Thought experiment ... Rockets and balloons
I'm not a rocket scientist but I have an active imagination .....
Thinking of a recent XKCD .... to achieve orbit .... the hard part isn't the altitude it's the velocity ....
Would there be any advantage (cost effective) carrying a launch vehicle say to 37KM ... think Red Bull Stratos .... and firing the engines there???
So you're already 37KM up .... there's a lot less atmospheric drag ....
This would be like a drop from a plane ... but even higher ....
Thoughts???
de KA2PBT
It's called a Rockoon, and has been done before, google it.
Thing is now days it's launch would have to be permitted by the government just as much as any other major rocket flight. or get out of the USA like into the gulf of mexico to do the launch.
Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com On 9/18/2013 12:01 PM, Rob wrote:
I'm not a rocket scientist but I have an active imagination .....
Thinking of a recent XKCD .... to achieve orbit .... the hard part isn't the altitude it's the velocity ....
Would there be any advantage (cost effective) carrying a launch vehicle say to 37KM ... think Red Bull Stratos .... and firing the engines there???
So you're already 37KM up .... there's a lot less atmospheric drag ....
This would be like a drop from a plane ... but even higher ....
Thoughts???
de KA2PBT _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
It's to my understanding that the Rockoons didn't go to orbit, but did reach space with ballistic trajectories. The hard part with orbit is the pure speed needed. RIT had a programhttp://www.rit.edu/kgcoe/electrical/meteor/meteor/Home.htmlfor an orbital rockoon type project called METEOR a while back but it has since been ended. I believe the advantages of launching from 30+ km altitude are quickly outweighed by the added complexity of the system as a whole. In the end the rocket fuel for most orbital rockets needed to get to 37km altittude is a small fraction of the total fuel on board anyways.
my $0.02
Bryce KB1LQC
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Joe nss@mwt.net wrote:
It's called a Rockoon, and has been done before, google it.
Thing is now days it's launch would have to be permitted by the government just as much as any other major rocket flight. or get out of the USA like into the gulf of mexico to do the launch.
Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com On 9/18/2013 12:01 PM, Rob wrote:
I'm not a rocket scientist but I have an active imagination .....
Thinking of a recent XKCD .... to achieve orbit .... the hard part isn't the altitude it's the velocity ....
Would there be any advantage (cost effective) carrying a launch vehicle say to 37KM ... think Red Bull Stratos .... and firing the engines there???
So you're already 37KM up .... there's a lot less atmospheric drag ....
This would be like a drop from a plane ... but even higher ....
Thoughts???
de KA2PBT ______________________________**_________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/**listinfo/amsat-bbhttp://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
______________________________**_________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/**listinfo/amsat-bbhttp://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Actually it is a larger fraction than you would think. Because of Atmospheric Drag.
Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com On 9/18/2013 12:59 PM, Bryce Salmi wrote:
It's to my understanding that the Rockoons didn't go to orbit, but did reach space with ballistic trajectories. The hard part with orbit is the pure speed needed. RIT had a programhttp://www.rit.edu/kgcoe/electrical/meteor/meteor/Home.htmlfor an orbital rockoon type project called METEOR a while back but it has since been ended. I believe the advantages of launching from 30+ km altitude are quickly outweighed by the added complexity of the system as a whole. In the end the rocket fuel for most orbital rockets needed to get to 37km altittude is a small fraction of the total fuel on board anyways.
my $0.02
Bryce KB1LQC
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Joe nss@mwt.net wrote:
It's called a Rockoon, and has been done before, google it.
Thing is now days it's launch would have to be permitted by the government just as much as any other major rocket flight. or get out of the USA like into the gulf of mexico to do the launch.
Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com On 9/18/2013 12:01 PM, Rob wrote:
I'm not a rocket scientist but I have an active imagination .....
Thinking of a recent XKCD .... to achieve orbit .... the hard part isn't the altitude it's the velocity ....
Would there be any advantage (cost effective) carrying a launch vehicle say to 37KM ... think Red Bull Stratos .... and firing the engines there???
So you're already 37KM up .... there's a lot less atmospheric drag ....
This would be like a drop from a plane ... but even higher ....
Thoughts???
de KA2PBT ______________________________**_________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/**listinfo/amsat-bbhttp://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
______________________________**_________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/**listinfo/amsat-bbhttp://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Would there be any advantage (cost effective) carrying a launch vehicle say to 37KM ... think Red Bull Stratos .... and firing the engines there???
Sounds a bit like the UK LOHAN project, see
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/07/vulture_2/
The team have been doing tests this week about 150 km West of Madrid, BTW they are looking for people in the area who can receive the 434 MHz telemetry signals, see
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/september2013/the_register_434_mhz_balloon_...
Their next test flight is on Thursday, Sept. 19 at 1pm BST (1200 GMT).
