Author Topic: Sea Launch Future (Read 155153 times)

HMXHMX · « **Reply #100 on:** 12/12/2015 07:31 pm »

Does anyone know how accurately the Odyssey platform holds position, relative to the nominal x-y coordinates of the desired launch point?

kq6ea · « **Reply #101 on:** 12/12/2015 07:47 pm »

That depends on the sea state and prevailing winds.

Some launches were delayed because the ocean currents 70' down, where the platform gets ballasted down to, along with the winds, were enough to push the platform around so much the available power wasn't enough to keep it in position.

If everything is calm, I seem to remember they can keep it pinned down to within a few feet, or maybe a few meters.

As conditions worsen, it takes more and more power to the thrusters to keep it in place, and eventually you run out of electrical and propulsive power.

There was a definite area specified in the FAA launch license, and if the platform strayed outside that area, it was cause for an abort, although when things got that bad they'd generally hold until conditions improved.

I don't know how much deviation from the assigned launch position the launch vehicle could accommodate, as that's outside my area of expertise.

Jim

HMXHMX · « **Reply #102 on:** 12/12/2015 07:52 pm »

Quote from: kq6ea on 12/12/2015 07:47 pm

That depends on the sea state and prevailing winds.

Some launches were delayed because the ocean currents 70' down, where the platform gets ballasted down to, along with the winds, were enough to push the platform around so much the available power wasn't enough to keep it in position.

If everything is calm, I seem to remember they can keep it pinned down to within a few feet, or maybe a few meters.

As conditions worsen, it takes more and more power to the thrusters to keep it in place, and eventually you run out of electrical and propulsive power.

There was a definite area specified in the FAA launch license, and if the platform strayed outside that area, it was cause for an abort, although when things got that bad they'd generally hold until conditions improved.

I don't know how much deviation from the assigned launch position the launch vehicle could accommodate, as that's outside my area of expertise.

Jim

Thanks very much!

Patchouli · « **Reply #103 on:** 12/12/2015 07:53 pm »

Quote from: arachnitect on 12/07/2015 05:42 pm

Who has a use for it, the industrial base to support it, and the money to pay?

Maybe China? More likely it gets scrapped. Perhaps there is some scenario where Commander is scrapped but Odyssey survives?

I can see Blue Origin buying it as it might be convertible to their orbital vehicle and Bezos has very deep pockets.

Kabloona · « **Reply #104 on:** 12/13/2015 01:02 am »

Quote from: Patchouli on 12/12/2015 07:53 pm

Quote from: arachnitect on 12/07/2015 05:42 pm
Who has a use for it, the industrial base to support it, and the money to pay?

Maybe China? More likely it gets scrapped. Perhaps there is some scenario where Commander is scrapped but Odyssey survives?

I can see Blue Origin buying it as it might be convertible to their orbital vehicle and Bezos has very deep pockets.

Except they're years away from orbital and would incur the same storage/maintenance costs that are bleeding its current owners dry. Plus they already have LC-36 coming online, with the associated refit costs.

There's a reason no one wants the platform. It's a giant money pit. And Bezos is notoriously frugal.

sdsds · « **Reply #105 on:** 12/13/2015 03:06 am »

Well, I want the platform, but the $30m/yr in maintenance costs puts it a bit outside my price range! I want it to launch small payloads to equatorial LEO, where they could be accumulated into the beginnings of a true space settlement. (Equatorial LEO is uniquely good for this from a space radiation perspective. See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35635)

I'm curious: if a venture put $30m/yr into launch infrastructure maintenance, and another $70m/yr into launch costs, how many kg/yr could that deliver into the "Globus" orbit?

Patchouli · « **Reply #106 on:** 12/13/2015 03:49 am »

I wonder if Commander could be converted to work with this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_%28rocket%29

kq6ea · « **Reply #107 on:** 12/13/2015 05:08 am »

All it takes is money!

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #108 on:** 12/13/2015 07:33 am »

Quote from: Patchouli on 12/12/2015 07:53 pm

Quote from: arachnitect on 12/07/2015 05:42 pm
Who has a use for it, the industrial base to support it, and the money to pay?

