Jump to content

If I payed SpaceX to launch?


bigdad84
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am sorry guys, but by modifying the bus in any way you would really hurt the concept. The quality of doing this is putting something totally random in orbit - because you can. If you start modifying the payload, you are just undertaking a less than qualitative half assed science mission. A bus is a bus and that should be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry guys, but by modifying the bus in any way you would really hurt the concept. The quality of doing this is putting something totally random in orbit - because you can. If you start modifying the payload, you are just undertaking a less than qualitative half assed science mission. A bus is a bus and that should be it.

I agree. This is KSP guys :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KSP is totally all about taking a bus and welding on it a bunch of thrusters and scientific equipment. This might not be totally random enough for you, but just launching a bus would be boring. You wouldn't be able to see what happens to it. You have to put at least tracking, video, and communication equipment on it. But then you also want to drop it somewhere safely, so you do need engines. And at that point, you might as well put a pilot in and make it a proper mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry guys, but by modifying the bus in any way you would really hurt the concept. The quality of doing this is putting something totally random in orbit - because you can. If you start modifying the payload, you are just undertaking a less than qualitative half assed science mission. A bus is a bus and that should be it.

If we don't modify the mission payload, there's no way they'd ever launch it. There's certain regulations that need to be followed. As well, if we publicize our efforts to strip the bus down, that's added PR. It also means people won't think it's a hoax, which is always nice when you're trying to raise funds for such an absurdity.

No not the bottom the top! So we could align the panels with the sun and the sides of the bus makes great heat radiator

My thruster design:

http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/1454501646/12V600AH_LiFePO4_battery_pack_for_electric.html : 12 VDC, 600 Ah, 53 kg

MPD thruster = 4 4 cm internal diameter, with persistent superconducting magnet for external field, 30 kg? >110000 m/s exhaust velocity

Power converting circuit: Still not sure with the design that can elevate 12v toward like 10kv, 20 kg max, radiator inclusive?

Capacitor bank: 1 megawatt firing every 1 minute? 50 kg?

Tank mass: 500 kg

Argon mass: 1200 kg

Assuming school bus weight is 9 metric tons, then

Total dry mass: 10153 kg

Wet mass: 11353 kg

Delta-v = 12288.41 m/s

Unfortunately wikipedia dV chart for low-thrust engine doesn't include LEO to GEO, but LEO to low lunar orbit requires 8 km/s

So in short this bus could go to moon! Yay

Reaction/rotation control system:

3 magnetorquers

Several rotation and translation RCS ports using argon from main tank

3 control moment gyro

Depending on the mass of the vehicle we use, this may not even be required. For building the actual electronics for our BusSat, I'd say we're better served using off-the-shelf Cubesat parts. Most of these have already been heavily tested, and will be much cheaper than anything that we'd end up building ourselves.

http://www.tethers.com/HYDROS.html?gclid=CJrn7Oi_irsCFUpnOgodV28Aag

A system like this, for example, reduces our inherent launch risks (Water is our main propellant,) and we can simply use a number of these engines for just about everything, including reaction control. As well, because it isn't some dangerous chemical, we can very easily work with it, store it, and obtain it. We could just mount a number of well-insulated water tanks on the underside of the Bus, and use a simple water pump to supply fuel to the engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KSP is totally all about taking a bus and welding on it a bunch of thrusters and scientific equipment. This might not be totally random enough for you, but just launching a bus would be boring. You wouldn't be able to see what happens to it. You have to put at least tracking, video, and communication equipment on it. But then you also want to drop it somewhere safely, so you do need engines. And at that point, you might as well put a pilot in and make it a proper mission.

I agree, we need to see the bus and have some sort of control(even if it's just for going into graveyard orbit).

What if we drop the engine once it become useless?

Edited by goldenpeach
Adding a quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the orbit, I was planning for LEO. The Falcon 9 is rated for 13,150kg or 28,991 lb to LEO, but only 4,850kg or 10,692 lb to GTO. We might be able to fit for GTO, but ideally it would be nice to fit alongside someone else who was going to space, which would require shrinking it quite a bit, but would lower the cost of getting to space (this is the reason for using a short bus).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making the bus a man-rated spacecraft is too complicated.

I don't think we would have a chance to receive a permit for that.

Permit from whom?

Except for re-entry, making the thing habitable is the easy part. As brought up a few times in this thread already, pilot would wear a simple space suit tied by umbilical to a simple life support system. Compared to propulsion and navs, this is peanuts.

