo will be airing a Super Bowl ad comparing one of their new cars to a rocket blasting off into space. The release says, 'At the commercial's end, the astronaut removes his helmet, is none other than Virgin Group chairman Sir Richard Branson, as the ship will be branded Virgin Galactic, with actual takeoffs scheduled for 2007.' Volvo will tout Boldlygo.com in the ad, a web site which will allow visitors to sign up for a chance to be the first passenger on Burt Rutan's SpaceShipTwo.
Here's my recently-rejected slashdot submission on this, which has more info:
Hubble Origins Probe: replace instead of repair?
An international team led by Johns Hopkins University astronomers have proposed an alternative to sending a robotic or manned repair mission to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope. Their proposal is to build a new Hubble Origins Probe, reusing the Hubble design but using lighter and more cost-effective technologies. The probe would include instruments currently waiting to be installed on Hubble, as well as a Japanese-built imager which 'will allow scientists to map the heavens more than 20 times faster than even a refurbished Hubble Space Telescope could.' It would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to build, approximately the same cost as a robotic service mission.
Sorry about that. I guess part of the problem is that my submission wasn't really concerned with a single article per se. Rather, there were a number of different things related to the CEV which have happened over the past few months, none of which had been reported on slashdot.
I think I've also been spending too much time on Wikipedia, and have thus gotten quite link-happy.
"Oh, P.I. stuff mostly," Hackworth said. Supposedly Finkle-McGraw still kept up with things and would recognize the abbreviation for pseudo-intelligence, and perhaps even appreciate that Hackworth had made this assumption.
Finkle-McGraw brightened a bit. "You know, when I was a lad they called it A.I. Artificial intelligence."
Hackworth allowed himself a tight, narrow, and brief smile. "Well, there's something to be said for cheekiness, I suppose."
"In what way was pseudo-intelligence used here?"
"Strictly on MPS's side of the project, sir." Imperial Tectonics had done the island, buildings, and vegetation. Machine-Phase Systems-Hackworth's employer-did anything that moved. "Stereotyped behaviors were fine for the birds, dinosaurs, and so on, but for the centaurs and fauns we wanted more interactivity, something that would provide an illusion of sentience."
And he increased NASA funding, while most everything else got funding cuts. Was there something else you were expecting?
In any case, I'm of the opinion that cutting the Space Shuttle and ISS from the budget will free up more than enough to get us on the road towards permanent, largely self-sustaining lunar habitats.
I hate President Bush as much as the next reasonable person, but was this post modded as a Troll just because it acknowledged the fact that Bush proposed a new space plan?
Things like this are the perfect target for the Centennial Challenges program, a NASA program of prize contests for private endeavours to create or accomplish things related to space exploration. Spacesuit design is an area where a small private company can make appreciable progress with a reasonable amount of investment.
An even more specific goal is a better astronaut glove. Gloves sound like very simple things, but it's been pretty tricky so far to create a glove which can reliably remain intact in a vacuum while also giving the user a good degree of manual dexterity. A space policy analyst said the following in an article:
In fact, the glove is the biggest problem in designing the high-pressure space suits necessary to avoid the bends (the same problem a diver has when she surfaces too quickly) when an astronaut goes out into the vacuum of space. Larger joints like shoulders and knees have special designs that are zero-volume change, but no one has yet miniaturized such a design to finger joints.
Because this is a critical technology, and one that has great leverage in influencing launch system trades, I would propose the following:
Build a vacuum glove box with a task box inside (perhaps an automobile engine that has to be dissassembled and reassembled). Put up a purse of a million dollars to the first person who can achieve the task working through gloves under a pressure differential of half an atmosphere, without a break.
Unlike many space activities, it's a project that can be literally done in someone's garage, and it may spur a great amount of innovation for very low cost. Accordingly, it would make an excellent candidate for the Office of Exploration's new prize fund, and I hope they'll strongly consider it. At very low cost to the taxpayers, one or more successful concepts could lay to rest myths about the intrinsic difficulty of working in space, opening up the options for how we will get to the planets beyond redoing Apollo, perhaps saving billions in dollars, and constituting a major step toward becoming a truly spacefaring nation.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, I think this is one of the funniest comments I've seen in a while.
Curiously, there was something similar idea the Europeans had called NETLANDER, which would have landed a network of 4 geophysical stations on the surface of mars. Unfortunately, the project was cancelled in 2003.
d er/
Links:
http://smsc.cnes.fr/NETLANDER/
http://ganymede.ipgp.jussieu.fr/GB/projets/netlan
Thanks!
Out of curiosity, do you have an estimate for how much astronomers would be willing/able to pay for telescope time on a telescope with Hubble's capabilities (or something like Hubble built with modern tech). I've sometimes speculated about the feasibility of a for-profit space telescope, and figure that'd be an important bit of data to know.
