I know you guys have addressed this and I just don't get it. If
launch costs aren't the problem, what is? Everywhere I turn I see
the major impediment to routine space operations (well beyond what we
have today) is the cost to reach LEO or GEO. If it's not launch
costs, what is it?
affecting them and the like? Or a book I can buy (something
like, "Launch Costs for Idiots")?
Thanks in advance for any information.
Jack
--- In spacesettlers@y..., jdr7181@c... wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 jdr7181@c... wrote:
>
> NSS has identified a series of "Barriers" and "Milestones" for space
> development:
>
> http://209.9.224.230/nss/community/roadmap/Rmappages/BMChart.htm
>
> -- Lack of Affordable Space Transportation is number 4 on the list;
> other items are related to incentives for private development and
> government funding, which are the other side of the money equation.
>
> Arthur Smith (apsmith@a...)
1. Lack of government funding mechanism.
2. Lack of incentives for private capital investment.
3. Launch costs.
But I don't think you can conclude (taking their "barriers" at face
value) that the reduction of "launch costs" isn't significant to the
opening of space to commercial efforts. And I seem to get some of
that on this list a lot. The fact that "launch costs aren't the
problem" . . . aren't they, though? I mean, wouldn't cheaper access
increase the "incentives for private capital investment" and reduce
the reliance on "governement funding mechanism"? I don't understand
the contention of many members on this list that launch costs aren't
the problem.
Jack
It's a hairsplitting argument. Here goes:
Companies are able to launch and operate telecommunications and remote
sensing satellites profitably, and at the end of the day, launch costs are
only a small fraction of the overall cost of such systems. Therefore,
launch costs are not prohibitively high for existing space businesses.
HOWEVER...
Launch costs ARE prohibitively high for the space businesses that have yet
to develop. Launch costs are a big barrier to my dream of taking my
family on a one-week vacation to LEO. My family weighs 450 pounds, and
launch costs are, say, $2000/lb, which equates to $900,000 just in launch
costs alone, which is many times the value of the home in which we live.
Ron Menich
*************************
jdr7181@...
10/11/01 12:45 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: [spacesettlers] Launch Costs
I know you guys have addressed this and I just don't get it. If
launch costs aren't the problem, what is? Everywhere I turn I see
the major impediment to routine space operations (well beyond what we
have today) is the cost to reach LEO or GEO. If it's not launch
costs, what is it?
Also, is there a good site with tutorial on launch costs and factors
affecting them and the like? Or a book I can buy (something
like, "Launch Costs for Idiots")?
Thanks in advance for any information.
Jack
Launch costs are not a significant detriment to today's space businesses. Companies are able to launch and operate telecommunications and remote sensing satellites profitably, and at the end of the day, launch costs are only a small fraction of the overall cost of such systems. Therefore, launch costs are not prohibitively high for existing space businesses.
HOWEVER...
Launch costs ARE prohibitively high for the space businesses that have yet to develop. Launch costs are a big barrier to my dream of taking my family on a one-week vacation to LEO. My family weighs 450 pounds, and launch costs are, say, $2000/lb, which equates to $900,000 just in launch costs alone, which is many times the value of the home in which we live.
Ron Menich
*************************
jdr7181@...
10/11/01 12:45 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: [spacesettlers] Launch Costs
I know you guys have addressed this and I just don't get it. If
launch costs aren't the problem, what is? Everywhere I turn I see
the major impediment to routine space operations (well beyond what we
have today) is the cost to reach LEO or GEO. If it's not launch
costs, what is it?
Also, is there a good site with tutorial on launch costs and factors
affecting them and the like? Or a book I can buy (something
like, "Launch Costs for Idiots")?
Thanks in advance for any information.
Jack
--- In spacesettlers@y..., rmenich@m... wrote:
> It's a hairsplitting argument. Here goes:
>
> Launch costs are not a significant detriment to today's space
businesses.
> Companies are able to launch and operate telecommunications and
remote
> sensing satellites profitably, and at the end of the day, launch
costs are
> only a small fraction of the overall cost of such systems.
Therefore,
> launch costs are not prohibitively high for existing space
businesses.
exists and is available off-the-shelf?
>
> HOWEVER...
>
> Launch costs ARE prohibitively high for the space businesses that
have yet
> to develop. Launch costs are a big barrier to my dream of taking
my
> family on a one-week vacation to LEO. My family weighs 450
pounds, and
> launch costs are, say, $2000/lb, which equates to $900,000 just in
launch
> costs alone, which is many times the value of the home in which we
live.
