Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday September 04 2014, @06:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the ultralight-needs-light dept.

It takes chutzpah to tweet “rockets are tricky” shortly after one you have just launched has deliberately blown itself up. But Elon Musk, founder and boss of SpaceX, is not a man who lacks self-confidence, and he did just that on August 22nd after the terminal malfunction of one of his company’s Falcon 9 vehicles. That Arianespace, a French rival of SpaceX, announced on the same day that two satellites it had tried to launch to join the European Space Agency’s Galileo constellation (intended to rival America’s Global Positioning System), had entered a “non-nominal injection orbit”—in other words, gone wrong—shows just how difficult the commercialization of space can be.

If spacecraft are so precarious, then perhaps investors should lower their sights. But not in terms of innovation; rather in altitude. Airbus, a European aerospace company, thinks that developing satellite-like capabilities without satellites is the answer. Hence the firm’s recent trial, at an undisclosed location (but one subject to Brazilian airspace regulations) of Zephyr 7, a high-altitude “pseudo-satellite”, or HAPS for short.

Zephyr (named after the Greek god of the west wind) is actually an unmanned, ultralight, solar-powered, propeller-driven aircraft. But it is designed, just as some satellites are, to hover indefinitely over the same part of the world. With a 23-metre wingspan and a weight of only 50kg, it is fragile and must remain above the ravages of the weather and the jet stream both by day and by night. It therefore flies at an altitude of around 21km (70,000 feet) during daylight hours, and then glides slowly down to around 15km when the sun is unavailable to keep it aloft.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 04 2014, @10:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 04 2014, @10:08PM (#89538)

    I think the 'official' definition of space is 100km (although NASA may have 'lowered' its standard to something like 90 km).

    Geosynchronous orbits are much higher. Of course velocity is also critical.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalaltitudes.jpg [wikimedia.org]

    SpaceX seems to be doing some good things (even publicity is good for space fanatics) but space is not very economically feasible yet for private individuals and companies (except for very large telcos with large user base to offset cost). It's not even really feasible for many governments, but I guess it's hard to appreciate wasting of money when you don't work for it yourself.