Author Topic: ARCA Stabilo News (Read 24332 times)

bad_astra · « **on:** 12/01/2006 10:07 pm »

ARCA has picked up a new sponsor for the Stabilo tests: ONSTRUCTIM SA Company.

The test scheduled for 11-22 was rescheduled due to wind conditions. It was rescheduled to take place between the 28th and the 4th of December so hopefully there will be some news on this soon.

bad_astra · « **Reply #1 on:** 12/01/2006 10:08 pm »

http://www.arcaspace.ro/imagini/gallery/mari/a11prez_system.jpg

bad_astra · « **Reply #2 on:** 12/05/2006 01:28 am »

Test was successful, capsule was recovered.

bad_astra · « **Reply #3 on:** 01/16/2007 05:25 pm »

Mission 1 apparently slated for March
Profile:
Mission1 Unmanned 22000m Carrier balloon + Complete ship No Engine Start

Taken from http://www.arcaspace.ro/en/home.htm:

Objectives:
1. In flight test of the complete first stage (the carrier balloon)
+ the complete STABILO-1B vehicle during the climbing sequence and at the operational launch altitude of +20.000m
2. In flight test of the reentry procedures and recovery hardware: the drogue trisonic parachute, main and reserve parachutes.

I wish them success. If they use the same solar baloon to be used on the manned flights, this should be the largest balloon of it's kind, ever.

bad_astra · « **Reply #4 on:** 03/28/2007 04:44 pm »

delayed

bad_astra · « **Reply #5 on:** 08/20/2007 06:17 pm »

September 17-October 1 is latest date for Mission 2. The webpage is showing a decidely different looking Stabilo called "Stabilo 1b". The web page still shows the design for the Stabilo 1, so hopefully there will be more updates soon. The original version is essentially a small escape shere dropped from a LES which itself is lifted to altitude by a solar-montgolfier balloon. The new version seems to have the engine pass through the passenger housing.

bad_astra · « **Reply #6 on:** 09/22/2007 05:17 pm »

Wind delay, pushed back till Sept 25

meiza · « **Reply #7 on:** 09/22/2007 05:26 pm »

They finally realized what Goddard did 70 years ago, that it doesn't add any stability whether the nozzle is at the top or bottom.

bad_astra · « **Reply #8 on:** 09/22/2007 08:20 pm »

yeah. looks like they've changed the drawings to show it better. Looks like the nosecone probably houses the cabin-sphere's parachute. I guess we'll have a better idea after the test.

bad_astra · « **Reply #9 on:** 09/26/2007 06:12 am »

mission 2 success:
http://www.arcaspace.ro/imagini/gallery/mari/mission2.jpg
Looks like the entire vehicle landed under chutes, apparently there was no separation. No details yet.

paygar · « **Reply #10 on:** 10/17/2007 03:01 pm »

News from Arca

http://www.arcaspace.ro/en/home.htm

October 17, 2007 - RM. VALCEA
Mission3 scheduled for May 2008. Flight data and launch location not yet disclosed. The launch will be made from the sea with the help of a large marine platform designed at ARCA in the past year. The marine platform is under construction.

October 16, 2007 - BUCHAREST
ARCA wins 3 governmental contracts of 1.6 mil Euro (2.3 mil$) to develop a high altitude balloon for scientific platforms, a low cost unmanned air launched suborbital vehicle and a VTOL experimental vehicle during the National Research Program competition.

bad_astra · « **Reply #11 on:** 04/10/2008 12:33 am »

http://www.arcaspace.ro/suborbital/en/stabilo.htm
It looks like the page has been updated with information on the differences between the 1 and 1b variants.

Mission 3 now set for June 2008. Balloon + 1B. I think initially this was to be manned. I don't know if it still is, or not.

patmamu · « **Reply #12 on:** 06/19/2009 04:04 pm »

NASA's MLAS, same principle and shape as ARCA's STABILO

ARCA is going to be watching the NASA MLAS test this June because of the many similarities between the systems. The full article can be found here:

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/teams/arca/blog/nasas-mlas-same-principle-and-shape-as-arcas-stabilo

The article also has some new pictures of Stabilo and MLAS.