But why? Are you saying that the added expense is due to developing
the new technology to get you and your family there? If so, why add
that to the launch costs? Especially if it's not the launch that
costs so much money? This makes no sense to me.
Jack
--- In spacesettlers@y..., jdr7181@c... wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., rmenich@m... wrote:
> > It's a hairsplitting argument. Here goes:
> >
> > Launch costs are not a significant detriment to today's space
> businesses.
> > Companies are able to launch and operate telecommunications and
> remote
> > sensing satellites profitably, and at the end of the day, launch
> costs are
> > only a small fraction of the overall cost of such systems.
> Therefore,
> > launch costs are not prohibitively high for existing space
> businesses.
>
> Is this because development costs are minimal since the technology
> exists and is available off-the-shelf?
>
> > HOWEVER...
> >
> > Launch costs ARE prohibitively high for the space businesses that
> have yet
> > to develop. Launch costs are a big barrier to my dream of taking
> my
> > family on a one-week vacation to LEO. My family weighs 450
> pounds, and
> > launch costs are, say, $2000/lb, which equates to $900,000 just in
> launch
> > costs alone, which is many times the value of the home in which we
> live.
>
> But why? Are you saying that the added expense is due to developing
> the new technology to get you and your family there? If so, why add
> that to the launch costs? Especially if it's not the launch that
> costs so much money? This makes no sense to me.
>
> Jack
communications satellite is small and doesn't cost near as much as a
family for that reason. Too, a communications satellite by renting
communications channels makes back its launching cost in a short time.
Another joker in the deck is the theoretical minimum launch cost. I
saw the figures someplace and don't remember them. But they were
quite small.
Take the amount of power it would take to lift a pound into orbit and
use the standard kilowatt hour fee your local power plant charges and
you get closer to $5 or $10 a pound.
This is a theoretical minimum and I'd bet that it is impossible to
reach economically. But we should be able to cut the estimated $2000
a pound down a lot.
It takes thousands of people to launch the Space Shuttle. This means
ten of thousands of man hours and over $100,000 in salaries alone. A
jumbo jet takes a lot less people to prepare it for a flight.
Some people feel that we can build a spacecraft as simple to maintain
as a jumbo jet. Which would cut launch costs by a great amount.
This may not be possible. But still we should be able to cut present
launch costs.
Some people feel that launch costs can be cut close to the minimum
possible. Others feel that we can't get much lower than today's cost.
My opininion is in between but closer to the former than the latter.
Rick Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@y..., jdr7181@c... wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., rmenich@m... wrote:
> > It's a hairsplitting argument. Here goes:
> >
> > Launch costs are not a significant detriment to today's space
> businesses.
> > Companies are able to launch and operate telecommunications and
> remote
> > sensing satellites profitably, and at the end of the day, launch
> costs are
> > only a small fraction of the overall cost of such systems.
> Therefore,
> > launch costs are not prohibitively high for existing space
> businesses.
>
> Is this because development costs are minimal since the technology
> exists and is available off-the-shelf?
>
> > HOWEVER...
> >
> > Launch costs ARE prohibitively high for the space businesses that
> have yet
> > to develop. Launch costs are a big barrier to my dream of taking
> my
> > family on a one-week vacation to LEO. My family weighs 450
> pounds, and
> > launch costs are, say, $2000/lb, which equates to $900,000 just in
> launch
> > costs alone, which is many times the value of the home in which we
> live.
>
> But why? Are you saying that the added expense is due to developing
> the new technology to get you and your family there? If so, why add
> that to the launch costs? Especially if it's not the launch that
> costs so much money? This makes no sense to me.
>
> Jack
communications satellite is small and doesn't cost near as much as a
family for that reason. Too, a communications satellite by renting
communications channels makes back its launching cost in a short time.
Another joker in the deck is the theoretical minimum launch cost. I
saw the figures someplace and don't remember them. But they were
quite small.
Take the amount of power it would take to lift a pound into orbit and
use the standard kilowatt hour fee your local power plant charges and
you get closer to $5 or $10 a pound.
This is a theoretical minimum and I'd bet that it is impossible to
reach economically. But we should be able to cut the estimated $2000
a pound down a lot.
