Re: Smallest orbital launch vehicle
- From: "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Dec 2005 14:42:05 -0800
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker,
I believe this one needs a fresh start: MICROSATELLITES; how small? How
cheap?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/cf44a7ab4ce942aa/56e2b15e9d98ba39?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=15#56e2b15e9d98ba39
Smaller is clearly getting better; - Whereas more satellites are
becoming either smaller and/or having achieved 25+ fold performance
gains within the same mass and volume, that plus their launch vehicles
have been getting more reliable along with achieving the most thrust
per inert kg. Thus basically I'm right about these notions of going
small so that faster and cheaper obtained science information can be
achieved without all the pomp and ceremony of our having to suck it up
in order to accomplish such things the one and only spendy as well as
the extra polluting NASA way.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.station/browse_frm/thread/c9cf9e81147ebc22/2f0498aa256e1142#2f0498aa256e1142
>The 1704th flight of a Soyuz launch vehicle was performed
>Thursday, December 22, 2005 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in
>Kazakhstan at 0:38 a.m. Baikonur time (Wednesday, December
>21, 2005 at 7:38 p.m., in Paris).
>Starsem, Arianespace and their Russian partners report
>that the Progress spacecraft was accurately placed on the
>target orbit for another mission to the ISS.
I'd have to say; - Damn impressive of them Russians.
Successful Ariane 5 Launch / Two satellites lofted via Ariane 5 rocket.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/dc41cbedd43b187f/2219f1e350236699#2219f1e350236699
>The two-tonne, cylinder-shaped MSG-2 will observe the
>changing weather over Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
>The Insat-4A satellite that flew with MSG-2 is remarkable
>for being three tonnes at launch, making it the biggest
>telecoms satellite so far to be built by the Indian Space
>Research Organization in Bangalore.
>The new spacecraft was sent to a geostationary orbit at an
>altitude of 35,800km above the Gulf of Guinea off the west
>coast of equatorial Africa.
-
http://www.arianespace.com/site/news/espace/espa146A.pdf
So, all in all we're talking about "Ariane-5" at the Liftoff mass of
780 tonnes, as having mamaged to launch 5 tonnes (.641% of the total
launch mass) worth of payload into geostationary orbits of roughly
35,800 km with energy to spare. Whereas the maximum liftoff of 790
tonnes accommodates the potential payload of 9.6 tonnes (1.215% of the
total launch mass) seems fairly impressive.
The main EPC stage operates for nearly 540 s (nine minutes).
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launchers_Access_to_Space/SEM0LR2PGQD_0.html
The new fuel load capacity of the EPC is:
LOX: 150 tonnes
LH2: 25 tonnes
Solid boosters (EAP)
>This means that together the twin boosters deliver a thrust of
>1300 tonnes at liftoff, nearly 10 times the level delivered by
>the new engine of the central stage.
Obviously there's still a great deal of inert mass associated with the
Ariane-5 method of launching whatever. Wishful thinking: - should
composites be applied in a way of trimming off sufficient inert rocket
mass, as then perhaps the payload(s) could be increased by 8+ fold,
suggesting 77+ tonnes as becoming the new and improved payload
capability instead of the current 9.6 tonnes.
Unfortunately, we seem to have more than our fair share of others
within this Usenet and throughout much of the internet world of being
extensively need-to-know, as having been sharing their scripted
infomercials of disinformation plus cloak and dagger PC infecting
spermology as having no intentions of ever sharing honest information
without a damn good fight. The last thing they seem to want is being
associated with sharing hard facts, or having been associating with
those seeking the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Photographic
pixel connecting is the same as scientific dot connecting, either of
which is absolutely taboo and/or nondisclosure worthy under their Third
Reich Aryan rules of whatever it takes for keeping their status quo and
the rest of us snookered into being as dumbfounded as possible.
A deployment of any 10 kg class of microsatellite simply isn't within
their wet dreams, nor is there intentions of allowing others to dream
of the days when the true capabilities of moon and planetary
explorations can be affordably accomplished for less than 10 cents on
the dollar, whereas the ratio of perhaps at worse being 100:1 of
getting a mere 10 of these microsatellites as representing a 100 kg
payload into orbiting the moon is suggesting that the entire launch
mass of 10 tonnes is perfectly sufficient as of today. A full payload
worthy of accommodating 100 such microsatellites is still only
representing a tonne that's taking all of a 100 tonne launch mass, and
of that ratio is only going to get a whole lot better as composites
manage to further reduce the inert rocket mass. Smaller also makes for
equator launches even more affordably the case, thus obtaining even
more bang per kg of fuel, which also represents considerably less
pollution for mother Earth.
-
Brad Guth
.
- References:
- Smallest orbital launch vehicle
- From: Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home)
- Smallest orbital launch vehicle
- Prev by Date: Re: NASA and the Vision thing
- Next by Date: Re: Moon Hoax people
- Previous by thread: Re: Smallest orbital launch vehicle
- Next by thread: Re: Smallest orbital launch vehicle
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