Maybe China? More likely it gets scrapped. Perhaps there is some scenario where Commander is scrapped but Odyssey survives?

I can see Blue Origin buying it as it might be convertible to their orbital vehicle and Bezos has very deep pockets.

Platform was already used from about 1984 as oil drilling rig until being retired after a major blowout in 1988 prior to launch pad conversion completed in 1999. The platform is old. Most floating oil facilities usually last about 20 years in service at sea. There are a lot of recent surplus platforms available for conversion.

Interesting factroid.

The original name of the platform was Ocean Ranger II before rename as the Ocean Odyssey after the Ocean Ranger disaster in 1982.

JazzFan · « **Reply #109 on:** 12/13/2015 03:01 pm »

Doesn't this boil down to math?

Supply = Sea Launch
Demand =

?

No demand = no future

arachnitect · « **Reply #110 on:** 12/13/2015 04:29 pm »

Quote from: JazzFan on 12/13/2015 03:01 pm

Doesn't this boil down to math?

Supply = Sea Launch
Demand = ?

No demand = no future

It's worse than that. If someone appears who could realistically operate the system profitably, the US and/or Russia will be inclined to block the sale to protect their own providers.

Kabloona · « **Reply #111 on:** 12/13/2015 05:35 pm »

My dollar bet is it's heading for the scrap yard.

Asteroza · « **Reply #112 on:** 12/22/2015 03:39 am »

Is the $30 million/year burn rate due to not being able to use shore power and reduce manning requirements? How far does that go down if doing the full mothballing? Is there a specific reason they need to be docked where they are now, if they are empty?

kq6ea · « **Reply #113 on:** 12/22/2015 04:50 am »

The LP is completely powered down and unmanned, but the ACS still has a small compliment of crew aboard. It's powered down about as far as it can be. The ACS crew makes weekly checks on the LP "just in case" anything bad happens.

I don't know what the cost of docking them elsewhere would be, but it's almost certainly higher than leaving them at Home Port. The Port of Long Beach made some significant rent reductions as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.

zubenelgenubi · « **Reply #114 on:** 12/23/2015 11:15 pm »

Has any Hollywood/entertainment filming been done aboard the LP or ACS? Is there any interest in doing so, to generate revenue?

(I'm thinking of the use of the former Kaiser Steel plant in Fontana, CA as an action film set.)
http://clui.org/ludb/site/kaiser-steel-plant-site

kq6ea · « **Reply #115 on:** 12/24/2015 12:38 am »

Yes, multiple scenes from "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" were filmed on the ACS and LP.

mto · « **Reply #116 on:** 12/30/2015 12:05 pm »

http://tass.ru/en/science/847808
Sea Launch project may resume operation in 2016 — CEO
Science & Space
December 30, 10:57 UTC+3
The interest in the project is growing after the successful launch of the Zenit carrier rocket with the Elektro-L satellite, the company's CEO says

parabolicarc · « **Reply #117 on:** 12/30/2015 04:56 pm »

Quote from: mto on 12/30/2015 12:05 pm

http://tass.ru/en/science/847808
Sea Launch project may resume operation in 2016 — CEO
Science & Space
December 30, 10:57 UTC+3
The interest in the project is growing after the successful launch of the Zenit carrier rocket with the Elektro-L satellite, the company's CEO says

That's probably true. It's also true that Energia has tried to sell off Sea Launch to everybody and anybody (Brazil, China, etc.) without any success thus far.

Hauerg · « **Reply #118 on:** 12/30/2015 05:09 pm »

Quote from: mto on 12/30/2015 12:05 pm

http://tass.ru/en/science/847808
Sea Launch project may resume operation in 2016 — CEO
Science & Space
December 30, 10:57 UTC+3
The interest in the project is growing after the successful launch of the Zenit carrier rocket with the Elektro-L satellite, the company's CEO says

But will there be any Zenits in the future?

kq6ea · « **Reply #119 on:** 12/31/2015 01:15 am »

No Zenit = No Sea Launch

At least not without spending a significant amount of money to refit the ACS and LP to use a different carrier rocket.

And good luck getting back people to run some of the systems........