Hehehe. Yeah, I kinda miss the old karma system. I also miss Signal 11, Oog the Caveman, and 575. ::reminisces::
One thing I didn't entirely follow from the articles, though I didn't read them all, is this going to be placed in high enough an orbit that it won't decay enough to hit the atmosphere before its useful lifetime is up.
The proposed telescope would be at 750km, whereas the original Hubble is at 600km. For comparison, the ISS ranges between 340km and 400km. The Space Shuttle can only go as high as 643km, and wouldn't be able to service the proposed probe.
It really is not feasible to mass produce rocket ships in this manner.
Why not? We mass-produce jumbo jets, which seem to have an order of complexity comparable to that of a rocket. And when something important on a jumbo jet breaks, usually everybody on board dies.
Are you sure about that? I hear lots of conflicting things regarding the reusability (or lack thereof) of the Falcon I first stage.
I could be wrong, but now I'm under the impression that they're planning on recovering the first stage, and salvaging data/parts from it (rather than reusing it entirely).
I don't know if Musk has owned a Ferrari, but he does own a $1 million McLaren F1. Presumably he did some shopping around and informed himself about Ferraris before he bought the McLaren.
I submitted the story as Science/Space, and was wondering the exact same thing. I guess some editor thought it'd be clever to include it in the "Upgrades" category, which I guess meant it had to be in IT. Or something.
Hah!
In any case, I think my karma's already been maxed out for a few years now.
I'm not so sure. Some estimates have put the cost of a Hubble repair mission at $2 billion. Let's say you had $3 billion to spend: Would you want to build 1 new telescope and repair 1 old telescope, or would you use the same money to buy 3 new telescopes?
I submitted the story, and because of some sloppy wording on my part a number of people now think that the $1 billion doesn't include the cost of launching the rocket. In actuality, it does include this cost already.
From their poster, here are the figures which go into the cost estimate (written as low/high estimate):
Spacecraft: $135M/$165M
Observatory ATLO: $80M/$100M
Deorbit Module: $5M/$10M
Optical Telescope Assembly: $150M/$210M
SI Mods: $20M/$30M
SI Integration: $5M/$10M
FGS: $30M/$55M
Fee: $64M/$87M
Contingency: $128M/$174M
Launch Vehicle: $130M/$150M
Total: $747M/$991M
Again, my apologies for wording my submission poorly.
According to the HOP's poster, the proposed telescope would mass 11,600 kg and be in a 750km orbit. They will be using an Atlas 531, with a cost of $150 million.
The $6 million Falcon I, cool as it is, can only lift 430kg to a 750km orbit. The $16 million Falcon V (the Falcon I's successor) will be able to still only lift 4,780kg to that altitude. It's possible that the rumored "Big F -- king Rocket" mentioned in the Fast Company article could lift it, but I think it'll be a few years at least before we see that available.
Actually, now that you mention it, such a "BFR" rocket could very well be available by the time the HOP is set to launch. Hmm...
Oh damn, I really should have reworded that. The $1 billion includes the costs of not only construction, but of the launch as well. From the release:
Norman told the committee that it would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to launch HOP, which he stated would continue and even expand upon the flow of science and discovery that has made the original Hubble Space Telescope a "national treasure."
No used parts are actually going on the rocket, at least according to the article. The only used parts they bought are a theodolite (a surveying tool to help align the rocket) and an old rocket fairing (to run some tests on, not put on the rocket).
I tried submitting a story on SpaceX a couple of weeks ago, but it was sadly rejected. Here's the text of the submission, along with some other interesting info:
Spaceflight Now has an article on SpaceX, a low-cost space launch company started by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk (he is no longer with PayPal). The article describes SpaceX's small-size Falcon I rocket, scheduled to launch a military imaging satellite on its maiden flight in March, and their medium-size Falcon V rocket, scheduled to lift a prototype Bigelow inflatable space habitat next year. Interestingly, the Falcon V has enough capacity to lift a Gemini-style capsule with 5-6 people to orbit. Both rockets have per-pound launch costs approximately one-fifth that of comparable rockets. Long-term plans call for evolving the basic design to heavy-lift and super-heavy lift rockets, assuming SpaceX survives its legal battles with defense giants like Northrup Grumman. Musk believes that ultimately a launch cost of '$500 per pound or less is very achievable' (compared to $10,000 per pound for the Space Shuttle). Elon Musk is a member of the Mars Society, and started SpaceX after he realized that current launch costs would be a large barrier to his plans for a philanthropic mission to put an experimental greenhouse with food crops on Mars.
This radio interview with Elon Musk from 2001 is pretty neat, and has some information I haven't seen elsewhere.
