China's Space Program News Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
At 0:23 the arm is attached to the module with both attachment ports at the lower side of the module. Then at 0.27, the arm is moved to the truss on the upper side of the module. The CG does not demonstrate how that movement was made, then the arm remains on the truss till the end of the CG.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Canadarm2 can easily be commanded to move wherever it needs to go around the ISS. Each of its ends can be used as an anchor point while the other carries out various tasks.The anchoring end must be secured to a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. These fixtures are located at a number of key points on the Station's outer structure.

Canadarm2 can walk end-over-end, connecting to these fixtures as it travels along the exterior of the ISS.



The Chinese robotic arm and Canadarm2 are almost the same in basic capabilities.
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
Remember that Starship is targeting launch costs of $10/lb.
Elon Musk says lots of things when he is stoned.


Best to focus on nearer-term developments which will be the first to be profitable and viable.
I doubt the SPS program will be profitable until the infrastructure is in place to mass produce the satellites, hundreds or thousands of them.


Not to be a party pooper, but it will remain cheaper to just place them on the ground. I really, really want these, but...terra firma remains cheaper than ad astra.
Solar farms on the Earth need some way to store some energy for nights. If you use batteries, is there enough cobalt or vanadium? The Earth currently uses roughly 18 terawatts; for ground-based solar to replace all that, we may need new technology.

In contrast, SPSes do not need new technology; they could have been done 40 years ago. And the potential is there for SPSs to satisfy all of Earth's energy needs, several times over.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Not to be a party pooper, but it will remain cheaper to just place them on the ground. I really, really want these, but...terra firma remains cheaper than ad astra.

Agreed. Solar panels placed on earth will be so much cheaper than any launched into space.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
this is Elon Musk. He is capable of great achievements. but he is nonetheless 90% full of shit.

I also said, if they "get anywhere near" that benchmark of $10/lb for space launch costs.

And I'd say his track record argues for much lower shit percentage. Call it 40%.

Consider his past at Paypal, then Tesla, then SpaceX, then Spacelink.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
I also said, if they "get anywhere near" that benchmark of $10/lb for space launch costs.

And I'd say his track record argues for much lower shit percentage. Call it 40%.

Consider his past at Paypal, then Tesla, then SpaceX, then Spacelink.
There are two aspects of Elon musk that has been notable.

One is to develop innovative business models that exploit to potentials of emerging technologies to the full. Here his track record is undeniable impressive.

The second is selling a lot of people on outlandish claims of technological potential within ridiculous time frames. Hear the bullshitometer typically reads 90%. I take for one example his claim that Tesla self driving cars will achieve level 54 full self drive capability By the end of the year every year since 2017. Halfway into 2021, academic researchers of the full self driving problem credits Tesla with level two, and he would be lucky to get there by 2027.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Solar farms on the Earth need some way to store some energy for nights. If you use batteries, is there enough cobalt or vanadium? The Earth currently uses roughly 18 terawatts; for ground-based solar to replace all that, we may need new technology.

In contrast, SPSes do not need new technology; they could have been done 40 years ago. And the potential is there for SPSs to satisfy all of Earth's energy needs, several times over.

There's energy models which look at how wind+nuclear can supply the night-time baseload, with other sources such as solar and hydro also providing for day-time supply.

Also note that new solar plants today, are deliberately sized so that excess electricity during very sunny days is simply left to waste, because solar electricity panels are so cheap.

So I just don't see the need to build up an orbital->ground solar electricity industry given the much lower costs of ground based panels.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
It seems to me any need to deliver solar energy around the clock using space installations would be much cheaper to meet if the principle is to simply to use large thin film reflectors in orbit to reflect sunlight down to pre-existing ground based solar farms in remote areas, then to build orbital PV facilities that would generate power in situ and then transmit it down to earth and requiring additional ground based receiving antenna of the required scale.

A square kilometer of .4 mil commercially available aluminized mirror finish film weigh about 8 tons. Even if we assume we can do no better, and the supporting and positioning structure required to maintain mirror shape, counter solar photo pressure and maintain position and orientation would weight 5 times as much, a single LM9 launch can still lift 3 square km of such reflectors.

current solar PV technology allows about 40 MW of solar peak output per sq km.

So a 3 sq km reflector in space could roughly double the output of about 120MW of ground based solar generating capacity.

Current cost of solar PV is roughly $2 per Watt of capacity, installed.

So if LM9 class rocket can launch 120 tons into space for $240 million or less, or any rocket for launch at $2 million per ton, then mylar mirror in space might be a economically viable solution to allow solar farms to generate cover night using just existing solar PV technology without any need to beam microwave from space.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top