…EELV was/is:

…the government’s total investment in the two rockets has grown from an estimated $17 billion to more than $32 billion since its inception.

It makes one cry, when considering what we could have had instead, if a small fraction of that money been applied to actual cost reductions and reliability improvements (e.g., by putting it up as a market for delivery of water to orbit, or a prize for ten consecutive successful launches). I doubt if any of the cost-per-launch quotes for either Delta or Atlas include amortization of that outrageous welfare program. And now, having wasted all that money, they want to shut down one of them, losing the resiliency that was one of the supposed features of the program.

At least NASA is starting to come to its senses, as the once “Shuttle-derived” heavy lifter slowly morphs into an EELV-derived one, with the RS-68s, so perhaps the investment won’t be for (almost) naught.

…EELV was/is:

…the government’s total investment in the two rockets has grown from an estimated $17 billion to more than $32 billion since its inception.

It makes one cry, when considering what we could have had instead, if a small fraction of that money been applied to actual cost reductions and reliability improvements (e.g., by putting it up as a market for delivery of water to orbit, or a prize for ten consecutive successful launches). I doubt if any of the cost-per-launch quotes for either Delta or Atlas include amortization of that outrageous welfare program. And now, having wasted all that money, they want to shut down one of them, losing the resiliency that was one of the supposed features of the program.

At least NASA is starting to come to its senses, as the once “Shuttle-derived” heavy lifter slowly morphs into an EELV-derived one, with the RS-68s, so perhaps the investment won’t be for (almost) naught.

…EELV was/is:

…the government’s total investment in the two rockets has grown from an estimated $17 billion to more than $32 billion since its inception.

It makes one cry, when considering what we could have had instead, if a small fraction of that money been applied to actual cost reductions and reliability improvements (e.g., by putting it up as a market for delivery of water to orbit, or a prize for ten consecutive successful launches). I doubt if any of the cost-per-launch quotes for either Delta or Atlas include amortization of that outrageous welfare program. And now, having wasted all that money, they want to shut down one of them, losing the resiliency that was one of the supposed features of the program.

At least NASA is starting to come to its senses, as the once “Shuttle-derived” heavy lifter slowly morphs into an EELV-derived one, with the RS-68s, so perhaps the investment won’t be for (almost) naught.

Nigeria is building its own communications satellite.

A dedicated spam relay?

Maybe not:

Laboratory tests have shown that individual nanotubes can withstand an average of about 100 GPa, an unusual strength that comes courtesy of their crystalline structure. But if a nanotube is missing just one carbon atom, this can reduce its strength by as much as 30%. And a bulk material made from such tubes is even weaker. Most fibres made from nanotubes have so far had a strength much lower than 1 GPa.

Recent measurements of high-quality nanotubes have found them to be missing one carbon atom out of every 1012 bonds; that’s about one defect over 4 micrometres of nanotube length1. Defects of two or more missing atoms are much more rare, but Pugno points out that on the scale of the space elevator they become statistically probable.

Using a mathematical model that he has devised himself, and which has been tested by predicting the strength of materials such as nano-crystalline diamond, Pugno calculates that large defects will unavoidably bring a cable’s strength below about 30 GPa. His paper has been posted to arXiv2, and will appear in the July edition of the Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter.

Pugno adds that even if flawless nanotubes could be made for the space elevator, damage from micrometeorites and even erosion by oxygen atoms would render them weak. So can a space elevator be made? “With the technology available today? Never,” he says.

This seems like kind of an oxymoronic statement, because “never” implies the technology available any time, not just today. I would think that devices that continuously repaired redundant cables at a molecular level could solve this problem, though they’re not “technology available today.” In any event, I remain an agnostic.

Clark Lindsey has some thoughts on the myths about radiation in space. I should note that this is one of the more popular lunatic (and I use that phrase in its most pejorative sense) theories about why we never went to the moon.

The Antelope Valley Press has a self-serving editorial on spaceports. Agenda revealed in last graf:

Right now, there is a serious and dangerous shortage of viable commercial airports. It would be far better to deal with that overwhelming present-day need than to try to compete for space tourism that will become a reality through the good works of Burt Rutan and Sir Richard Branson.

It’s certainly true that there are more spaceports being planned than are justified by current demand (or constraints of locale), and it’s also true that there’s a hard regulatory road ahead for many of them, given the issues that they’ll have with general aviation (something solvable with a more rational approach by AST). But to think that only Mojave will have a spaceport, and only Burt Rutan and Richard Branson will succeed or are even making any progress is, at the least, disingenuous. This was the line that Burt took in his luncheon speech in LA a couple weeks ago, and Stu Witt (manager of Mojave Airport) said the same thing when I met with him in Mojave last week (no confidences broken here, as far as I know–he’s happy to tell the same thing to anyone who asks).

I expect Burt and Stu to say those things, and I expect the Antelope Valley Press to stenograph them, but Oklahoma has a tenant with funds, developing vehicles, and we don’t know what Jeff Bezos is going to do out in the middle of Armadillo* Scrotum, Texas, where he’s not near either populated areas or military ranges, and may in fact have an easier time getting a site license than some of the more “conventional” choices. In any event, such editorials are to be taken with the prescribed amount of sodium chloride.

[* Update: Sorry, no slight to these guys intended]

Robin Snelson is. Enough to have started a blog about it.

Maybe.

What I found interesting was this, though:

The FAA also is considering two proposed spaceports in Texas, including a private spaceport on 165,000 acres of desolate ranch land about 120 miles east of El Paso bought by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos. Bezos had said his space tourism firm, Blue Origin, would first build basic structures, then begin flight tests in six to seven years.

Six to seven years? I thought that they wanted to do suborbital tourism, at least initially. Why would it take six to seven years, given that they’ve been working on it for a number of years already? It makes me wonder how serious Mr. Bezos is about this business, because that would put him way behind the competition (though perhaps he thinks that his design will be so superior that it won’t matter).

One of the dangers of having too much money is that you’re sometimes willing to spend it with no expectations of getting it back, so it’s treated more as a hobby. John Carmack has noted this explicitly in the past with respect to Armadillo (though he may be evolving it into a business), but is Blue Origin similar?

Over at today’s issue of The Space Review, Robin Snelson writes about NASA’s latest (and very interesting) Centennial Challenge, to demonstrate lunar landing technology. Also Jeff Foust writes about Elon Musk and SpaceX’s status, and there’s an interview with Newt Gingrich, on space prizes, private enterprise, and NASA.

[Update a few minutes later]

I just got around to reading the Gingrich interview myself, and clearly, under a (hypothetical, and unlikely) Gingrich administration, space policy would look much different:

I am for a dramatic increase in our efforts to reach out into space, but I am for doing virtually all of it outside of NASA through prizes and tax incentives. NASA is an aging, unimaginative, bureaucracy committed to over-engineering and risk-avoidance which is actually diverting resources from the achievements we need and stifling the entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit necessary to lead in space exploration.

And he’s just warming up. I’m sure that Mark Whittington will now attack Newt as an “Internet rocketeer.”

[Update at 1 PM PDT]

I had been unaware of the schedule controversy described in the comments. It would be interesting to see a response from Ken Davidian or Brant Sponberg.