Below is a relevant story I submitted a few days ago, which was unfortunately rejected. I might try submitting it (or a related story) again soon, and would appreciate any tips on how I could improve the chances of the submission being accepted (besides, you know, tossing in random comments about Linux/SCO/Doom3):
An international team led by Johns Hopkins University astronomers have proposed an alternative to sending a robotic or manned repair mission to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope. Their proposal is to build a new Hubble Origins Probe, reusing the Hubble design but using lighter and more cost-effective technologies. The probe would include instruments currently waiting to be installed on Hubble, as well as a Japanese-built imager which 'will allow scientists to map the heavens more than 20 times faster than even a refurbished Hubble Space Telescope could.' It would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to build, approximately the same cost as a robotic service mission.
On that note, here's another rejected space-related submission which I probably won't be trying to submit again. Someone else is more than welcome to try submitting it, though.
As reported in Space Race News, this Sunday Volvo will be airing a Super Bowl ad comparing one of their new cars to a rocket blasting off into space. The release says, 'At the commercial's end, the astronaut removes his helmet, is none other than Virgin Group chairman Sir Richard Branson, as the ship will be branded Virgin Galactic, with actual takeoffs scheduled for 2007.' Volvo will tout Boldlygo.com in the ad, a web site which will allow visitors to sign up for a chance to be the first passenger on Burt Rutan's SpaceShipTwo.
Here's my recently-rejected slashdot submission on this, which has more info:
Hubble Origins Probe: replace instead of repair?
An international team led by Johns Hopkins University astronomers have proposed an alternative to sending a robotic or manned repair mission to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope. Their proposal is to build a new Hubble Origins Probe, reusing the Hubble design but using lighter and more cost-effective technologies. The probe would include instruments currently waiting to be installed on Hubble, as well as a Japanese-built imager which 'will allow scientists to map the heavens more than 20 times faster than even a refurbished Hubble Space Telescope could.' It would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to build, approximately the same cost as a robotic service mission.
Sorry about that. I guess part of the problem is that my submission wasn't really concerned with a single article per se. Rather, there were a number of different things related to the CEV which have happened over the past few months, none of which had been reported on slashdot.
I think I've also been spending too much time on Wikipedia, and have thus gotten quite link-happy.
"What sort of work?"
"Oh, P.I. stuff mostly," Hackworth said. Supposedly Finkle-McGraw still kept up with things and would recognize the abbreviation for pseudo-intelligence, and perhaps even appreciate that Hackworth had made this assumption.
Finkle-McGraw brightened a bit. "You know, when I was a lad they called it A.I. Artificial intelligence."
Hackworth allowed himself a tight, narrow, and brief smile. "Well, there's something to be said for cheekiness, I suppose."
"In what way was pseudo-intelligence used here?"
"Strictly on MPS's side of the project, sir." Imperial Tectonics had done the island, buildings, and vegetation. Machine-Phase Systems-Hackworth's employer-did anything that moved. "Stereotyped behaviors were fine for the birds, dinosaurs, and so on, but for the centaurs and fauns we wanted more interactivity, something that would provide an illusion of sentience."
And he increased NASA funding, while most everything else got funding cuts. Was there something else you were expecting?
In any case, I'm of the opinion that cutting the Space Shuttle and ISS from the budget will free up more than enough to get us on the road towards permanent, largely self-sustaining lunar habitats.
I hate President Bush as much as the next reasonable person, but was this post modded as a Troll just because it acknowledged the fact that Bush proposed a new space plan?
Things like this are the perfect target for the Centennial Challenges program, a NASA program of prize contests for private endeavours to create or accomplish things related to space exploration. Spacesuit design is an area where a small private company can make appreciable progress with a reasonable amount of investment.
An even more specific goal is a better astronaut glove. Gloves sound like very simple things, but it's been pretty tricky so far to create a glove which can reliably remain intact in a vacuum while also giving the user a good degree of manual dexterity. A space policy analyst said the following in an article:
In fact, the glove is the biggest problem in designing the high-pressure space suits necessary to avoid the bends (the same problem a diver has when she surfaces too quickly) when an astronaut goes out into the vacuum of space. Larger joints like shoulders and knees have special designs that are zero-volume change, but no one has yet miniaturized such a design to finger joints.
Because this is a critical technology, and one that has great leverage in influencing launch system trades, I would propose the following:
Build a vacuum glove box with a task box inside (perhaps an automobile engine that has to be dissassembled and reassembled). Put up a purse of a million dollars to the first person who can achieve the task working through gloves under a pressure differential of half an atmosphere, without a break.
Unlike many space activities, it's a project that can be literally done in someone's garage, and it may spur a great amount of innovation for very low cost. Accordingly, it would make an excellent candidate for the Office of Exploration's new prize fund, and I hope they'll strongly consider it. At very low cost to the taxpayers, one or more successful concepts could lay to rest myths about the intrinsic difficulty of working in space, opening up the options for how we will get to the planets beyond redoing Apollo, perhaps saving billions in dollars, and constituting a major step toward becoming a truly spacefaring nation.
i am a cat girl
naked, young, and so supple
please discipline me