German hackers plan DIY space program

Is this story really true? If so then I am amazed that hackers could be so naive at all.

The cost per kg currently around $10k, about half what it cost on the shuttle. If you assume a payload mass fraction of 2% and a vehicle mass fraction of 10%, you have a fuel-to-weight ratio of 44:1. So, it takes--switching to English units because milk is in gallons--44 pounds of fuel to launch 1 pound into orbit on current launch vehicles. Fuel is roughly as dense as water and roughly the same cost as milk. So, about 6 gallons of fuel at $3.50/gallon. $21 in fuel for 1 lb of payload, then.

How do you solve this problem? You work on the difference in engineering cost between $21/lb and $5k/lb, say by simplifying systems, building them more robustly so the $30k paper trail that guarantees that the otherwise $700 part will perform exactly as advertised goes away, or aiming for reusability.

Of course, if you did that on a large enough scale, you'd be Elon Musk.

Yes you can.

You should inform your local air traffic control and get airspace clearance for the launch. You should probably do it very publically as well otherwise some slightly paranoid nations may take it as a threat.

You probably don't want to bother unless you are near the equator though (less energy is required to launch from there). You also want to launch when air density is at a minimum if possible.

From a practicality POV, most space launch vehicles are very over-engineered. It's cheaper to lose a few cheaper ones than to build better quality ones (unless they have a live payload) so there are logistics to consider as well.

It is possible, and the Copenhagen suborbital hackers launch a rocket last summer. YOu can read more about it in their website.

http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/

For all it worth, right now most anti-satellite weapons are limited to low earth orbit (useful for knocking out satellites looking at stuff you don't want). Most communications satellites will be a much higher altitude.

While there is no fundamental reason why governments couldn't create ASAT weapons to reach higher altitudes, the costs go on significantly. Previous (like cold war era) attempts at high altitude weapons pretty much just strapped a big nuke to a full out launch vehicle. For reference, the weapon used by the US in their ASAT kill in 2006 was made using a modified ballistic defense missile (the SM-3). Your Aegis equipped warships can carry a -lot- of them.

Anyhow, it'd be far easier for governments to attempt to regulate the receivers and transmitters than to shoot down the satellite. Also, it would be easier for them to deny launch privileges than wait till after they launch. They might not own space, but they own their airspace.