It takes thousands of people to launch the Space Shuttle. This means
ten of thousands of man hours and over $100,000 in salaries alone. A
jumbo jet takes a lot less people to prepare it for a flight.
Some people feel that we can build a spacecraft as simple to maintain
as a jumbo jet. Which would cut launch costs by a great amount.
This may not be possible. But still we should be able to cut present
launch costs.
Some people feel that launch costs can be cut close to the minimum
possible. Others feel that we can't get much lower than today's cost.
My opininion is in between but closer to the former than the latter.
Rick Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@y..., jdr7181@c... wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., rmenich@m... wrote:
> > It's a hairsplitting argument. Here goes:
> >
> > Launch costs are not a significant detriment to today's space
> businesses.
> > Companies are able to launch and operate telecommunications and
> remote
> > sensing satellites profitably, and at the end of the day, launch
> costs are
> > only a small fraction of the overall cost of such systems.
> Therefore,
> > launch costs are not prohibitively high for existing space
> businesses.
>
> Is this because development costs are minimal since the technology
> exists and is available off-the-shelf?
>
> > HOWEVER...
> >
> > Launch costs ARE prohibitively high for the space businesses that
> have yet
> > to develop. Launch costs are a big barrier to my dream of taking
> my
> > family on a one-week vacation to LEO. My family weighs 450
> pounds, and
> > launch costs are, say, $2000/lb, which equates to $900,000 just in
> launch
> > costs alone, which is many times the value of the home in which we
> live.
>
> But why? Are you saying that the added expense is due to developing
> the new technology to get you and your family there? If so, why add
> that to the launch costs? Especially if it's not the launch that
> costs so much money? This makes no sense to me.
>
> Jack
communications satellite is small and doesn't cost near as much as a
family for that reason. Too, a communications satellite by renting
communications channels makes back its launching cost in a short time.
Another joker in the deck is the theoretical minimum launch cost. I
saw the figures someplace and don't remember them. But they were
quite small.
Take the amount of power it would take to lift a pound into orbit and
use the standard kilowatt hour fee your local power plant charges and
you get closer to $5 or $10 a pound.
This is a theoretical minimum and I'd bet that it is impossible to
reach economically. But we should be able to cut the estimated $2000
a pound down a lot.
It takes thousands of people to launch the Space Shuttle. This means
ten of thousands of man hours and over $100,000 in salaries alone. A
jumbo jet takes a lot less people to prepare it for a flight.
Some people feel that we can build a spacecraft as simple to maintain
as a jumbo jet. Which would cut launch costs by a great amount.
This may not be possible. But still we should be able to cut present
launch costs.
Some people feel that launch costs can be cut close to the minimum
possible. Others feel that we can't get much lower than today's cost.
My opininion is in between but closer to the former than the latter.
Rick Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@y..., jdr7181@c... wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., rmenich@m... wrote:
> > It's a hairsplitting argument. Here goes:
> >
> > Launch costs are not a significant detriment to today's space
> businesses.
> > Companies are able to launch and operate telecommunications and
> remote
> > sensing satellites profitably, and at the end of the day, launch
> costs are
> > only a small fraction of the overall cost of such systems.
> Therefore,
> > launch costs are not prohibitively high for existing space
> businesses.
>
> Is this because development costs are minimal since the technology
> exists and is available off-the-shelf?
>
> > HOWEVER...
> >
> > Launch costs ARE prohibitively high for the space businesses that
> have yet
> > to develop. Launch costs are a big barrier to my dream of taking
> my
> > family on a one-week vacation to LEO. My family weighs 450
> pounds, and
> > launch costs are, say, $2000/lb, which equates to $900,000 just in
> launch
> > costs alone, which is many times the value of the home in which we
> live.
>
> But why? Are you saying that the added expense is due to developing
> the new technology to get you and your family there? If so, why add
> that to the launch costs? Especially if it's not the launch that
> costs so much money? This makes no sense to me.
>
> Jack
communications satellite is small and doesn't cost near as much as a
family for that reason. Too, a communications satellite by renting
communications channels makes back its launching cost in a short time.
Another joker in the deck is the theoretical minimum launch cost. I
saw the figures someplace and don't remember them. But they were
quite small.
Take the amount of power it would take to lift a pound into orbit and
use the standard kilowatt hour fee your local power plant charges and
you get closer to $5 or $10 a pound.
This is a theoretical minimum and I'd bet that it is impossible to
reach economically. But we should be able to cut the estimated $2000
a pound down a lot.
