View Single Post
  #5  
Old 04-04-2016, 12:26 AM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackshire
Many astronomers fly telescopes (particularly ones for use at wavelengths that are blocked by the Earth's atmosphere) on sounding rockets, because it can take years to book observing time on a space telescope. While such telescopes are often flown multiple times, they have to be rugged (and thus more expensive) in order to withstand the high ascent accelerations and ground impacts under their parachutes. Also, the rockets' solid propellants emit smoke after final-stage burnout, which can dirty-up the telescope optics and/or obscure the view New Shepard can provide gentle rides for telescopes, which can thus be more cheaply built, and its clean (with positive cut-off) propulsion system is free from the smoke and outgassing that can mar the telescopes' views. As well:
I have zero smoke solids. I have retro landing soft landing after parachute landings. So there is a solid alternative now. So, now which is lower cost?

A liquid requires a team of 20-60 employees to operate. A solid requires 2-10. The 6-10th are partying.

Soyuz uses retros to land.

Solids can readily target under 3G if you don't use surplus ballistic missiles!

Tech Jerry
Reply With Quote