In terms of returning pilot to Earth, I have a really crazy idea that might be simple enough to work. Basically, I propose wake-boarding a heat shield down. The most extreme extreme sport ever. The bus would be put into a correct re-entry trajectory, and the pilot/crew would just have to bail out of the back doors with the heat shield and hold on for dear life until reaching terminal velocity in the thicker layers of atmosphere. At that point, the pilot would drop the shield and become a skydiver. A small oxygen tank, an inflatable one man raft, and a parachute is all the equipment the pilot needs on this ride. The suit would have to have valves designed to let air in once pressure outside becomes greater than inside so that the pilot doesn't get crushed once at low enough altitude.

The complicated bit is making sure the heat shield allows for a stable ride into the atmosphere. This would require some testing. Everything else is tried and tested, though, and it works. I'd go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Permit from whom?

Except for re-entry, making the thing habitable is the easy part. As brought up a few times in this thread already, pilot would wear a simple space suit tied by umbilical to a simple life support system. Compared to propulsion and navs, this is peanuts.

In terms of returning pilot to Earth, I have a really crazy idea that might be simple enough to work. Basically, I propose wake-boarding a heat shield down. The most extreme extreme sport ever. The bus would be put into a correct re-entry trajectory, and the pilot/crew would just have to bail out of the back doors with the heat shield and hold on for dear life until reaching terminal velocity in the thicker layers of atmosphere. At that point, the pilot would drop the shield and become a skydiver. A small oxygen tank, an inflatable one man raft, and a parachute is all the equipment the pilot needs on this ride. The suit would have to have valves designed to let air in once pressure outside becomes greater than inside so that the pilot doesn't get crushed once at low enough altitude.

The complicated bit is making sure the heat shield allows for a stable ride into the atmosphere. This would require some testing. Everything else is tried and tested, though, and it works. I'd go for it.

The issue is, for SpaceX to launch this, it'll need to be insured. If we're going to make this thing manned, that means we're going to have meet the Human-Rating Certifications. http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002B_

Then there's one other tiny issue - the current version of the Falcon 9 isn't Human Rated. That means even if we through all the trouble to prepare a human-rated capsule and life support system, programmed the telemetry programs, produced some human rated deorbiting rockets, built a man-rated spacesuit, prepared tracking stations, and had the equipment to retrieve our astronaut, they STILL wouldn't launch him, because they don't feel their rocket is ready for such a risk yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is, for SpaceX to launch this, it'll need to be insured. If we're going to make this thing manned, that means we're going to have meet the Human-Rating Certifications. http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002B_

Then there's one other tiny issue - the current version of the Falcon 9 isn't Human Rated. That means even if we through all the trouble to prepare a human-rated capsule and life support system, programmed the telemetry programs, produced some human rated deorbiting rockets, built a man-rated spacesuit, prepared tracking stations, and had the equipment to retrieve our astronaut, they STILL wouldn't launch him, because they don't feel their rocket is ready for such a risk yet.

All that says to me is that if NASA was launching this bus, or if it was launched for, on behalf of, or in any other way in connection with NASA, it would require this certification.

If you are a private company asking another private company to do the launch, NASA's regulations are absolutely irrelevant. To comply with US law, all you need is to slap an FAA Experimental sticker on the thing, and launch it in such a way as to be compliant with FAR on experimental aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that says to me is that if NASA was launching this bus, or if it was launched for, on behalf of, or in any other way in connection with NASA, it would require this certification.

If you are a private company asking another private company to do the launch, NASA's regulations are absolutely irrelevant. To comply with US law, all you need is to slap an FAA Experimental sticker on the thing, and launch it in such a way as to be compliant with FAR on experimental aircraft.

These regulations are the *typical* ones followed by most insurance companies (as well as SpaceX, albeit voluntarily,) they just happen to have also been proposed by NASA. And again, even if we *did* meet the regulations, it doesn't matter. SpaceX themselves won't launch a manned mission on the Falcon 9 yet, because they feel it isn't ready for manned flights.

Trust me, I would love to launch this as a manned mission as well, I just don't see it happening. Even if we had the funds, it'd take us years to build the infrastructure to support a manned mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure it'd be possible to write up papers so that only property/equipment is insured, with the pilot signing whatever needs to be signed to wave it. There is simply no way to impose regulations preventing this by law in United States.

Of course, if SpaceX flat out refuses to launch a manned mission without certification, that's their right.