It takes thousands of people to launch the Space Shuttle. This means
ten of thousands of man hours and over $100,000 in salaries alone. A
jumbo jet takes a lot less people to prepare it for a flight.
Some people feel that we can build a spacecraft as simple to maintain
as a jumbo jet. Which would cut launch costs by a great amount.
This may not be possible. But still we should be able to cut present
launch costs.
Some people feel that launch costs can be cut close to the minimum
possible. Others feel that we can't get much lower than today's cost.
My opininion is in between but closer to the former than the latter.
Rick Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@y..., jdr7181@c... wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., rmenich@m... wrote:
> > It's a hairsplitting argument. Here goes:
> >
> > Launch costs are not a significant detriment to today's space
> businesses.
> > Companies are able to launch and operate telecommunications and
> remote
> > sensing satellites profitably, and at the end of the day, launch
> costs are
> > only a small fraction of the overall cost of such systems.
> Therefore,
> > launch costs are not prohibitively high for existing space
> businesses.
>
> Is this because development costs are minimal since the technology
> exists and is available off-the-shelf?
>
> > HOWEVER...
> >
> > Launch costs ARE prohibitively high for the space businesses that
> have yet
> > to develop. Launch costs are a big barrier to my dream of taking
> my
> > family on a one-week vacation to LEO. My family weighs 450
> pounds, and
> > launch costs are, say, $2000/lb, which equates to $900,000 just in
> launch
> > costs alone, which is many times the value of the home in which we
> live.
>
> But why? Are you saying that the added expense is due to developing
> the new technology to get you and your family there? If so, why add
> that to the launch costs? Especially if it's not the launch that
> costs so much money? This makes no sense to me.
>
> Jack
communications satellite is small and doesn't cost near as much as a
family for that reason. Too, a communications satellite by renting
communications channels makes back its launching cost in a short time.
Another joker in the deck is the theoretical minimum launch cost. I
saw the figures someplace and don't remember them. But they were
quite small.
Take the amount of power it would take to lift a pound into orbit and
use the standard kilowatt hour fee your local power plant charges and
you get closer to $5 or $10 a pound.
This is a theoretical minimum and I'd bet that it is impossible to
reach economically. But we should be able to cut the estimated $2000
a pound down a lot.
It takes thousands of people to launch the Space Shuttle. This means
ten of thousands of man hours and over $100,000 in salaries alone. A
jumbo jet takes a lot less people to prepare it for a flight.
Some people feel that we can build a spacecraft as simple to maintain
as a jumbo jet. Which would cut launch costs by a great amount.
This may not be possible. But still we should be able to cut present
launch costs.
Some people feel that launch costs can be cut close to the minimum
possible. Others feel that we can't get much lower than today's cost.
My opininion is in between but closer to the former than the latter.
Rick Brooks
On Mon, 19 May 2003, Al Globus wrote:
> everything has to be a light as possible and there are no repairmen.
> Both are a consequence of launch cost and safety. Designing things to
> be small and light is expensive. Simple example, you need expensive
> rad hard electronics because you can't afford to simply put them inside
> of a bunch of lead for shielding. No repairman means everything needs
> to be extremely reliable and redundant - meaning expensive. If
> transportation to orbit were cheap and reliable, you could have
> repairmen.
>
Yes, that is true - and there's a bit of a bleeding-edge
zero-margin-for-error approach in the space business that drives up
costs all over the board in this sort of fashion. But still, you're
talking about an enormous cost reduction to make routine repairs
economically sensible - these things are still going to be operating
away from easy access for years at a time, and they really do need
to be pretty reliable...
But I agree that cheaper launches really wouldn't hurt, and might help
a lot.
>
> Al Globus
> CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
By the way Al, I'm coming to San Jose for ISDC this weekend - will you
be there? We're supposed to get a tour of NASA Ames Friday morning...
Arthur
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Persohn-Costa
According to this guy, it could be done, and is the key to bringing
costs down:
A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html
Regards,
Mike Combs
IIRC one shipyard in South Korea pumps out 1 new Supertanker every 36
hours - apparently that isn't even their full capacity.
(http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm) was proposed that
construction was said to be similar to a ship and that the plans were
run past a shipyard to see if they could build it, which they said they
could.
If you can build supertankers that fast, I don't see why you couldn't
build rockets using an assembly process to build them just as fast.