Side note, all but the last weblink in the previous posts have gone down.

bad_astra · « **Reply #13 on:** 09/14/2009 05:06 pm »

http://spacefellowship.com/2009/09/12/part-two-dumitru-popescu-builds-his-dream-rocket/

Interview with the founder of ARCA. Since they plan a suborbital rockoon launch next month, seems relevant.

bad_astra · « **Reply #14 on:** 11/04/2009 07:47 pm »

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/11/exclusive_romanias_lunar_ballo.html

Interview was posted today, but the carrier ship left last week. I don't know if they have test launched, scrubbed, or are still boating.

bad_astra · « **Reply #15 on:** 11/13/2009 10:11 pm »

Launch is scheduled for Nov 14

DiggyCoxwell · « **Reply #16 on:** 11/17/2009 09:30 pm »

Quote from: bad_astra on 11/04/2009 07:47 pm

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/11/exclusive_romanias_lunar_ballo.html

Interview was posted today, but the carrier ship left last week. I don't know if they have test launched, scrubbed, or are still boating.

They've postponed their launch attempt due to some balloon problems.
Latest I have from the ARCA website is that they are leaving the Black Sea launch zone and returning to port..

bad_astra · « **Reply #17 on:** 11/18/2009 03:18 pm »

I know they seem to favor the oddball over the tried-and-true every time, but throwing the solar montgolfier into this seems counterproductive.

If they'd used clusters of weather balloons like John Powell's group, they could have made their attempt, most likely. Obviously this is much more expensive.

I've inflated large solar balloons before (abviously not as big as that world's biggest thing they have on their hands), and it's an incredible hassle. I can't imagine trying it on ship in choppy water. As soon as enough sea spray hit the envelope the mission was over.

Danderman · « **Reply #18 on:** 11/18/2009 03:22 pm »

What we know about this group is that they don't fly very much.

Zond · « **Reply #19 on:** 07/24/2010 01:30 pm »

Arca is planning another launch attemp of the Helen 2 rocket: http://www.arcaspace.ro/

Space Pete · « **Reply #20 on:** 08/04/2010 02:01 pm »

ARCA will launch Helen 2 space rocket from the Black Sea, between August 3 – 5.

Launching Helen 2 rocket, ARCA wants to achieve two objectives:
- launching the first Romanian space rocket in a suborbital flight
- achieving the first flight in Google Lunar X Prize

Helen 2 system overview
Helen 2 is a suborbital system consisting of a helium balloon with 0 pressure, that lifts a two stage rocket vehicle and payload European Lunar Lander (ELL). The payload is a pressurized capsule that carries avionics, such as accelerometers, cameras, satellite tracking systems, GPS, sensors, telemetry equipment, etc.

Flight sequence
The 281 NSSL Constanta ship will carry the ARCA team and the equipments inside the Black Sea safety zone, in the point of the balloon inflation.
The ascension of the balloon will take about an hour at the altitude of 14 000 m. During the launch in the center area of safety, the flight may be canceled by detaching the carrier rocket and its destruction at the impact with the water at any time necessary.
At that altitude, the vehicle will command the separation and start the first stage rocket engine. It will run 30s, and accelerate the vehicle up to speed 420m / s and altitude of 21.000m.
After consumption of the fuel first stage, the second stage will be switched on and will accelerate the vehicle for another 40s, up to speed 1200 m / s and at altitude of 34.000m. Weightlessness will follow up on reentry.
From this altitude, the vehicle will climb inertial to an altitude of 80.000m. Follows the reentry into Earth's atmosphere and recovering the capsule, the stage rocket, the capsule of the balloon equipment and the balloon itself. All these elements are provided with radio and satellite-tracking equipment.

Funding
The program of the Helen 2 space rocket was done with exclusively private funds. Our partners for this Mission 4 are BRD Group Societe Generale (principal partner) and Rompetrol (assures the logistics for the ships).

www.arcaspace.ro

Danderman · « **Reply #21 on:** 08/04/2010 02:59 pm »

80,000 meters - 80 kilometers, which is not a spaceflight.

