From rogers at ISI.EDU Tue Aug 4 16:47:33 2009 From: rogers at ISI.EDU (Craig Milo Rogers) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:47:33 -0700 Subject: [oasis-members] $8000 to Orbit Message-ID: <20090804204733.GB31361@isi.edu> A startup in Mojave is offering to launch half-pound spacecraft to orbit from Tonga for $8000. The orbits will decay over a few weeks, so there's no space pollution issue (carbon footprint is a different matter). http://www.interorbital.com/ http://spacefellowship.com/2009/08/01/interorbital-syatems-tubesat-personal-satellite-kit/ There will be 32 TubeSats per launch. At $8000 per Tubesat, all launch-to-orbit costs have to fit within $256,000. That seems like an awfully cheap launch system, but maybe they'll make it up in volume. Finally, an opportunity to launch OASIS' first satellite! Craig Milo Rogers From Anita.E.Gale at boeing.com Wed Aug 5 12:19:11 2009 From: Anita.E.Gale at boeing.com (Gale, Anita E) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:19:11 -0500 Subject: [oasis-members] $8000 to Orbit In-Reply-To: <20090804204733.GB31361@isi.edu> References: <20090804204733.GB31361@isi.edu> Message-ID: Craig and All-- Hmmmph. That's $16,000 per pound. It looks like launch costs are going up rather than down. If we estimate Space Shuttle program costs at $2 billion per year, and capability to launch 50,000 lbs per each of 4 annual missions to (LEO, not ISS) orbit, then Space Shuttle launch costs are $10,000 per pound. Of course, those costs go down if we launch more Space Shuttle missions in a year (which we easily could). Anita -----Original Message----- From: Craig Milo Rogers [mailto:rogers at ISI.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:48 PM To: OASIS On-Line Membership Subject: [oasis-members] $8000 to Orbit A startup in Mojave is offering to launch half-pound spacecraft to orbit from Tonga for $8000. The orbits will decay over a few weeks, so there's no space pollution issue (carbon footprint is a different matter). http://www.interorbital.com/ http://spacefellowship.com/2009/08/01/interorbital-syatems-tubesat-perso nal-satellite-kit/ There will be 32 TubeSats per launch. At $8000 per Tubesat, all launch-to-orbit costs have to fit within $256,000. That seems like an awfully cheap launch system, but maybe they'll make it up in volume. Finally, an opportunity to launch OASIS' first satellite! Craig Milo Rogers _______________________________________________ OASIS-members mailing list OASIS-members at oasis-nss.org http://oasis-nss.org/mailman/listinfo/oasis-members_oasis-nss.org Visit the above URL to update your email address or subscription options. From Cyberplex at aol.com Wed Aug 5 12:47:36 2009 From: Cyberplex at aol.com (Cyberplex at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:47:36 EDT Subject: [oasis-members] $8000 to Orbit Message-ID: The author of that last post should take a remedial math course (with emphasis on the metric system). A TubeSat weighs 3/4 kg. A kg= 2.205 lbs. which means a TubeSat weighs 1.65 lbs. At $8000 per launch per sat, that comes to around $4,848 per pound. Better than most existing launch vehicles. Plus----the NEPTUNE 30 is a dedicated launch vehicle---the customers have primary payload status. Best from Mojave, Randa Milliron, CEO/Founder Interorbital Systems PO Box 662, Mojave, CA 93502-0662 Cellular (preferred): 661.965.0771 Lab/Fax: 661.824.1662 ios at interorbital.com or cyberplex at aol.com _www.interorbital.com_ (http://www.interorbital.com/) _www.translunar.org_ (http://www.translunar.org/) _www.synergymoon.org_ (http://www.synergymoon.org/) From Anita.E.Gale at boeing.com Wed Aug 5 12:51:49 2009 From: Anita.E.Gale at boeing.com (Gale, Anita E) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:51:49 -0500 Subject: [oasis-members] $8000 to Orbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The original post said $8000 per half-pound. Just reading what was sent. Anita Gale ________________________________ From: Cyberplex at aol.com [mailto:Cyberplex at aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:48 AM To: Gale, Anita E; rogers at ISI.EDU; oasis-members at oasis-nss.org Subject: Re: [oasis-members] $8000 to Orbit The author of that last post should take a remedial math course (with emphasis on the metric system). A TubeSat weighs 3/4 kg. A kg= 2.205 lbs. which means a TubeSat weighs 1.65 lbs. At $8000 per launch per sat, that comes to around $4,848 per pound. Better than most existing launch vehicles. Plus----the NEPTUNE 30 is a dedicated launch vehicle---the customers have primary payload status. Best from Mojave, Randa Milliron, CEO/Founder Interorbital