Brett
Combs, Mike wrote:
At 06:34 AM 5/23/2006, you wrote:
>From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
>Persohn-Costa
>
> > How Easy would it be to factory-build rockets like we do automobiles?
automobiles have been built. To get really good at building rockets we
need to build a lot more than a few thousand. The only real market for
millions of rockets capable of reaching orbit may well be tourism. Thus,
developing the space tourist market is probably the most important single
space activity today (IMHO).
Tourism is not the only marketplace. The Aquarius Rocket concept
looks to address a new market for delivering low cost supplies to
space such as fuel for in-orbit refueling as well as gas and
consumables for those working in space. This concept is optimized for
a delivery of 100 rockets a year minimum and then stagin all
deliveries on a depot in space that has a space tug that can deliver
cargo to anywhere in orbit on demand in generally less than 24 hours.
the largest market out there is for in-orbit refueling. Especially
with NASA designing their future CEV to be refuelable in space. There
is already a market there for it in fact with refueling all the LEO
satellites to greatly expand their lifetime well beyond the 2-5 years.
In the long run, this is also needed to throw up material for
shielding and the like for future colonies.
Anyhow, it is currently moving along slowly with a first launch of
2015 but it is a step in the direction in which you are all talking
about for deliveries of large quantities of mass into space.
You can see it described here
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/544/1 and in a pdf presentation
here:
http://homepage.mac.com/fcrossman/NorCalSAMPE/Comp_WS_papers/Turner_012204.pdf
Ryan Z
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> At 06:34 AM 5/23/2006, you wrote:
> >From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> >[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
> >Persohn-Costa
> >
> > > How Easy would it be to factory-build rockets like we do
automobiles?
>
> To date a few thousand large rockets have been built. Billions of
> automobiles have been built. To get really good at building rockets we
> need to build a lot more than a few thousand. The only real market for
> millions of rockets capable of reaching orbit may well be tourism.
Thus,
> developing the space tourist market is probably the most important
single
At 09:46 AM 5/23/2006, you wrote:
>Tourism is not the only marketplace. The Aquarius Rocket concept
>looks to address a new market for delivering low cost supplies to
>space such as fuel for in-orbit refueling as well as gas and
>consumables for those working in space.
(is the Hubble refuelable?).
>This concept is optimized for
>a delivery of 100 rockets a year minimum and then stagin all
>deliveries on a depot in space that has a space tug that can deliver
>cargo to anywhere in orbit on demand in generally less than 24 hours.
Be aware that there are a lot of orbits, the vast majority of which cannot
be reached in 24 hours. Furthermore, most of these orbits require a lot of
fueld to get to. I presume you mean low Earth orbits.
>I did a market analysis for this rocket in my day job and found that
>the largest market out there is for in-orbit refueling. Especially
>with NASA designing their future CEV to be refuelable in space.
Total planned CEV flights per year is around 4-8. 4 to the Moon and (I'm
guessing) 4 to the ISS.
I certainly do agree mass production will certainly cut averge costs
for launching rockets but I also believe less expensive methods will
have to be developed to move and launch rockets.
Canaveral certainly looks as if it is more expensive than the
meathods employed by the former Soviet Union to lauch their rockets.
At the same time, once the rockets are launched and reach their
destination recycling of materials will be another means. In T. A.
Heppenheimer's book Space Colonies re-using of rocket motors was one
method.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
>
> From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
> Persohn-Costa
>
> > How Easy would it be to factory-build rockets like we do
automobiles?
this guy claims that you can use pc computer boards and memory.
unmaned rockets frequently do so. when was the last time your
computer had to deal with vibrations sufficent to break metal.
he claims that it would be easy to adapt things off the shelf without
even bother to test to see if they can handle multi g acceleration in
different directions.
he claims there is no need to use radation protection going into a
high radiation zone.
do you really think this guy has a clue what hes talking about.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
>
> From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
> Persohn-Costa
>
> > How Easy would it be to factory-build rockets like we do
automobiles?
Shuttle and ISS astronauts use laptops as a matter of course.
processors and chips, running Linux using TCP/IP for communication. The
only 'space-qualified' chip is for encryption/decryption for ground
communications. These are in low Earth orbit. It's not clear that it would
function properly in higher orbits with more radiation.
At 03:21 PM 5/23/2006, you wrote:
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> Shuttle and ISS astronauts use laptops as a matter of course.
forces.