Space Pete · « **Reply #22 on:** 08/05/2010 03:27 pm »

Mission 4 postponed
04 August 2010 - Constanta

Today took place the attempt to launch Mission 4. ARCA team, together with the launch equipments, were transported on the Black Sea onboard NSSL 281 Constanta ship. The launch procedures were carried out perfectly, but the helium balloon shell ruptured and the team could no longer continue with the launch. The next launch attempt will take place in october 2010, after completing construction of a new balloon.
Photo gallery here: http://picasaweb.google.com/arcaorbital/Mission4#

www.arcaspace.ro

bad_astra · « **Reply #23 on:** 08/05/2010 05:46 pm »

Green envelope. I am assuming they decided to no longer go with a solar-Montgolfier. Probably a good thing. Still, they can't even get a hot air balloon in the air and there is no information that they have ever tried to test the rocket from a ground launch.

bad_astra · « **Reply #24 on:** 08/05/2010 05:53 pm »

In a completely unrelated and probably politically incorrect item from looking over the launch attempt photos,

http://picasaweb.google.com/arcaorbital/Mission4#5501600151861533202

The Romanian military recruits hotties.

rpspeck · « **Reply #25 on:** 08/21/2010 09:47 pm »

RE 80 km:

The American FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has for decades defined a radio transmitter operating above 50km altitude as a "Space Station", meaning a radio transmitting station operating IN SPACE!

Since the environment above 50 km ceases to be "Air", but becomes "something different" - part of the Ionosphere in this case - this is an appropriate reference line. The propagation of Radio Signals originating above that altitude is quite different from that which occurs at lower altitudes.

This is also roughly the altitude where “Air Pressure” drops below 1 millibar, about 0.76 Torr, which is below the traditional threshold of “High Vacuum”. It is an altitude at which even low Ballistic Coefficient objects (like small, tumbling rockets) have terminal velocity above the speed of sound. Aerodynamic forces are insignificant and useless for normal craft flying at less than that 100 meters per second.

With a Noon Sky Brightness less than 1 candela per square meter (1/3000 of the low altitude, clear sky brightness in clean, dry air), this is a “Black Sky”!

High Vacuum, Black Sky, insignificant aerodynamic effects at normal velocities: This is Space!

No, neither this nor any other altitude is universally accepted as “Beginning of Space”. The FAI uses the term Kármán line or speaks of a "100 km altitude boundary for astronautics". Von Kármán offered this altitude only as the point where Orbital Dynamics would dominate aerodynamic effects (ie, aerodynamic flight would require greater than orbital velocity, so that lift would be unnecessary). In fact, 100 km is the threshold for Orbital Flight, with one pass around the Earth becoming possible just above that level (0.06 day orbital lifetime). 150 km can give 8 orbits and 200 km gives 100 (SMAD). But for suborbital trajectories, this is irrelevant: anything above 50 km will look and feel like Space!

Others suggest that “Earth's Atmosphere” includes at least the Thermosphere (to 600 km altitude) and possibly the Van Allen Radiation Belts, since these are generated by the collision of energetic particles with air molecules (with some charged recoil particles subsequently held in place by Earth's magnetic field).

the U.S. definition of an astronaut, which is still held today, is a person who has flown to more than 50 nautical miles (~80 km) altitude.

PICK A NUMBER – Then FLY TO IT! I am much more impressed by people who Go Places and Do Things, than by people who Quibble about Words!

thomson · « **Reply #26 on:** 08/21/2010 11:26 pm »

Is the Helen 2 rocket passively stabilized? There seem to be no actuators of any kind. See this photo: http://picasaweb.google.com/arcaorbital/Mission4#5501600049916608706.

There was long thread somewhere about rocket pendulum fallacy with folks arguing one way or the other. Unfortunately, there is still no actual flight that would conclude the dispute.

imcub · « **Reply #27 on:** 08/22/2010 06:57 pm »

Quote from: thomson on 08/21/2010 11:26 pm

Is the Helen 2 rocket passively stabilized? There seem to be no actuators of any kind. See this photo: http://picasaweb.google.com/arcaorbital/Mission4#5501600049916608706.

There was long thread somewhere about rocket pendulum fallacy with folks arguing one way or the other. Unfortunately, there is still no actual flight that would conclude the dispute.

Was this just a test of the balloon system? The rocket seems to be floating a bit high to actually contain propellant.

http://picasaweb.google.com/arcaorbital/Mission4#5501600118410831362

Space Pete · « **Reply #28 on:** 10/03/2010 08:48 pm »

Helen 2 successfully launched.
October 03, 2010 - Constanta.

