Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
The ISS feed is showing the view from the SSRMS end effector.  No audio of the crew yet, a little surprising considering the early capture.
2
Historical Spaceflight / Re: Atlas HACL Films
« Last post by catdlr on Today at 04:04 AM »
HACL 01333 5304 Atlas Agena ATDA alert 6/1/1966

sdasmarchives
Published on May 23, 2018

Film from the Atlas-Centaur Heritage Film Collection which was donated to the San Diego Air and Space Museum by Lockheed Martin and United Launch Alliance.  The Collection contains 3,000 reels of 16-millimeter film. From the archives of the San Diego Air and Space Museum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aV3Xs-_WmU?t=001

3
Historical Spaceflight / Re: Atlas HACL Films
« Last post by catdlr on Today at 04:03 AM »
HACL 01332 5304 Atlas ATDA 6/1/1966

sdasmarchives
Published on May 23, 2018

Film from the Atlas-Centaur Heritage Film Collection which was donated to the San Diego Air and Space Museum by Lockheed Martin and United Launch Alliance.  The Collection contains 3,000 reels of 16-millimeter film. From the archives of the San Diego Air and Space Museum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYy8pYxVD5o?t=001



4
Historical Spaceflight / Re: Atlas HACL Films
« Last post by catdlr on Today at 04:01 AM »
HACL 01331 5304 Atlas ATDA 6/1/1966 Blockhouse Activity

sdasmarchives
Published on May 23, 2018

Film from the Atlas-Centaur Heritage Film Collection which was donated to the San Diego Air and Space Museum by Lockheed Martin and United Launch Alliance.  The Collection contains 3,000 reels of 16-millimeter film. From the archives of the San Diego Air and Space Museum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1T2gElBwKM?t=001

5
I think it's very likely that launch slot cost will increase significantly with higher launch rate. Airlines and shipping companies are going to demand compensation.

I've never seen any evidence to support that claim.
6
I think it's sad that this topic has turned into a "evry launcher sucks when it's not reusable" topic. As writen before I think this ruines the NSF forum. I'll try to write down why I think the Arianespace launch offering will be commercialy competitive.
Let's start with the info posted by Lars-J.
SpaceX marketed their F9 launch price for $50-65 mln. But Iridium most likely payed 70mln for each of their launches.
Besides this, all US institutional F9 launches have a $ >90mln launch cost.
In earlier posts it's stated that addtionional services, security measures and launch insurance expane the difference. I think payload preparation services are the largest contributor to the price differance.
Afaik both at KSC/Cape and VdB.AF there are multiple (2+) payload preparation service providers, thus this isn't incuded into the basic launch price from US launch service providers. Arianespace includes basic payload preparation services in their basic launch offering because they are the sole payload preparation service provider at CSG.
I agree the quoted $100mln for a institutional launch is unfounded, I think Arianespace might be able to offer the same launch cost as SpaceX for the same mission.
The stated price for a basic A62 launch service is well below 100mln. (/$ xchange compicate the comparison)

Afaik it was Ariane 4 that performed very well against STS, Atlas II, III, Delta II, III and Titan. Ariane5 was developed initially for the Hermes shuttle. It first launched in early 2000's, thus it's the same generation as the EELV's. Arianespace experianced a very painfull transition from Ariane4 to Ariane5, because the maiden launch failed (both G and ECA). The past couple of years Arianespace had more launch demand than capability (for both Ariane 5 and Vega). With Ariane 6 and Vega-C the launch rate can increase by roughly a factor 1.5 (10 => 15).
The fixed institutional launch demand, also called buy European Act, was supposed to be 5x A6 payloads and 2x Vega-C payloads. Launches to GTO will very likely still be dual manifested (two sats on an A64). Afaik one A64 launch could orbit two GTO institutional payloads. Implementation of this guiranteed demand/launchers act is very complicated.
Arianespace orders launchers from three companies, Ariane from ArianeGroup, Vega from ELV and Soyuz from Starsem/Glovcosmos. The European launchers act will aply to both ArianeGroup and ELV, so there will still be two European providers to keep prices honest.
During the 2012 Ministerial there was no funding for a new first stage engine development. I still think this was a huge mistace, because this is the reason there was no new engine for Ariane 6. (Sorry I don't consider the Vince-engine as new)
Prometheus and Myra will bring new engines to Arianespace (I'm very sure ArianeGroup and Avio are involved in both). Impementation of both will be as risky as the move from A4 to A5. The availability of Vega-C and Ariane6 will reduce the risk of methane fuel implementation, because they can function as back-up in case of a anonaly.
Between 2010 and 2014 Russia invaded the Krim, and Soyuz from CSG price went up to 75-85mln. That's why Europe wants Ariane  62 ASAP. And this is most likely also why EURockot and Dnepr launchservices stoped. Vega-C can replace their role for Europe. I expect that Vega-C will also launch the Sentinel 1C &1D, not Ariane 62.
I'm conviced that Vega launched will remain cheaper than Falcon 9 launches.

