Tweet
The site says that it only flew twice in the late 80's. My guess is that there was no need for such a powerfull rocket and by that time there were no extra money to make flights just for fun.
-
Quendelie axan! -
Do remember that space tech components have much more rigourous testing than earth based equivalents (g-shock, radiation, static electricity).Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Wow. That's expensive. The field programmable gate array (FPGA) doesn't cost that much.
If they were mass produced, that would make them cheaper - but there currently isn't a call for thousands of rocket flight computers.
More's the pity.
Correct. Saturn V was THE major achievement for it's time - but there really isn't a need for sending 2 astronauts to the moon more than a couple of times.Originally posted by Sir Og
Energia is the most powerfull rocket.
Payload from Baikonur
95-100 tons to 51-degree LEO
18 tons to geostationary orbit
32 tons to the lunar transfer
28 tons to Venus and Mars
As for the X Prise. I find it amusing that american and british companies are trying to build rockets from scratch when all they should do is hire a second rate russian rocket scientist.
I recently saw a show on Discovery channel that showed some american engineers who didn't beleive that technical characteristics of russian rocket engines were possible. The energia engines were 5 times more efficient than american engines.
There is a major need for satellites in earth orbit for comms and monitoring - of much more benefit to mankind.
As for all those slagging Ariane V - I sort of agree with you. Watching all those pics of exploding rockets over the years really annoyed me.
It seems to be working much better now - but the development was a long time coming.
What do you expect, with all the countries doing it speaking different languages?Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
"The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84Comment
-
While true, they probably just ordered this FPGA through Avnet. Really.Do remember that space tech components have much more rigourous testing than earth based equivalents (g-shock, radiation, static electricity).
If they were mass produced, that would make them cheaper - but there currently isn't a call for thousands of rocket flight computers.
More's the pity.
The amount of radiation on the way up is minimal. As for static and the like, this is an important consideration at these high clock speeds. This is probably a 16-layer board, with many of these being ground planes. I have included this consideration in my $650 estimate.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Very true. I was thinking more of electronics in an orbit, rather than a vehicle taking them up there.Originally posted by DanS
The amount of radiation on the way up is minimal
Launching in a solar flare period would be just asking for trouble.Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
"The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84Comment
-
I read sometime that the Vertical Assembly Building in Dan's first picture was (is?) the world's most voluminous building and that clouds could actually form inside it and rain fall as a result.
Everything about the Apollo programme was impressive and beyond compare, and I'm still to this day wondering how it was possible to accomplish it all in such a short time span. Talk about determination.
Comment
-
The president talked, the money walked.
I think the cost was ~ $11 billion in development costs in 1969 dollars and ~ $500 million per flight. In today's dollars, that's ~ $45 billion and ~ $2 billion, respectively.
Regarding the VAB, the irony is that the length of the Saturn rockets were limited by how big of a Vertical Assembly Building we had available, not by other factors. The building design was frozen even before we figured out what course we were going to take to get the moon. Hey, even though it was ass backwards, it worked for us!
According to Skyscraper.com, it's the most voluminous building on Earth. 129 million cubic feet (3.7 million m^3). 525 feet (160 m) tall. It also has the largest doors on Earth. Sauron would be proud!
Last edited by DanS; April 7, 2004, 14:36.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
UR: On this monitor (which is different than the one last night), I can see clearly that the markings on the FPGA are Virtex II Pro.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
They failed to update the parameters for the maximum allowed horizontal component of accerleration (or was it velocity?) in the navigation computors from the IV to the V. The V with it higher acceleration (or veleocity) had a higher horizontal ('downrange') component thereof that the programing allowed for, and all three nav computors shut down, and BOOM. I do not recall if the BOOM was an automatic safety feature or if it went out of control and broke up upon losing navigation control. Some dull programmer, who had remembered to update the vertical parameters, just did not think of updating the horizontal parameters.Originally posted by Colon
It was a software error. They probably installed Windows on it.Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
Japher: "crap, did I just post in this thread?"
"Bloody hell, Lefty.....number one in my list of persons I have no intention of annoying, ever." Bugs ****ing Bunny
From a 6th grader who readily adpated to internet culture: "Pay attention now, because your opinions suck"Comment
-
Regarding whether or not Shuttle sucks, I would point out that the actual rocketry only failed once out of 113 tries. The other failure was upon reentry.
My info on the booster shows that of the 2 flights (1 with the Buran and 1 without), only 1 was successful.The site says that it only flew twice in the late 80's. My guess is that there was no need for such a powerfull rocket and by that time there were no extra money to make flights just for fun.
Still, obviously it was one damn big rocket.Last edited by DanS; April 7, 2004, 18:08.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Both launches were successful, but payload on the first rocket misfunctioned and did not deploy properly.Originally posted by DanS
My info on the booster shows that of the 2 flights (1 with the Buran and 1 without), only 1 was successful.It is only totalitarian governments that suppress facts. In this country we simply take a democratic decision not to publish them. - Sir Humphrey in Yes MinisterComment
-
Originally posted by
Smiley
you want something big on treads?
Wow, that is an awesome machine. Sure would hate to see it lurch over the hillside nearest home ...
Thanks for the images!Comment
-
IIRC, the BOOM was safety procedure.Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
They failed to update the parameters for the maximum allowed horizontal component of accerleration (or was it velocity?) in the navigation computors from the IV to the V. The V with it higher acceleration (or veleocity) had a higher horizontal ('downrange') component thereof that the programing allowed for, and all three nav computors shut down, and BOOM. I do not recall if the BOOM was an automatic safety feature or if it went out of control and broke up upon losing navigation control. Some dull programmer, who had remembered to update the vertical parameters, just did not think of updating the horizontal parameters.DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
-
Here's some cool stuff. Instead of paper airplanes, we now have paper rockets. Print out and assemble your own Saturn IB!
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Looking at rocket launch statistics is as fun as looking at baseball statistics.
The rocket with the highest predicted next launch success rate is the converted ICBM Atlas II launched by the US Air Force. 59 launches, all successful.
One interesting way of thinking about this is what would have happened if instead of the Space Shuttle, the US had chosen in the early 70s a more tried-and-true method like the Soviets did. The US would have developed a cheaper workhorse similar to the Soyuz-U and probably would have launched a lot more. Where would this US launch vehicle have stood in the stats?
You have to hand it to the Soviets. They were true believers in space. They couldn't build a car for sh!t, but their rockets were practical, if not eminently reliable.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
The Atlas II. Liquid Oxygen/Kerosene first stage, liquid oxygen/hydrogen second stage.Attached FilesI came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Comment