![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI could post about OWS and/or the brewing troubles in North Africa but all i'd do is piss people off and to be frank I'm tired of fighting.
As such I'm going to focus on the monthly topic and the socio-political implications of a recent NASA study.
Thanks to Newton's laws, an object flying through space will continue to fly until it hits something. As such a spacecraft's effective range/capability is measured not in distance it travels but in the ability to attain a given velocity. (AKA Delta Velocity or "Dv").
This is Tsiolkovsky's Equation and it is the sine qua non of spaceflight,
Dv = Ve * ln[R]
where:
•Dv = Delta Velocity in m/s
•Ve = exhaust velocity (Impulse) of the propulsion system
•R = fuel/payload mass ratio
•ln[x] = natural logarithm of x, (the "ln" key on a scientific calculator)
Serious aerospace/enginnering geeks will have a portrait of Tsiolkovsky on thier wall and this equation on a T-shirt.
Using this equation one will see that it takes a ridiculous amount of energy/fuel to accelerate anything of meaningful size to Earth's orbital velocity (approx 7.8 km/s) and it is this simple fact that makes spaceflight so expensive.
The wierd thing is that this may be about to change.
A month back I lamented a poor enginnering choice on the part of NASA. A recent study would seem to confirm my fears that the cost of developing the SLS would effectively destroy NASA's exploration capability. But buried in the charts and graphs there is also a ray of hope.
Based on NASA's estimates close to 90% of the cost of building and maintaing an orbital or colonial infrastructure is in the launch. Because this is NASA and thier plan is based on a billion dollar single-use launcher they have logically concluded that large scale exploration/colonization of space is too expensive work.
But what happens if you substitue NASA's estimated launch costs (price per kilo), with those from a commercial launch company? (50-60 million dollars a launch vice 1 billion) Using NASA's own estimates putting men on the Moon or Mars becomes not just cheap by government standards but within the means of private enterprises and/or the independently wealthy.
Robert A Heinlein famously remarked; "If you can get into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere." and he may yet be proven right.
As such I'm going to focus on the monthly topic and the socio-political implications of a recent NASA study.
Thanks to Newton's laws, an object flying through space will continue to fly until it hits something. As such a spacecraft's effective range/capability is measured not in distance it travels but in the ability to attain a given velocity. (AKA Delta Velocity or "Dv").
This is Tsiolkovsky's Equation and it is the sine qua non of spaceflight,
Dv = Ve * ln[R]
where:
•Dv = Delta Velocity in m/s
•Ve = exhaust velocity (Impulse) of the propulsion system
•R = fuel/payload mass ratio
•ln[x] = natural logarithm of x, (the "ln" key on a scientific calculator)
Serious aerospace/enginnering geeks will have a portrait of Tsiolkovsky on thier wall and this equation on a T-shirt.
Using this equation one will see that it takes a ridiculous amount of energy/fuel to accelerate anything of meaningful size to Earth's orbital velocity (approx 7.8 km/s) and it is this simple fact that makes spaceflight so expensive.
The wierd thing is that this may be about to change.
A month back I lamented a poor enginnering choice on the part of NASA. A recent study would seem to confirm my fears that the cost of developing the SLS would effectively destroy NASA's exploration capability. But buried in the charts and graphs there is also a ray of hope.
Based on NASA's estimates close to 90% of the cost of building and maintaing an orbital or colonial infrastructure is in the launch. Because this is NASA and thier plan is based on a billion dollar single-use launcher they have logically concluded that large scale exploration/colonization of space is too expensive work.
But what happens if you substitue NASA's estimated launch costs (price per kilo), with those from a commercial launch company? (50-60 million dollars a launch vice 1 billion) Using NASA's own estimates putting men on the Moon or Mars becomes not just cheap by government standards but within the means of private enterprises and/or the independently wealthy.
Robert A Heinlein famously remarked; "If you can get into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere." and he may yet be proven right.
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/11 20:14 (UTC)Or until it's trapped into stable orbit by the gravitational pull of a larger object. Technically it continues to fly but there's no way out, unless something disturbs the system.
/nerd mode off
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/11 20:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/11 20:18 (UTC)Does that count?
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/11 20:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/11 20:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/11 20:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/11 20:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/11 20:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/11 20:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 04:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 02:47 (UTC)Indeed. Such as a pregnant woman in her "god I'm a whale" maternity outfit. XD
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 12:19 (UTC)If I may be so bold ...
Date: 17/10/11 20:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/11 20:36 (UTC)"The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing".
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 04:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/11 20:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/11 23:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 03:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 21:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 01:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 01:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 04:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 06:32 (UTC)The $54 Million is what Dish Network pays.
cutting the projected cost by an order of magnitude is still cutting the cost by an order of magnitude.
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 06:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 19:53 (UTC)Though it does make NASA look bad in that they have basically admitted (without actually doing so) that they don't know shit about running a launch program.
Free Space
Date: 18/10/11 01:18 (UTC)Sure, that all sounds great now yet
Date: 18/10/11 17:57 (UTC)Re: Sure, that all sounds great now yet
Date: 18/10/11 18:10 (UTC)Missed my point:
Date: 18/10/11 18:17 (UTC)Re: Missed my point:
Date: 18/10/11 18:59 (UTC)Re: Missed my point:
Date: 18/10/11 19:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 02:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 23:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/10/11 02:35 (UTC)That is something of a worry. The technology of "Brave New World by Aldous Huxley? We have about 60% of that today.
I haven't read any Ian McDonald. I'm more familiar with William Gibson. But I'll take a gander at him. Been needing some new reading material.
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 05:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 06:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 13:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 17:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/11 23:08 (UTC)Many would disagree but thepoint is that profitability is a lot closer than we've been lead to believe.
(no subject)
Date: 19/10/11 20:15 (UTC)