Systems PO Box 662, Mojave, CA 93502-0662 Cellular (preferred): 661.965.0771 Lab/Fax: 661.824.1662 ios at interorbital.com or cyberplex at aol.com www.interorbital.com www.translunar.org www.synergymoon.org From Cyberplex at aol.com Wed Aug 5 12:55:56 2009 From: Cyberplex at aol.com (Cyberplex at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:55:56 EDT Subject: [oasis-members] $8000 to Orbit Message-ID: In a message dated 8/5/2009 9:52:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Anita.E.Gale at boeing.com writes: ____________________________________ Anita Then that author made the mistake---not you. It's THAT person who needs the math course! Best from Mojave, Randa Milliron, CEO/Founder Interorbital Systems PO Box 662, Mojave, CA 93502-0662 Cellular (preferred): 661.965.0771 Lab/Fax: 661.824.1662 ios at interorbital.com or cyberplex at aol.com _www.interorbital.com_ (http://www.interorbital.com/) _www.translunar.org_ (http://www.translunar.org/) _www.synergymoon.org_ (http://www.synergymoon.org/) From rogers at ISI.EDU Wed Aug 5 17:55:08 2009 From: rogers at ISI.EDU (Craig Milo Rogers) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:55:08 -0700 Subject: [oasis-members] $8000 to Orbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090805215507.GB14795@isi.edu> On 09.08.05, Cyberplex at aol.com wrote: > A TubeSat weighs 3/4 kg. A kg= 2.205 lbs. which > means a TubeSat weighs 1.65 lbs. At $8000 per launch per sat, that comes > to around $4,848 per pound. Better than most existing launch vehicles. > Plus----the NEPTUNE 30 is a dedicated launch vehicle---the customers have > primary payload status. The purpose of this reply is to document some of the numbers involved in greater detail. I will not attempt to resolve the disputed payload cost per pound to orbit, because I don't know what the appropriate convention should be for defining "payload". According to the techical specifications in the TubeSat sales brochure: http://www.interorbital.com/Downloads/TubeSat%20Sales%20Brochure%20Publish%201.0.pdf 1) The weight of a TubeSat, excluding customer payuload, is 0.55 kg (1.21 lbs). 2) The max weight of the customer payload is 0.2 kg (0.44 lbs, or conversationally, a half pound). Therefore 3) The max total weight of the TubeSat plus customer payload is 0.75 kg (1.65 lbs). Here comes the tricky part: when we talk about dollars per pound to orbit, exactly which hardware is included? What's the payload? If you're launching a satellite, then the entire mass of the satellite is usually used as the "payload" of a launch. Since each TubeSat is an independent satellite in orbit, you could consider it that way: cost to orbit is $4848/lb. If you want to consider just the user-controlled mass, and exclude the satellite bus (which includes a case, batteries, radio, microcomputer, antennas, switches, etc.), then the cost to orbit is much higher, $18182/lb. If you're launching an experiment on the Shuttle, then your expiriment's mass doesn't include the Shuttle itself; that seems obvious. When Shuttle astronauts release a small cannister into orbit (e.g., in the most recent Shuttle mission, the astronauts released a small cannister containing two satellites, according to news reports), does the "payload" cost include any components that are mandated by NASA (I don't know, but perhaps someone on this list does). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32221382 If an experiment is flown in a Shuttle rack, what equipment is mandatory for each experiment (e.g., mounting hardware, electrical connectors) and is is included in the reported and/or charged mass of the experiment (again, I don't know, but perhaps someone on this list does). According to the Wikipedia entry on the Shuttle Get Away Special, the GAS container and other NASA-supplied hardware is not included in the payload mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getaway_Special Semantically, can we formalize the source of the ambiguity by defining the satellite as the payload of the launch vehicle, and the user's experiment as the payload of the satellite? Craig Milo Rogers From seth.d.potter at boeing.com Wed Aug 5 18:02:19 2009 From: seth.d.potter at boeing.com (Potter, Seth D) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:02:19 -0700 Subject: [oasis-members] $8000 to Orbit In-Reply-To: <20090805215507.GB14795@isi.edu> References: <20090805215507.GB14795@isi.edu> Message-ID: Craig, You wrote: "Semantically, can we formalize the source of the ambiguity by defining the satellite as the payload of the launch vehicle, and the user's experiment as the payload of the satellite?" Yes, your