>
> SpaceDev has a satellite (actually a line of satellites) with
production
> processors and chips, running Linux using TCP/IP for
communication. The
> only 'space-qualified' chip is for encryption/decryption for ground
> communications. These are in low Earth orbit. It's not clear that
it would
> function properly in higher orbits with more radiation.
>
and how much of the satellite is designed around protecting those
chips and processors. im not saying that normal chips and processors
cant be used, but the chip boards and such must be designed to handle
the stress, and to protect the chips and memory. not exactly a cheap
thing.
Al,
refuelable satellites. However, there is a market
there that is waiting to be tapped. This market has
been identified in the NASA Ascent study (available at
Futron's website) and the there are no less than 3
different projects (DART that recently failed, Orbital
Express, and the Aquarius project itself) that I know
of currently being funded by the DoD aimed at proving
this technology.
The point is that there is an emerging market that
studies done both internally and by NASA and Futron
that has shown that this is a significant growth area.
As for the 24 servicing, that can be handled by
smart placement of depots. One in LEO around 300-400
km for the DoD and NASA's CEV, another one in
2000-3000km range for those earth observers and then
you park some in an orbit that can be easily launched
to from Korou, Baikanour, and Sea Launch for GTO
refueling. You are right in that no single depot can
service all of our near earth needs.
As for ISS marketplace, currently they can allow
upto 12 dockings on the US side and 12 dockings on the
Russian side per year. Some of those are for human
craft but if you could stage cargo at a depot, you can
maximize the remaining dockings for the remaining
docking slots.
Assuming we can prove that in-space refueling is
feasible, we can extend the lifetime of LEO flyers by
10-20 years and be able to launch GEO birds dry. This
alone could provide a marketplace where hundreds of
metrics tons of fuel is needed to be launched on a
yearly basis. Add in a tens of metric tons of other
consumables like air and food for the ISS and space
tourists staying at Bigelow habitats and the like and
you got yourself a need for mass produced rockets like
Aquarius.
Ryan
--- Al Globus wrote:
Robert,
cisco routers on spacecraft on numerous missions.
Heck, the mars pathfinder mission used a basic off the
shelf modem with only a few mods on it. Chips and
memory is also easy. What you're worried about are
gamma ray bursts doing random bit flipping. This is
easy to fix with having multiple processors on-board
and using a simple voting methodology for commanding.
That is, if you have 3 processors given three same
inputs, and two of them come out iwth the same output
and the third is different, you just go with the
majority and assume that the third processor has been
compromised in some way.
The same goes with memory. Just think of a simple
software RAID array on a satellite. Not to hard to
implement. Many university class satellites are in
fact running with standard off the shelf hardware
besides just those companies that Al has already
pointed.
Accoustics and Vibe can be an issue but that is a
very easy one to fix mechanically.
Ryan
--- Robert wrote:
At 03:46 PM 5/23/2006, you wrote:
>and how much of the satellite is designed around protecting those
>chips and processors. im not saying that normal chips and processors
>cant be used, but the chip boards and such must be designed to handle
>the stress, and to protect the chips and memory. not exactly a cheap
>thing.
proving it by putting a sat in orbit and operating it.
Putting these markets together seems to give one tens, or possibly very low
hundreds, of launches per year. By comparison, the airline industry moves
on the order of a billion people a year, and autos make on the order of a
hundred of billion trips per year. By all means develop rockets for
refueling, it's a big step in the right direction, but the applications it
supports do not appear to scale to the tens of thousands of launches per
year range, much less millions. Get the price right, and tourism
will. Even at $200K a pop, sub-orbital tourism models suggest on the order
of hundreds of flights per year.
> From: Robert
> and how much of the satellite is designed around protecting those
> chips and processors. im not saying that normal chips and processors
> cant be used, but the chip boards and such must be designed to handle
> the stress, and to protect the chips and memory. not exactly a cheap
> thing.
to the stress and vibration of space launch and/or spaceflight? I can see
power, radiation, and heat being a problem whilst in orbit, but the idea
computing technology can't stand up to launch conditions (and expecially G
loading) sounds a bit like an urban myth.
John.
i guess my dated data is showing again.
this as cheap as was suggested. to many things have to be very
precise. if an auto motive part is not precise, you end up burning a
little bit more fuel than you could otherwise. if a rocket part is not
precise, you blow the engine up. if this happens at the wrong place,
you could kill thousands of ppl
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote: