4 ms·

Employing high-altitude balloons to cut down on launch costs is potential feasible, as traditional launches can run into the tens of thousands of dollars (or mo

Employing high-altitude balloons to cut down on launch costs is potential feasible, as traditional launches can run into the tens of thousands of dollars (or more) per lb. One potential problem with going small on the rover end is that the prize stipulates that the rover must travel a prescribed distance on the lunar surface, and going too small will make traversing distance a much greater obstacle that it already is. Additionally, how would one power the antenna necessary to communicate with earth (I am thinking specifically of battery power only, and I think it would in and of itself weigh more than a pound)?

gravitycop 18y ago
traditional launches can run into the tens of thousands of dollars (or more) per lb. $8.90/lb. http://neverworld.net/truax http://neverworld.net/truax http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429099 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429099
- tiki12revolt 18y ago
  assuming we take SpaceX on their word, that the "Falcon 1 is the world’s lowest cost per flight to orbit of a production rocket", and take the cost and payload weight right of the website, then for a 1010 kg payload at $9.1M, that works out to be roughly, $4095 / lb. from: http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php
gravitycop 18y ago
Employing high-altitude balloons to cut down on launch costs is potential feasible How would high-altitude balloons reduce launch costs?
- stcredzero 18y ago
  Not by much. Most of the energy cost of a launch to Earth orbit involves getting to orbital velocity. Getting an object that high is pretty easy by comparison. (Get out your physics textbook and compare the kinetic energy of something going Mach 24 to the potential energy of something dropping 100 km.) I'd expect a mistake like this from a high school student or a freshman. If you're not clear about this, then you have a perhaps a bit of homework to do before posting questions about space to a social news site that prides itself on informed, intelligent discussion. Perhaps start with Zubrin's _Entering Space_. Any number of books about the space program will do as well.
  - wlievens 18y ago
    I don't think a person should "do his homework" before asking a mere thought-provoking toy question. However naive the question, it has potential for informed, intelligent discussion.
    - stcredzero 18y ago
      Not if you're off by an order of magnitude!
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    It's entirely logical: you just have to think outside the box (big enough baloon vs. small enough vehicle: plus it overcomes some of the niggly "near ground" effects [why do you think so many next-gen space vehicle designs launch from Airplanes??]) The physics is there and probably workable. (EDIT: my initial thoughts would tend towards a high altitude launch of several smaller sized vehicles that re-assemble on the lunar surface... or interact there. S o for example someone above mentions the comms issue: a static relay planted on the surface interfacing with a seperate rover device would probably work well. In fact I would launch 2 or 3 of each type (assuming cost could be kept low) to ensure that you got at least one functioning pair :D)
    - stcredzero 18y ago
      Jet airplanes also give you something like 600 mph of initial velocity. In the case of Pegasus and Space Ship One, they are like the first stage rocket. The Rocket Equation is pretty nasty. When your required delta-v goes up, your reaction mass requirement goes up faster than a polynomial function. Saving the initial 600 mph is very significant. Balloons -- only sounding rockets use those, but they don't do anything but gain altitude anyhow. If you need escape velocity or orbit, then they are pretty much useless. (You might as well build a slightly bigger rocket.) Please actually do the physics before you post vacuous statements like: The physics is there and probably workable. People are having "intelligent discussions" about balloon assisted launch? Eternal September has gotten to HN!

gravitycop 18y ago

traditional launches can run into the tens of thousands of dollars (or more) per lb. $8.90/lb. http://neverworld.net/truax http://neverworld.net/truax http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429099 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429099

tiki12revolt 18y ago
assuming we take SpaceX on their word, that the "Falcon 1 is the world’s lowest cost per flight to orbit of a production rocket", and take the cost and payload weight right of the website, then for a 1010 kg payload at $9.1M, that works out to be roughly, $4095 / lb. from: http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php

gravitycop 18y ago

Employing high-altitude balloons to cut down on launch costs is potential feasible How would high-altitude balloons reduce launch costs?

stcredzero 18y ago
Not by much. Most of the energy cost of a launch to Earth orbit involves getting to orbital velocity. Getting an object that high is pretty easy by comparison. (Get out your physics textbook and compare the kinetic energy of something going Mach 24 to the potential energy of something dropping 100 km.) I'd expect a mistake like this from a high school student or a freshman. If you're not clear about this, then you have a perhaps a bit of homework to do before posting questions about space to a social news site that prides itself on informed, intelligent discussion. Perhaps start with Zubrin's _Entering Space_. Any number of books about the space program will do as well.
- wlievens 18y ago
  I don't think a person should "do his homework" before asking a mere thought-provoking toy question. However naive the question, it has potential for informed, intelligent discussion.
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    Not if you're off by an order of magnitude!
- ErrantX 18y ago
  It's entirely logical: you just have to think outside the box (big enough baloon vs. small enough vehicle: plus it overcomes some of the niggly "near ground" effects [why do you think so many next-gen space vehicle designs launch from Airplanes??]) The physics is there and probably workable. (EDIT: my initial thoughts would tend towards a high altitude launch of several smaller sized vehicles that re-assemble on the lunar surface... or interact there. S o for example someone above mentions the comms issue: a static relay planted on the surface interfacing with a seperate rover device would probably work well. In fact I would launch 2 or 3 of each type (assuming cost could be kept low) to ensure that you got at least one functioning pair :D)
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    Jet airplanes also give you something like 600 mph of initial velocity. In the case of Pegasus and Space Ship One, they are like the first stage rocket. The Rocket Equation is pretty nasty. When your required delta-v goes up, your reaction mass requirement goes up faster than a polynomial function. Saving the initial 600 mph is very significant. Balloons -- only sounding rockets use those, but they don't do anything but gain altitude anyhow. If you need escape velocity or orbit, then they are pretty much useless. (You might as well build a slightly bigger rocket.) Please actually do the physics before you post vacuous statements like: The physics is there and probably workable. People are having "intelligent discussions" about balloon assisted launch? Eternal September has gotten to HN!