context-dependent definition of payload is, indeed, how I've seen the term used. -Seth _______________________________________________ OASIS-members mailing list OASIS-members at oasis-nss.org http://oasis-nss.org/mailman/listinfo/oasis-members_oasis-nss.org Visit the above URL to update your email address or subscription options. From Anita.E.Gale at boeing.com Thu Aug 6 17:02:37 2009 From: Anita.E.Gale at boeing.com (Gale, Anita E) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:02:37 -0500 Subject: [oasis-members] $8000 to Orbit In-Reply-To: <20090805215507.GB14795@isi.edu> References: <20090805215507.GB14795@isi.edu> Message-ID: Craig and All-- Thanks for the Wikipedia quote on Shuttle GAS payloads; that's definitely a LOL! I swear, I see more wrong answers than right from Wikipedia..... Let's put this in context: I am an engineer, and have been working Space Shuttle Payload and Cargo Integration since 1980. I have three patents on improving cargo integration methods for launch vehicles. The answers are clear to me, although I can understand how they can appear confusing. A lot of the confusion results from viewpoint, and from the dichotomy of the space biz: launch vehicle people and satellite people see it all differently, and they don't talk to each other. The few hundred cargo integration folks (like me) in the world have one foot in the launch vehicle camp and the other in the satellite camp, and both groups want to ignore us (although without us the launch vehicle folks would have a hard time serving customers and the satellite folks would have a hard time surviving launches). So, the short story is that cargo capacity on launch vehicles is counted as the difference between what a fully loaded vehicle weighs on the pad, versus what it would weigh if it were flying with no cargo at all. It's up to each vehicle to decide what payload interface equipment is considered part of the vehicle (e.g., the ring at the top of a Delta that a payload fastens to and fairings that protect the payload) and what is not (e.g., a cradle or GAS can that is required to fasten the payload in the vehicle). Given a particular vehicle configuration, it's pretty much up to the satellite to design for how much weight is "scar" to provide interfaces to the vehicle. For a module that is carried up to Space Station, the non-satellite but charged-as-payload weight may only be a few latches, the bridges to bolt the latches on, and some avionics harnesses. When we flew 12-ft diameter satellites on Space Shuttle that were designed to fly on ELVs, the numbers were roughly 7500 lbs of cargo weight, of which a third was a cradle that never left the vehicle, a third was upper stage, and a third actually operated at GEO. Note that GAS payloads are a special case, because sometimes we literally fly them instead of ballast, so their weight is sometimes "free". It would be easy for a GAS customer to not realize that the "can" is counted as part of Space Shuttle cargo weight, because the customer pays a fixed fee rather than by the pound. Regarding the Tubesat thing, if the Tubes are required for structural stability of the vehicle, and if the customers have no option to alter them or replace them with a different mounting system, they are considered part of the vehicle and not counted as cargo weight. Think of it as "discretionary" vs. "nondiscretionary" weight: if ya gotta carry it no matter what you're flying (including flying nothing), it's part of the vehicle. I hope this helps. Anita -----Original Message----- From: Craig Milo Rogers [mailto:rogers at ISI.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:55 PM To: Cyberplex at aol.com Cc: Gale, Anita E; oasis-members at oasis-nss.org Subject: Re: [oasis-members] $8000 to Orbit On 09.08.05, Cyberplex at aol.com wrote: > A TubeSat weighs 3/4 kg. A kg= 2.205 lbs. which means a TubeSat > weighs 1.65 lbs. At $8000 per launch per sat, that comes to around > $4,848 per pound. Better than most existing launch vehicles. > Plus----the NEPTUNE 30 is a dedicated launch vehicle---the customers > have primary payload status. The purpose of this reply is to document some of the numbers involved in greater detail. I will not attempt to resolve the disputed payload cost per pound to orbit, because I don't know what the appropriate convention should be for defining "payload". According to the techical specifications in the TubeSat sales brochure: http://www.interorbital.com/Downloads/TubeSat%20Sales%20Brochure%20Publi sh%201.0.pdf 1) The weight of a TubeSat, excluding customer payuload, is 0.55 kg (1.21 lbs). 