• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Launch Thread: TRICOM-1

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
ybXJrYd.png

Good morning from RF mission control! :D We are back for the first covered rocket launch of the year. China has already launched twice, however, due to the lack of streaming outlets, we opted out of that coverage. Our focus today remains in Asia as we cover Japan's first take at the stars with TRICOM-1!

Current Schedule Launch Time: 18:48 EST 01/10/2017
Launching Agency: JAXA
Payload: TRICOM 1
Launch Vehicle: SS-520 F4
Live Countdown
Stream
Mission Homepage

TRICOM 1 is an experimental 3U Cubesat built at the University of Tokyo.

TRICOM 1 is a 3 kg spin stabilized satellite featuring a store and forward communication equipment and an earth imaging camera. The CubeSat is launched without the usual deployer and is base mounted on the launch vehicle without the usual guiding rails or tabs.

The Store and forward mission is to collect the data that is transmitted from the ground terminal while orbiting the Earth, transfer the data at the direction of the ground station.

The earth imaging mission is to use four main cameras and a sub-camera during the initial operation to allow imaging the ground even in an unstable state.

The SS-520 is a two-stage rocket, the first stage of which comes from the main booster of the S-520. It has a capability for launching a 140 kg payload to an altitude of about 800nbsp;km.

The SS-520 aims at reaching 800nbsp;km altitude, and at the same time, carrying out technological experiments concerning the development of a mini-satellite launch vehicle by adding the third stage atop. The first stage is stabilized aerodynamically by use of tail fins like the S-520.

As the second stage is heavier than the head of S-520, the aerodynamic margin is secured more than ever. The whole motor case of the second stage is made of CFRP. The spin generated in the first stage is succeeded by the second stage, and it is utilized in the Rhumb-line control and spin stabilization.

The SS-520 debuted in January 1998 from Kagoshima, and ISAS also flew it from Svalbard, Spitsbergen, Norway, to send a payload into the cusp region of the geomagnetosphere.

The fourth vehicle, S-520-4, has been modified with an small third stage to create a modest picosat launcher, which can put a 4 kg 3U CubeSat into a 180 km × 1500 km orbit with an inlination of 31°. It is a technology demonstration with so serial production planned.

Stay tuned for updates throughout the day as I learn of them! :)

GO JAXA, GO TRICOM 1!
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
I personally think we'll need space elevators if we want to make space travel easy to the masses.

The cost of getting into space is just not economical. I don't see any advances in rocketry to be able to make this better. Although, I'm not a rocket scientist.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
I don't see any advances in rocketry to be able to make this better.
Really? Last year we saw multiple companies demonstrate first stage recovery and reuse. This has the potential to reduce launch cost by as much as 30%. Not too bad, yeah?
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Really? Last year we saw multiple companies demonstrate first stage recovery and reuse. This has the potential to reduce launch cost by as much as 30%. Not too bad, yeah?

The probably of re-use is still low, right? And the number of re-uses is limited also.

There still remains the fuel and energy efficiency equation, which is restricted to specific forms of energy hence fuel.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
The probably of re-use is still low, right? And the number of re-uses is limited also.
Blue Origin and SpaceX disagree. Blue Origin has reused the same booster four separate times. SpaceX is slated to reuse their recovered first stage this year. There are still a lot of concepts that need to be proven, but to say "there are no advances" is incorrect. As far as space travel technology, I would argue that last years accomplishments are shadowed only by the Apollo program.

There still remains the fuel and energy efficiency equation, which is restricted to specific forms of energy hence fuel.
Let's break it down. For this example we are going to use a traditional two stage, Falcon 9 rocket. Here is a look at the approximate cost of each element of the spacecraft assuming the client is providing the payload of average size:

First Stage Cost = $42,375,000
Second Stage Cost = $13,925,000
Fuel Cost = $200,000
Extras/Misc = $3,800,000

Total Bill to Launch: $56,880,000

Fuel cost makes up 0.3% of the total cost to launch that rocket. As far as money goes, fuel consumption is not an issue. You are correct, however, that energy efficiency is a problem for anything outside of Earth's orbit. That is one of the bigger engineering challenges. Our current engines just don't have the thrust. But for traditional space travel up to the Moon? Maybe Mars? We can make that work with what we have.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Blue Origin and SpaceX disagree. Blue Origin has reused the same booster four separate times. SpaceX is slated to reuse their recovered first stage this year. There are still a lot of concepts that need to be proven, but to say "there are no advances" is incorrect. As far as space travel technology, I would argue that last years accomplishments are shadowed only by the Apollo program.


Let's break it down. For this example we are going to use a traditional two stage, Falcon 9 rocket. Here is a look at the approximate cost of each element of the spacecraft assuming the client is providing the payload of average size:

First Stage Cost = $42,375,000
Second Stage Cost = $13,925,000
Fuel Cost = $200,000
Extras/Misc = $3,800,000

Total Bill to Launch: $56,880,000

Fuel cost makes up 0.3% of the total cost to launch that rocket. As far as money goes, fuel consumption is not an issue. You are correct, however, that energy efficiency is a problem for anything outside of Earth's orbit. That is one of the bigger engineering challenges. Our current engines just don't have the thrust. But for traditional space travel up to the Moon? Maybe Mars? We can make that work with what we have.

Ok, thanks. That does help.

Actually I was focusing on entering space which is a very cost prohibitive and was addressed in the movie Interstellar but didn't present an actual answer. Obviously, we'll need some form of propulsion after getting into space, but I could possibly argue that there could be new technologies that might not require storage of fuel.

The biggest issue is just getting into space. Space elevators if protected from damage like terrorism I feel is more beneficial to mankind later. I think carbon nanotube technology will mature itself so that we can have very strong structures to endure the length of the atmosphere. Then we can use other forms of energy to drive elevators.

Notice that in any of these suggestions, we do not possibly lose or use mass/parts/fuel from the original launching device.

Well, in the mean time, rockets are the only way to go so yeah, we should improve them. I just don't think they will be our answer in the future. :)
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Obviously, we'll need some form of propulsion after getting into space, but I could possibly argue that there could be new technologies that might not require storage of fuel.
That would be awesome! The one thing that the fuel does do is weigh us down. If we can make it lighter or not need to store it at all, would be a welcomed change!

The biggest issue is just getting into space. Space elevators if protected from damage like terrorism I feel is more beneficial to mankind later. I think carbon nanotube technology will mature itself so that we can have very strong structures to endure the length of the atmosphere. Then we can use other forms of energy to drive elevators.
That is the dream! I haven't seen or read much regarding this technology though. :(

Notice that in any of these suggestions, we do not possibly lose or use mass/parts/fuel from the original launching device.
Exactly. If we could do that safely, it would be an ideal scenario. Unfortunately, I feel we are a bit removed from that as a reality.

Well, in the mean time, rockets are the only way to go so yeah, we should improve them. I just don't think they will be our answer in the future. :)
One can only hope! :)
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
That would be awesome! The one thing that the fuel does do is weigh us down. If we can make it lighter or not need to store it at all, would be a welcomed change!


That is the dream! I haven't seen or read much regarding this technology though. :(


Exactly. If we could do that safely, it would be an ideal scenario. Unfortunately, I feel we are a bit removed from that as a reality.


One can only hope! :)

Concerning self proportion, there is a theory called EM drive. It's very early but test after test is showing promise.

A leaked NASA paper points to a working EmDrive

Apparently, I missed the recent news that carbon nanotubes cannot handle a space elevator.
Carbon Nanotubes Can't Handle a Space Elevator

Oh wells...
 
Last edited:
Top