Surrey Satellite Technology and Virgin Galactic have a similar idea of using an air-launched rocket, see
http://amsat-uk.org/2012/07/11/sst-us-and-virgin-galactic-small-satellite-la...
73 Trevor M5AKA
________________________________ From: Rob pabutusa@gmail.com To: AMSAT-BB@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2013, 18:01 Subject: [amsat-bb] Thought experiment ... Rockets and balloons
I'm not a rocket scientist but I have an active imagination .....
Thinking of a recent XKCD .... to achieve orbit .... the hard part isn't the altitude it's the velocity ....
Would there be any advantage (cost effective) carrying a launch vehicle say to 37KM ... think Red Bull Stratos .... and firing the engines there???
So you're already 37KM up .... there's a lot less atmospheric drag ....
This would be like a drop from a plane ... but even higher ....
Thoughts???
de KA2PBT _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
I think everyone on this list should play Kerbal Space Program ( https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/) and you'll realize the getting into sub-orbital flight is easy, orbit however is not... It's actually realistic enough to learn orbital mechanics but fun enough to enjoy as a game... It's the un-official pastime of many young rocket scientists... hehe.
getting to orbit is hard and requires most fuel. Also, for the Virgin Galactic and any plane/balloon based launch you are looking at ~500Kg payload (at least that's whats stated on Virgin Galactic's website for under $10 million)... sounds great until you realize your still spending several million dollars where as a commercial rocket (lets say SpaceX Falcon 9) is ~60 million for 13,500 Kg... There are many universities and NASA departments making cubesats but the small satellite market is nothing compared to the large payload (or many small payloads) to orbit market, and that's where you'll find business going... Sorry guys, no ones building a launch system for us...
Also, if AMSAT was to create a balloon or plane launch system those are incredibly complex launch platforms that have to work in order to even think about the satellite working... It's hard enough getting volunteers for the satellites nevertheless a launch system. The launch providers are in the big payload businesses and that's the market we're stuck with.
On another note, every round of comments comes back to: "lets have a long life satellite...", "Let's put engines on the satellite", etc... Well fact is we need to develop that technology in LEO before even trying to get to HEO ourselves. That's a technological feat in itself. It seems to me that some people haven't quite grasped the fact that AMSAT *is developing a standardize platform of technology to bring to longer life and new technology to CubeSats and HEO* and that platform is called... FOX...
Supporting AMSAT Fox is supporting AMSAT's potential future in HEO.
Also, don't quit, volunteer.
- Brent, KB1LQD
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM, M5AKA m5aka@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Would there be any advantage (cost effective) carrying a launch vehicle
say
to 37KM ... think Red Bull Stratos .... and firing the engines there???
Sounds a bit like the UK LOHAN project, see
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/07/vulture_2/
The team have been doing tests this week about 150 km West of Madrid, BTW they are looking for people in the area who can receive the 434 MHz telemetry signals, see
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/september2013/the_register_434_mhz_balloon_...
Their next test flight is on Thursday, Sept. 19 at 1pm BST (1200 GMT).
Surrey Satellite Technology and Virgin Galactic have a similar idea of using an air-launched rocket, see
http://amsat-uk.org/2012/07/11/sst-us-and-virgin-galactic-small-satellite-la...
73 Trevor M5AKA
From: Rob pabutusa@gmail.com To: AMSAT-BB@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2013, 18:01 Subject: [amsat-bb] Thought experiment ... Rockets and balloons
I'm not a rocket scientist but I have an active imagination .....
Thinking of a recent XKCD .... to achieve orbit .... the hard part isn't the altitude it's the velocity ....
Would there be any advantage (cost effective) carrying a launch vehicle say to 37KM ... think Red Bull Stratos .... and firing the engines there???
So you're already 37KM up .... there's a lot less atmospheric drag ....
This would be like a drop from a plane ... but even higher ....
Thoughts???
de KA2PBT _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Easy to check to a first order estimate - just calculate total energy by calculating payload mass raised to orbital height (potential energy) and accelerated to orbital velocity (kinetic), then figure what fraction of that is associated with raising the 37km fraction of the way.
Because of the v**2 term in the velocity, the height contribution probably wouldn't be much.
Tom
On Sep 18, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Rob pabutusa@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a rocket scientist but I have an active imagination .....
Thinking of a recent XKCD .... to achieve orbit .... the hard part isn't the altitude it's the velocity ....
Would there be any advantage (cost effective) carrying a launch vehicle say to 37KM ... think Red Bull Stratos .... and firing the engines there???
So you're already 37KM up .... there's a lot less atmospheric drag ....
This would be like a drop from a plane ... but even higher ....
Thoughts???
de KA2PBT _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
participants (6)
-
Brenton Salmi -
Bryce Salmi -
Joe -
M5AKA -
Rob -
Tom Williams