Live data from Hacker News

Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

io9.com

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#51
post #2

Startup idea: put me into space. For cheap.

Running the numbers, you need at least 1 MJ/kg to get past the 100km limit into what's officially considered "outer space". That's only factoring in Earth's gravity.

If we could do it with purely electrical motors, then assuming you pay 10 cents per kilowatt hour and only have a conversion efficiency of 75% into actual lifting power, it would only cost you $0.04/kg energy-wise to get up there. Assuming that you'd need to take an environment of, say, 10,000 kg with you, the marginal cost would still only be about $400. That's something of an ideal case, the "space elevator" proposal. Actually there might even be a possibility to use counterweights somehow to make it even cheaper.

Solid rocket fuel, the numbers are a little harder to come by. It sounds like the active ingredient is usually aluminum. One page on Wikipedia suggests that aluminum has an energy density of 31 MJ/kg (and my calculations based on Wikipedia's "aluminum oxide" page agree) and that only 16% of solid rocket fuel is aluminum. So that's 5 MJ/kg. However, this is a little smaller because it basically needs to push itself up along with you -- it's 1 MJ/kg to bring anything up to space, remember, so 1 kg can lift roughly 5 kg of stuff, but the 1kg of fuel is itself part of that 5 kg. So we're at roughly 4 MJ/kg if you take into account that the fuel more or less has to push its own way up with you. (Not all the way, of course, but I'm too lazy to do the calculation properly and there's wind resistance anyway.)

The first rocketry site on Google says that they'll sell you 20 pounds of rocket fuel (9 kg) for something like 200 bucks, or $22/kg. With the conversion factor of 4 kg lifted / kg fuel, the equivalent number is about 550 times higher -- $5.50 per kg that you want to send into space, and the marginal cost for our 10,000 kg environment is presumably then something like $55,000.

Can we do better by bulk? Google says people sell the main ingredient -- ammonium perchlorate -- at $3,000 per metric ton. Aluminum is a bit pricier, but I can find people selling large chunks at about $500/50kg, adding about $1,500 to the above. Adding in the cost of the plastic binding, the raw fuel components might cost $5/kg. So you're not going to get cheaper with rocket fuel than around $15,000 per flight.

Of course, the spacecraft is going to be the more expensive bit, I'm sure. But that's more complicated because maybe you can amortize that cost over many successful runs. I'm just saying that, even without that, based on fuel alone, it's still going to be an order of magnitude more expensive than a trip to a far-off land. If we had a space elevator we could fix that, maybe -- but not without a massive cord going from us to outer space.

I will add that you can make these numbers cheaper if you don't go into the 'official' outer space region, but just content yourself to fly really high up. People who fly weather balloons can get them to a height where you'd need closer to 0.3 MJ/kg to get to, so you could divide those costs by ~3.

Here is a link to one group that is trying to solve the problem of cheap amateur rocket flights to space: http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#52
post #11
post #3

I'm surprised they landed so close together. amazing. Also, can anyone tell me why they are slowing down as they fall towards earth (before the parachutes deploy)? Shouldn't they be speeding up by 9.8m/s as they fall?

Would have been interesting to get direction as well as velocity.

Specifically, direction as well as speed. But yes, that would have self-answered my question about what the numbers mean (by showing the "sideways" component).

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#53
post #16
post #2

Startup idea: put me into space. For cheap.

For a modest down payment I know a guy that launches small objects into space using the world's largest trebuchet.

Using my numbers above, getting up to 100 km requires u = 1 MJ/kg of energy. For the trebuchet model, this number is u = ½ v² and you're presumably going to be flying in a circular arc before you are released, where your acceleration is a = v²/r, or r = 2 u / a.

If we want to keep the maximum acceleration beneath 4g's or so, so that it's uncomfortable in the roller-coaster-thrill-ride sense, not in the 'crap I'm going to die' sense, we'd still need a trebuchet of radius 50,000 m. Even the LHC isn't that long across. :P

I mean, you can in principle get those sorts of speeds, but don't expect a human to easily survive it.

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#54
Did nobody bother watching the credits at the end? The sound design credits mention Ben Burtt, the sound designer for Star Wars (think: Darth Vader's breathing, that lightsaber fwoom noise, etc.).

Sort of makes me wonder how much of the sound in that video was real. I really want to believe that's what space sounds like. :)

Edit: Oh, I guess that's his son! A splendid lineage.

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

150 was a wild guess. I think there is so many variables when they orbit in space and drop to Earth, that I don't see it that simple to land one next to another. Its like taking two peppercorns and throwing them at the same time, very close to each other from the Empire State building.

well they are similar objects, undergoing the same forces, and they were released from nearly the same spot (from which they were both traveling in the same direction) the difference is mostly from the forces due to slight differences in tumbling motion when interacting with the atmosphere. just try thinking about conducting the same situation with out an atmosphere. the objects would follow the same trajectory from…

> just try thinking about conducting the same situation with out an atmosphere.

I can't since they DID travel through the atmosphere.

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear what you saying, but is there anything else than an issue of material being burnt in atmosphere due to speed lost/air friction? Gravity will make sure you will get back on Earth so its not like you have to spend another million bucks to get on earth. Given you have a heat/damage-proof can and know when to open parachutes (I know its more complicated than that), you should be good to go (I mean - come back).

You watched the video right? Looks quite a bit more dangerous than you're average jumbo jet takeoff.

yeah. how come that 2 pieces of foam (?) detached so quickly at the begging. was it intentional? whats the reasoning behind?

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well they are similar objects, undergoing the same forces, and they were released from nearly the same spot (from which they were both traveling in the same direction) the difference is mostly from the forces due to slight differences in tumbling motion when interacting with the atmosphere. just try thinking about conducting the same situation with out an atmosphere. the objects would follow the same trajectory from…

> just try thinking about conducting the same situation with out an atmosphere. I can't since they DID travel through the atmosphere.

you can't imagine a simple physics problem? i understand that they DID travel through an atmosphere, but the basic mechanics involved can be understood just using projectile motion equation without taking the effects of air drag.

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#59
post #24

Can someone explain what the nominal "velocity" counter means? I thought it made sense going up (although I wasn't sure why its rate of change---which would be the acceleration---seemed to increase a bit), but then I was totally baffled after the separation. It goes down from 2900 to 2500, then back up to 2920, then it plummets to around 300, then gently lowers down to the 50 or so that it's at for splashdown; there…

The shuttle isn't going straight upward at separation. It's actually going mostly eastward, so when the boosters separate they retain most of their speed, and even regain a bit as they drop through the ultra-thin upper atmosphere. You're right about the rest -- a decrease to terminal velocity and then a big decrease as the chutes take effect. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle#Launch

But there wasn't a big decrease when the chutes deployed. It took a while. I found that odd. I expected an immediate decrease in speed the second the chutes deployed. Maybe the counter wasn't synched with the video?

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

150 was a wild guess. I think there is so many variables when they orbit in space and drop to Earth, that I don't see it that simple to land one next to another. Its like taking two peppercorns and throwing them at the same time, very close to each other from the Empire State building.

well they are similar objects, undergoing the same forces, and they were released from nearly the same spot (from which they were both traveling in the same direction) the difference is mostly from the forces due to slight differences in tumbling motion when interacting with the atmosphere. just try thinking about conducting the same situation with out an atmosphere. the objects would follow the same trajectory from…

I think you can see ships in the background of the video, presumably for recovery. So maybe they know pretty close to where they land, close enough that they don't have to worry about hitting the ships. That's impressive.
Post reply on HN