Category Archives: Space

Does Anyone Really Care?

…what the Shuttle astronauts had for lunch? I guess it’s good, because it means it must be a slow news day (i.e., everything is going smoothly for a 6:36 PM launch).

I’m still trying to decide whether or not to drive up. I’ll have to leave within a couple hours if I’m going to make it. Patricia is working up in Orlando today, so the problem of finding a parking/viewing location is compounded by the need to meet up somewhere.

[Update a little before 3 PM]

I’m having a gumption shortage. I can’t get sufficiently enthused to sit in a car for several hours today, when I’ve got so much stuff to do around here. So I’ll see if I can see it from down here.

Triangulation

NASA has a new graphical element. Keith Cowing is underwhelmed. Me, too. Lots of good comments from the readers. I liked this one:

‘Market tested research’ lands NASA with a triangle with tiny words on each corner?

They tested this where? The planet Triangulus?

Of course, I think that the lack of an inspiring logo is actually toward the bottom of the agency’s problems. But I think that this is symptomatic (even, if I can use a word, emblematic) of a general lack of imagination there, on all fronts.

But at least, as Keith illustrates, it’s already starting to inspire the crew for today’s flight.

More Back To The Future

If this story is true, Orion is becoming even more Apollo-like:

Previously, the Orion was designed to land on large airbags at a landing range, although earlier hints that was no longer going to be the case came via documentation that showed a water landing – off the coast of Australia – for the Orion 3 unmanned test flight in September 2012. The first manned flight, Orion 4, was due to land at Edwards Air Force Base.

Also part of the mass saving design cycle – knocking off a total of 1,200 lbs from Orion – is the deletion of green propellants on the Crew Module, returning to the tried and tested hypergolic Reaction Control Systems (RCS). This weight savings measure was made in-line with the change to a water landing, due to salt water’s neutralizing of potential hypergolic fuel spills after splashdown.

This has many program implications. Water landing has an impact on the trade as to whether to expend or reuse the crew module. Previous trades assumed a land landing, and indicated that both life cycle and per-mission cost would be much lower for reuse, assuming a certain number of flights. But if they land in water, they may not have as much confidence in their ability to refurbish. If this means going to an expendable, they just increased the marginal flight costs quite a bit. And going to hypergolics continues to delay the day that we get propellants that are both clean, and (relatively) easy to manufacture off planet, such as methane and LOX. Of course, if they’re not going to refurbish, then at least they don’t have to worry about servicing a hypergolic system as part of turnaround, which has always been one of the ops-cost drivers for the Shuttle.

In addition, water landing means that they have to deal with a fixed-cost recovery fleet, for a low flight rate, because I don’t think they’re going to get free aircraft-carrier service, as they did in Apollo.

These are the same short-sighted types of decisions that killed the Shuttle program–pinching pennies up front with potential large increases in operational costs. And all because they chose to oversize the system, and wastespend their money building a new NASA-unique launcher that’s turning out to lack the performance they need.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I see that Chair Force Engineer and Clark Lindsey are also less than impressed.

[Update in the early afternoon]

Keith Cowing reports that PAO denies that a decision has been made. Make of that what you will…

Logical Fallacies

Clark Lindsey, on more clueless commentating from the MSM:

In science it is not considered a valid technique to generalize from a single data point. The same is true for judging RLVs. The Space Shuttle, which is not really reused but rather is rebuilt between flights, has innumerable design flaws and shortcomings far too extensive and numerous to go into here. Predicted to become the DC-3 of launchers, to call it even the Ford Tri-Motor of launchers would be an insult to that historic plane. (Ball also mentions the X-15 but it was a experimental development program, not an operational system. It should be compared to the SS1 not the SS2.)

Commercial spaceflight vehicles are being designed and built with the goal of low cost operations rather than highest possible performance. Low cost operations can only arise when high reliability and robustness are designed into the systems from the ground up. Those features in turn will produce safe rides for the crews and passengers. (I’ll note that it will be easier to achieve safe and routine operations for suborbital spaceflight but eventually the lessons learned there will be applied to orbital systems.)

One runs into this illogic often in space discussions, as though the Shuttle proves anything at all about reusable vehicles in general.

Though it’s not as bad as that Alex Tabarrok piece a while back.

In Defense Of Drunk Astronauts

Charles Krauthammer goes to bat for them. I do think that this story is overblown, but he overstates the “spam in a can” argument. Like airline pilots, Shuttle pilots need to have a clear head at launch, in the event of an abort. As for the rest of the crew, it probably wouldn’t hurt much if they were mildly intoxicated, but the notion that one has to have a couple stiff ones to climb into the Shuttle (or the Soyuz) seems a little silly to me, regardless of how many times the joke is repeated, and he seems to be serious about it. Maybe some of the pilots in the Battle of Britain wouldn’t have been able to pass a breathalyzer test, but if so, their chances of killing the enemy, or getting home, would have been sharply reduced compared to their sober colleagues.

And he has entirely much too much faith in NASA to execute the vision, even if it gets support from the politicians.

Go For A Night Launch

Well, actually a pre-dawn launch, but it should still be a nice sight if/when the Delta II takes off with the Mars Phoenix lander tomorrow morning, from the Cape. I don’t know if I can work up the gumption to drive up there for it, though. Particularly if we plan to see Endeavour launch on Tuesday, which seems to be back on track with the valve replacement in the crew cabin.

Crumbling Infrastructure

Amidst huge entitlement programs, paying farmers not to grow food, pork and boondoggles, the nation’s transportation infrastructure has been badly neglected, and is quite brittle. It also makes one wonder how many other ticking time bombs there are out there.

This applies to space transportation as well. A category three hurricane could wipe out NASA’s manned space program. On some days, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing. It would force them to do something different, and break us out of the rut we’ve been in since Apollo.

Of course, there’s a big difference. The highway infrastructure was a huge improvement over the past, offering affordable mobility to hundreds of millions of Americans, with a great deal of redundancy and resiliency. The space transportation infrastructure has never been affordable to anyone but the government, or able to support more than a few dozen people in orbit per year, and it’s always been quite fragile, with no backups. Until we address this issue, we’ll never be a spacefaring nation, or accomplish the things there that many of use want. But all that NASA offers is more of the same.