Can we maybe talk to the Russians about launching with their rocket? A launch from Baikonur can put the bus on the rendezvous orbit with ISS. I don't think they'd let it get anywhere close to docking, but it'd be fun just to fly-by and flash the lights at them. I'd also honk the horn. They wouldn't be able to hear it, but I'd do it anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a question. If some friends and I built, lets say a working replica of Gemini, would they launch it? This is assuming that SpaceX already has a man rated launch vehicle and they would let me be the command pilot. Or would I be better off just getting the Russian's to do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ ZetaX. They couldn't put something on a collision course without a mid-flight correction if they tried. Odds of actually hitting anything in space are virtually zero. But if the navs and propulsion work, it should be completely safe to fly by within a kilometer of the station. If something fails, then the thing will just miss by significantly more. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

Speaking of which, it would be nice to have the launch on a default sub-orbital trajectory that results in good re-entry angle. So if propulsion or maneuvering fail, there is no danger of the crew getting stuck up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should consider if SpaceX would dare to send an unrated manned capsule into space.

I doubt they would stake their reputation on it.

As for the bus; It would need to be the cleanest bus you can imagine.

No traces of oil or gasoline/diesel, no flaking paint, no glass, etc.

Then you should ask yourself would SpaceX want in the news as the company that wastes time and money to to send trash into space?

I know that they would be actually be making money, but that's not how the average Joe will look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the odds of hitting something are not zero, otherwise the whole Kessler syndrome and the instances of collisions that already occured would not exist. They are very small, yes, but you are actively putting it very close already. That bus is, if hitting it, easily able to severly damage or destroy the ISS, and its hit chances increase a lot if by something it breaks into lots of pieces (e.g. the supposed cargo of "trinkets" flying around); I doubt they will take the risk on that, especially of it depends on some provate person(s) steering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KSP is totally all about taking a bus and welding on it a bunch of thrusters and scientific equipment. This might not be totally random enough for you, but just launching a bus would be boring. You wouldn't be able to see what happens to it. You have to put at least tracking, video, and communication equipment on it.

Yet that should just mean it is a bus with some stuff stuck in it. Modifying it in any other way diminishes what you are trying to achieve as you would not be launching a school bus, but merely a badly built satellite based on school bus parts. Not quite as much fun. Documenting what you are doing is of course desirable, but that should be it.

But then you also want to drop it somewhere safely, so you do need engines. And at that point, you might as well put a pilot in and make it a proper mission.

Dropping it safely would be a Space X task. It might sound strange in this context, but making the mission man-rated is not realistic. Putting a bus in orbit is, as it is technically a much less demanding mission, providing the budget gets taken care of.

Edited by Camacha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we don't modify the mission payload, there's no way they'd ever launch it. There's certain regulations that need to be followed.

Such as? I can not recall any regulations being posted here.

Also, if those regulations exist it means the original question should be answered with no. Space X will not launch a school bus to orbit. Only a shoddy built satellite with a school bus basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is, for SpaceX to launch this, it'll need to be insured. If we're going to make this thing manned, that means we're going to have meet the Human-Rating Certifications. http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002B_

Then there's one other tiny issue - the current version of the Falcon 9 isn't Human Rated. That means even if we through all the trouble to prepare a human-rated capsule and life support system, programmed the telemetry programs, produced some human rated deorbiting rockets, built a man-rated spacesuit, prepared tracking stations, and had the equipment to retrieve our astronaut, they STILL wouldn't launch him, because they don't feel their rocket is ready for such a risk yet.

There have been standardized regulations posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe the way things are turning out we're going unmanned. Then we don't have to worry about re-entry, oxygen, suits, and everything else that goes along with keeping a person alive in space. Plus, we don't want bad PR with SpaceX if their Falcon 9 happens to go Kerbal and kill our astronaut. :stick tongue:

As for other things that are pretty much confirmed:

I believe we're going with a bus like this. It's compact, and still "funny".

school-bus-3.jpg

I think we should leave the tires on it, and everything on the outside, so everyone who sees it will know it's a bus.

-as for tires popping or melting in space, we could use a different material or something that looks similar to a tire

As for engine nozzles and propulsion, we could pop out tail lights and place our engines there? It doesn't add anything to the outside of the bus, and retains its original shape (which we are trying our hardest to keep).

I'm all for ditching the bus engine in the front and replacing it with fuel tanks. I think one fuel type suits everything the best. Less complicated, etc.

As for the CoM problem stated earlier (all the weight being towards the bottom of the bus, with the frame, axels, etc) we could compensate with that by placing additional fuel tanks inside the bus on the "ceiling"?

It would be something amazing if we could manage to even crash the bus into the moon? Just an idea. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...