Could you and your spouse handle it? An interesting interview at CNN.com with Taber and Jane.
Category Archives: Space
SpaceX’s Successful Failure
I have some thoughts on the current mission over at PJMedia.
Regulating Inspiration Mars
Jeff Foust has a pretty comprehensive story on last week’s announcement, but Michael Listner and I are discussing the regulatory aspects in comments:
Under the Commercial Launch Act, a commercial or private operator must obtain an launch license and reentry license from the FAA. If the FAA decides not to grant either license this mission is going nowhere. Even though this is a non-commercial activity, the wording of the Act will still require a license.
Rand Simberg · 28 minutes ago
Yes, but what would be the basis of denying one?@ponder68 · 10 minutes ago
During the review process, if the FAA reviews whether that the mission could be adverse to the United States’ national security or international interests. Also, the issue of safety could be an issue as well as environmental considerations is part of the review. An adverse finding any of these or a combination could result in denial of a license.Rand Simberg · 4 minutes ago
Oh, I understand that. I meant on what rational basis? I can’t see the Pentagon objecting, and the notion that it would be an environmental issue is ludicrous. The only possible safety issue that I could see would be the entry. If there was an objection, I can imagine that the (Obama) State Department might say that it was hurting the feelings of other countries who weren’t as audacious as we are (note that this mission is actually within the budgets of many nations). But I’m not sure how the American people would react to such a position.
I’m going to add something to the book about this. Under current law, the only authority that the federal government would have over such a flight would be the ascent to orbit, where they would issue a launch license for the launch to deliver the hardware and crew to space. They have no jurisdiction over orbital activities, or beyond-LEO activities, other than their responsibilities under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention. This will in fact put the limits of Article VI to the test of just how much supervision by a States Party is required for private actors. The FAA has no statutory authority to regulate the safety of the crew themselves (again, under current law). The only safety issue in which they will be involved is for the launch, and for the potential of damage to uninvolved third parties from the very hot entry.
Which raises a question for the mission planners — how do they plan to dispose of the non-capsule (that is, the expandable) portion of the mission? Do they separate shortly before entry, and let it burn? How much of it will make it to the ground? They can probably do a correction burn after (or perhaps during) the Mars flyby to tweak the final earth entry time and location, but I don’t know by how much.
Regulating Commercial Spaceflight
Should the industry take a page from the book of maritime law, and self regulate?
Classification Societies originated in the 18th and 19th centuries at the initiative of English ship insurers. Their purpose is to serve the public interest and the needs of their clients by promoting the security of life, property and the natural environment.1 They are impartial organizations consisting of technical experts that have established a system of public safety based on private law contracts. They are often described as the unofficial “policemen” in the marine world. Classification Societies enter into contracts primarily with ship owners and shipyards, which enable them to determine and control whether a ship conforms to their rules. Although Classification Societies do have economic interests, these interests are not the primary reason for their existence. Because of this, they often take the form of non-profit corporations.2
Classification Societies set the standards for the design, construction, and maintenance of maritime vessels. They accomplish this through rules and standards formulated through a committee process. In developing these rules, a Classification Society’s staff relies upon prudent marine engineering principles, theoretical research, and experience.
This is something that the Commercial Spaceflight Federation should be considering.
Getting Past Apollo
Roger Handberg says it’s time for space advocates to move beyond the old false paradigm.
Space Colonies That Looked Like Home
When I was in college, disillusioned by the end of Apollo, these were the images, from Don Davis and others, that re-inspired me to get involved in space again.
How Delaying Commercial Crew Is Deadly
Jon Goff says that it could cost thousands of lives:
Just shaving 36 hours off of the availability date of commercial crew could potentially save more lives than would be lost in the worst case Commercial Crew crash. Even if expediting the process, dropping many of the NASA Human Rating requirements, dropping some of the abort tests, and sticking with Space Act Agreements instead of FAR Contracts really meant a massive decrease in actual safety (I don’t think it would) to say a 5% chance of losing a crew on a given flight, over the course of the ISS’s life you would have saved hundreds of times more US lives by taking that course than you would potentially risk in astronaut lives.
I’ll have to incorporate this thought into the book. I made the point, but not quantitatively, just that our approach is an indicator of how unimportant ISS research is, despite NASA lip service.
This is the problem that Bastiat described. Loss of crew is very publicly visible, while the people who die are anonymous and unknown to all except those closest to them, and their deaths aren’t understood to be a result of flawed government policy. This is the same problem that the FDA has, so it ends up inhibiting innovation, destroying jobs and killing people lest it be blamed for letting people die through underregulation.
Happy Berth Day, Dragon
Clark Lindsey has been covering the story, with links.
Thruster Pods One Through Four
“…are now operating nominally. Preparing to raise orbit. All systems green.”