ARCA has successfully launched the first Romanian space rocket and completed the first flight in the Google Lunar X Prize Competition. More details about this event after the press conference, which will take place, on October 4 at 11 o'clock.

www.arcaspace.ro/en/home.htm

bad_astra · « **Reply #29 on:** 10/13/2010 07:04 am »

They don't have an image of the rocket firing, as far as I can see. They claim a 30 second burn from 14,000 meters to 40km

Is there any independent verification about this?

simonbp · « **Reply #30 on:** 10/15/2010 10:52 pm »

I can't even get the site to load...

eeergo · « **Reply #31 on:** 10/15/2010 11:05 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 10/15/2010 10:52 pm

I can't even get the site to load...

That's because the last link has a weird redirection that is no longer valid. Try this: http://www.arcaspace.com/en/home.htm

jongoff · « **Reply #32 on:** 12/22/2010 03:13 pm »

Here's an interesting youtube supposedly from the ARCA guys. I didn't realize that as part of their GLXP team they were seriously thinking of building a sea-launched supersonic carrier plane and an earth to LEO rocket...

http://is.gd/jc29B

Note: it doesn't look like any sharks were harmed in the making of this clip...even if they may have been jumped in the process...

~Jon

kevin-rf · « **Reply #33 on:** 12/22/2010 03:37 pm »

Wow, every pop-up sat launcher needs a stealth carrier aircraft!!!

Cog_in_the_machine · « **Reply #34 on:** 12/22/2010 03:37 pm »

Quote from: jongoff on 12/22/2010 03:13 pm

http://is.gd/jc29B

Note: it doesn't look like any sharks were harmed in the making of this clip...even if they may have been jumped in the process...

~Jon

It's blatantly obvious they ripped off the F-22 Raptor's design and that bullet + porthole thing Virgin has going on (which raises the question of why the first stage needs to be piloted). Is this a good way to go about designing launch vehicles? Grab two cool looking vehicles and slap them together? They didn't jump the shark, the did a barrel roll over a whale if you ask me.

Although I approve the music

Someone over there has good taste.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #35 on:** 12/22/2010 03:40 pm »

They have also solved the problem of making a water proof payload fairings

Lars_J · « **Reply #36 on:** 12/22/2010 05:08 pm »

LOL... was that an April 1st joke by them?

'Cause a sea-launched stealth supersonic carrier aircraft is easier to develop than a runway based one?

I had to LOL at the payload being pulled through the water as well.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #37 on:** 12/22/2010 06:33 pm »

The PT Barnum school of rocket design

simonbp · « **Reply #38 on:** 12/23/2010 10:56 pm »

OMG: YF-23 and SS1 had a love child!

Zond · « **Reply #39 on:** 02/07/2012 06:39 pm »

ARCA is planning to build the Executor Kerosene/LOX rocket engine to power their plane en rocket.

bolun · « **Reply #40 on:** 01/23/2013 07:34 pm »

Interview with Dumitru Popescu

http://explorersweb.com/space/news.php?id=21224

RanulfC · « **Reply #41 on:** 01/23/2013 09:23 pm »

My "major" (but by far not the ONLY one mind you

) question would be: "If you're going to make it a sea-plane carrier aircraft why NOT put the payload/Upper-stage ontop instead?"

It would make the hydro/aerodynamics so much easier as well as reducing your second-stage/payload water-logging issues

Then again... it does LOOK cool

Randy

RanulfC · « **Reply #42 on:** 01/23/2013 09:25 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 12/23/2010 10:56 pm

OMG: YF-23 and SS1 had a love child!

You forgot one: The YF2Y-1 had a genetic "hand" in there somewhere

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Convair-SeaDart.html

Randy

kevin-rf · « **Reply #43 on:** 01/23/2013 09:57 pm »

Quote from: RanulfC on 01/23/2013 09:23 pm

My "major" (but by far not the ONLY one mind you ) question would be: "If you're going to make it a sea-plane carrier aircraft why NOT put the payload/Upper-stage ontop instead?"

But Randy, this would way it would be more fun than delivering a Nuke using a LABS profile in a SkyRaider.

Knowing this groups history, the SkyRaider mission might be a tad safer