Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: red26 on January 16, 2008, 01:58:48 PM
-
k guys I have a ? for the satellite guys out there.If a satellite goes down how do they fix it? I mean they dont put a crew in a rocket and send them up to the sat, I work with a company that uses sat, commo, and I was just wondering?
THANKS
RED26:aok
-
Software can be done from here. Hardware is a cost issue. The only way to get a repairman up there is the space shuttle.
The space shuttle is psychotically expensive.
So, when it breaks, you launch a newer, improved satellite.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Software can be done from here. Hardware is a cost issue. The only way to get a repairman up there is the space shuttle.
The space shuttle is psychotically expensive.
So, when it breaks, you launch a newer, improved satellite.
Target Practice?
-
Target practice will only work if you aren't producing debris.
Most satellites' orbit is due to degrade at some point, unless they're self-mobile.
This is one more example of the limitations imposed by the single biggest barrier in space development - the cost of getting mass out of the Earth's gravity and into orbit. Without this barrier we'd probably have some sort of space janitors in place to clean up the huge amount of debris already up there.
The best way to beat the cost of getting up our gravity well will be either an increase in production of rockets (mass production = costs drop) if rocket tech stays the same, or an increase in profits again if rocket tech stays still. Considering the profits floating in space for anyone to capitalize on, e.g. raw materials in the asteroid belt (something like a dozen earth's worth), it's just a matter of a few pioneers breaking the dam and getting things moving. In the case of materials like those, it's also a way to relieve the strip mining of the planet.
It's looking more and more like those pioneers will have be private and/or commercial rather than public like NASA, because too few people would support NASA even though it is getting bread crumbs of the budget.
This is a shame because outer space is the exact same as America used to be, "Terra Incognita". And we know how that piece of unknown land turned out to be.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Target Practice?
China did that and managed to piss off the entire world. Without power or some kind of reaction mass to stay in orbit, they'll eventually burn up on re-entry. Much cleaner that way.
-
Originally posted by moot
Target practice will only work if you aren't producing debris.
Most satellites' orbit is due to degrade at some point, unless they're self-mobile.
This is one more example of the limitations imposed by the single biggest barrier in space development - the cost of getting mass out of the Earth's gravity and into orbit. Without this barrier we'd probably have some sort of space janitors in place to clean up the huge amount of debris already up there.
The best way to beat the cost of getting up our gravity well will be either an increase in production of rockets (mass production = costs drop) if rocket tech stays the same, or an increase in profits again if rocket tech stays still. Considering the profits floating in space for anyone to capitalize on, e.g. raw materials in the asteroid belt (something like a dozen earth's worth), it's just a matter of a few pioneers breaking the dam and getting things moving. In the case of materials like those, it's also a way to relieve the strip mining of the planet.
It's looking more and more like those pioneers will have be private and/or commercial rather than public like NASA, because too few people would support NASA even though it is getting bread crumbs of the budget.
This is a shame because outer space is the exact same as America used to be, "Terra Incognita". And we know how that piece of unknown land turned out to be.
Well, I've always felt that we are stuck at a fence until we develop some sort of new "Star Trek" energy source. Rockets are nice, but I was under the impression that the controlling factor in them was the fuel, not the cost of the rocket.
-
Rockets themselves aren't cheap either. If you cut costs, you're headed for failure. Something as simple as using a regular steel nut instead of a stainless steel nut to cut costs caused the total, multi-million dollar, and very explosive failure of one of the X-Prize rockets.
The "star trek" energy source is getting there, but on a smaller scale. Radioactive isotopes are right now being used to power satellites & rovers, and it works pretty well. It wouldn't imagine it being powerful enough to break into orbit though in our lifetime, just enough to do stuff once you get there.
-
I can't recall any star trek like source of energy that's neither in the far future or unproven, besides polywell fusion.
I don't know what you mean by rocket fuel being the rockets' controling factor.
edit - There's a pretty big leap in performance once you use nuclear rockets, but the public would probably rather gouge their eyes out in protest than let something like that be used, even if it's clean and as safe as current rockets.. Their performance is something like 1000 tons to orbit per launch..
-
Originally posted by indy007
So, when it breaks, you launch a newer, improved satellite.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
Cheaper to just toss another one up there. And SOME PEOPLE (http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18624964.300-space-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html) aren't really happy about it.
:aok
-
Originally posted by moot
Their performance is something like 1000 tons to orbit per launch..
The ballpark number is indeed 2,000,000 lbs to low earth orbit. That's about 10 times what the Saturn V or present Shuttle rockets could lift.
http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship10.htm