Congrats to SpaceX.
Another successful failure, which is invaluable for learning and continuing to improve the system.
[Update a few minutes later]
Alan Boyle has the story.
“All Systems Are Go For Launch”
Things are looking good at the Cape a couple minutes before launch of the Falcon 9.
[Update a couple minutes later]
A couple minutes into the flight, and everything is looking nominal, about to MECO.
OK, stage sep, ignition confirmed for second stage. Another six minutes to orbit.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Second-stage engine cutoff in a couple minutes, still nominal trajectory.
[Update a couple minutes later]
OK, engine shutdown and Dragon separation. It’s in orbit with a low perigee. I assume they’ll do a circularization burn at apogee. About to deploy solar panels.
[Update a while later]
I think that it’s safe to say that Dragon flights have become routine now. But the next one will have some pucker factor, because it will be a new version of the vehicle, stretched, with the Merlin D engines.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Oops, may have spoken too soon. Did they have a fairing problem?
If they can’t deploy the panels, I think that Gwynne said yesterday that they can attempt one berthing pass on batteries.
I assume that if there were a crew, they’d probably abort back to earth at this point, while they have batteries (assuming whatever went wrong didn’t interfere with the heat shield). And if they had a small crew, with suits for everyone, they could blow down the cabin and attempt an EVA repair, a la Skylab.
[Update a while later]
There’s going to be a press conference in a few minutes, so I guess we’ll find out more.
I personally blame the sequester.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Actually, now that I think about it, I wonder if they can blow down the cabin? I would have cold plated the electronics, but if they didn’t, it might need air pressure to keep things cool. Surely they designed for that?
[Update a couple minutes later]
For those unfamiliar, I describe the Skylab repair in the book:
before the program ended completely and after the last lunar landing, NASA did undertake one more hazardous series of missions with Apollo hardware, though not to the moon. In 1973, America’s first space station, Skylab, suffered a failure on its launch, when the meteoroid shield was torn off from the aerodynamic forces, taking with it one of the two main solar panels while partially deploying the other prematurely. NASA had to nurse the crippled facility in a “hold” position that resulted in an increase of heat within due to the loss of the shield. The temperature reached 125° F, and it was unknown whether or not the cabin atmosphere was breathable, due to potential toxins from outgassing of overheated materials. But the agency hastily planned a risky repair mission to be performed by the station’s first crew – Pete Conrad, Paul Weitz and Joe Kerwin.
After rendezvousing with the station, the repair started with an open-hatch spacewalk from the Apollo capsule, with Weitz leaning out with a pole, his legs held by Kerwin. However, his attempt to release the stuck solar panel was unsuccessful. The crew then docked to the facility after several failed attempts, and entered after verifying that the air was breathable, albeit hot. From inside the airlock, they deployed a parasol that shielded the structure from the sun, and the temperature finally started to come down, though the power remained low due to the missing and stuck solar arrays. A couple of weeks into the one-month mission, Conrad and Kerwin once again put on suits and went out the airlock to attempt to free up the array. This time they succeeded, but it was almost a disaster, as Conrad was flung by the sudden release of the system after he removed debris from the hinge that was holding it in place. Had he not been tethered, he would have died as the life-support systems of his space suit were depleted, with him unable to get back to the spacecraft. But he was, and the two made it back in. The station was now almost fully functional, and would go on to host two more crews, giving the U.S. valuable long-duration space experience unmatched until the ISS was permanently crewed almost thirty years later. But with the end of Skylab in 1974, and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program in 1975, the Apollo program was finally over.
I wonder if we may see a repeat, if they can manage to berth it?
[Update a couple minutes later]
OK, apparently the panels aren’t the problem. They’ve got thruster issues, which are causing them to delay the panel deployment until they’re resolved. If they can’t fix that problem, they’re probably not even going to be able to abort and enter properly.
[Update a while later]
No press conference yet, but here’s the official statement from SpaceX: “After Dragon achieved orbit, the spacecraft experienced an issue with its thrusters. One thruster pod is running and two are preferred to take the next step which is to deploy the solar arrays. We are working to bring up the other two in order to plan the next series of burns to get to station.”
[Update a couple minutes later]
This sounds like good news: “thruster pod 3 tank pressure trending positive. Preparing to deploy solar arrays.”
[Update just before noon EDT]
“Solar array deployment successful”
Here’s the latest from SpaceX: “Falcon 9 lifted off as planned and experienced a nominal flight. After Dragon achieved orbit, the spacecraft experienced an issue with a propellant valve. One thruster pod is running. We are trying to bring up the remaining three. We did go ahead and get the solar arrays deployed. Once we get at least 2 pods running, we will begin a series of burns to get to station.”