2) The max weight of the customer payload is 0.2 kg (0.44 lbs, or conversationally, a half pound). Therefore 3) The max total weight of the TubeSat plus customer payload is 0.75 kg (1.65 lbs). Here comes the tricky part: when we talk about dollars per pound to orbit, exactly which hardware is included? What's the payload? If you're launching a satellite, then the entire mass of the satellite is usually used as the "payload" of a launch. Since each TubeSat is an independent satellite in orbit, you could consider it that way: cost to orbit is $4848/lb. If you want to consider just the user-controlled mass, and exclude the satellite bus (which includes a case, batteries, radio, microcomputer, antennas, switches, etc.), then the cost to orbit is much higher, $18182/lb. If you're launching an experiment on the Shuttle, then your expiriment's mass doesn't include the Shuttle itself; that seems obvious. When Shuttle astronauts release a small cannister into orbit (e.g., in the most recent Shuttle mission, the astronauts released a small cannister containing two satellites, according to news reports), does the "payload" cost include any components that are mandated by NASA (I don't know, but perhaps someone on this list does). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32221382 If an experiment is flown in a Shuttle rack, what equipment is mandatory for each experiment (e.g., mounting hardware, electrical connectors) and is is included in the reported and/or charged mass of the experiment (again, I don't know, but perhaps someone on this list does). According to the Wikipedia entry on the Shuttle Get Away Special, the GAS container and other NASA-supplied hardware is not included in the payload mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getaway_Special Semantically, can we formalize the source of the ambiguity by defining the satellite as the payload of the launch vehicle, and the user's experiment as the payload of the satellite? Craig Milo Rogers From rogers at ISI.EDU Thu Aug 6 20:02:39 2009 From: rogers at ISI.EDU (Craig Milo Rogers) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:02:39 -0700 Subject: [oasis-members] $8000 to Orbit In-Reply-To: References: <20090805215507.GB14795@isi.edu> Message-ID: <20090807000239.GC13448@isi.edu> On 09.08.06, Gale, Anita E wrote: > Let's put this in context: I am an engineer, and have been working > Space Shuttle Payload and Cargo Integration since 1980. I have three ... Thank you for the detailed and experienced explanation! > Regarding the Tubesat thing, if the Tubes are required for structural > stability of the vehicle, and if the customers have no option to alter > them or replace them with a different mounting system, they are > considered part of the vehicle and not counted as cargo weight. Think > of it as "discretionary" vs. "nondiscretionary" weight: if ya gotta > carry it no matter what you're flying (including flying nothing), it's > part of the vehicle. I didn't think of the structural issue. It certainly makes sense that you'd want to allot that mass to the launch vehicle for cost analysis. On the other hand, that mass *will* end up as part of the satellite, and so should be included in the mass of the satellite in a description of the launch. It might also matter to a payload experiment in the satellite. According to the description on the web site, a TubeSat contains various mandatory components: batteries, microcomputer, radio, solar cells, antenna, etc. Should they be considered part of the "payload"? As I read your argument, they should net be, because they are nondiscretionary. Does it matter if the user-supplied portion actively uses these components (e.g., for telemetry)? I note that the TubeSat specification currently available doesn't include a detailed somponent breakdown with mass. I suppose someone could always plunk down the $8000, take home a kit, and dissect it the way new laptop computers and cellphones are routinely dissected and described by the technical press... if we got together 80 people, it would cost only $100 apiece. :-) Craig Milo Rogers From cewcew at mac.com Sun Aug 30 18:00:32 2009 From: cewcew at mac.com (Craig E. Ward) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:00:32 -0700 Subject: [oasis-members] Naked Science | Living on the Moon | National Geographic Channel Message-ID: <73285425-10B9-4E2A-9B8C-35BD6409788E@mac.com> http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/naked-science/4253/Overview I stumbled across this episode recently. It was rather good. Those with a cable or satellite provider that carries National Geographic should try to catch this episode when it's repeated. Craig -- Craig E. Ward cewcew at mac.com