I totaly agree with the statement that the businesscase for reusable launchers relies on the high demand from LEO comsat constelations. I think there are two mayor risks:
1) radio interferance with GEO systems or ground systems, this still has to be proved.
2) launch range slot availability. How often can the launch range (large sea area's and airspace sectors be closed)
I think it's very likely that launch slot cost will increase significantly with higher launch rate. Airlines and shipping companies are going to demand compensation.

None of the prices you list include reuse. Nobody is debating that Ariane 6 can compete with single-use F9, or even twice-used F9. But it cannot compete with a booster than can be reused many times with minimal work.

Also, you say that it's not worthwhile to design a new reusable vehicle to compete with expendables because the payback is too long, if ever. Which may be true. But that's not Ariane's problem. It needs a new reusable vehicle to compete with other reusable vehicles. Or be left in the dust, it's their choice.
I would add that there still seems to be a disconnect in this discussion on the difference between price & cost. The former being what a customer pays to have an object launched into the ether, the latter being the cost of the service provider to perform this task. Having no apparent competitor to provide price pressure on ArianeGroup's bogeyman makes it even more difficult to distinguish these two values that are probably pretty significant variables that need to be plugged into any equation that attempts to forecast the business.

On the one hand, it's totally reasonable to assume that ArianeGroup/A6 will be good enough if they can get within <$20M of what SpaceX is offering under the current circumstances in mid 2018. The equation is completely transformed if SpaceX has such a wide margin that it can easily beat the price offered by a multinational, slow moving, quasi-jobs program entity and come out with sufficient margins. We'll have to wait to see how this plays out. It's a tough spot to be in for Ariane, to be sure. I don't think Europe should, or will, fold their hand on launch ability. I'm hoping this situation leads to something bold, including bold funding, to push the whole world forward, faster.
7
SpaceX Reusability / Re: Fairing reuse
« Last post by OxCartMark on Today at 03:17 AM »
So I saw that the fairings went up and I saw them fall back down and I see that Mr. Steven is in port.  Those are the basic facts.  Can anyone fill in the details?
8
Space Science Coverage / Re: Astronomy Thread
« Last post by hop on Today at 02:54 AM »
The "BZ509 is interstellar" paper is now on arxiv:

An interstellar origin for Jupiter's retrograde co-orbital asteroid - Fathi Namouni, Maria Helena Moreira Morais

Quote
Asteroid (514107) 2015 BZ509 was discovered recently in Jupiter's co-orbital region with a retrograde motion around the Sun. The known chaotic dynamics of the outer Solar System have so far precluded the identification of its origin. Here, we perform a high-resolution statistical search for stable orbits and show that asteroid (514107) 2015 BZ509 has been in its current orbital state since the formation of the Solar System. This result indicates that (514107) 2015 BZ509 was captured from the interstellar medium 4.5 billion years in the past as planet formation models cannot produce such a primordial large-inclination orbit with the planets on nearly-coplanar orbits interacting with a coplanar debris disk that must produce the low-inclination small-body reservoirs of the Solar System such as the asteroid and Kuiper belts. This result also implies that more extrasolar asteroids are currently present in the Solar System on nearly-polar orbits.
9
Two really good passes of the ISS and Cygnus tonight over New Hampshire. ISS easily visible with the naked eye, but needed binoculars to see Cygnus trailing by about the width of the binoculars field of view.
10
Rumors around seems to put this launch around early July, although this is not confirmed via any means.  :-\
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next