Category Archives: Space

Political Commentary, Space

Sputnik

1 Comment

It’s been fifty-four years since the first satellite was launched. Here‘s what I wrote on the forty-fifth anniversary (hard to believe that was nine years ago):

Forty-five years after the Wright brothers flew their first flight, thousands of aircraft had been built and hundreds of thousands of people had flown on routine commercial flights.

Forty-five years after Sputnik, space remains an elite destination–only a few hundred people have visited it.

It’s not for lack of interest. Public opinion polls indicate that millions of people would like to experience space flight if they could afford it. And the lack of their ability to afford it is not a consequence of physics–that accounts for at most an order of magnitude difference in the costs of space flight over air travel.

No, people can’t afford it because, unlike almost any other issue in which many people have an interest, their government is indifferent to their wants. It can get away with this because it has told them that it is “hard,” and because they’ve been told that it is for decades, and the belief itself makes it difficult to raise money that might provide any counter examples, they believe it.

And why shouldn’t they? Thirty years ago, 15 years after the launch of the first satellite, we stopped walking on the moon. We’d done it several times before, and it was expensive. What was the point? We’d beaten the Russians. We’d shown the superiority of American state socialism over Soviet state socialism. That there might be room for American free enterprise, or the desires of the American people to sample the vistas of the cosmos themselves, was never considered.

Note that this was just four months before Columbia was destroyed.

Four years ago, on the fiftieth anniversary, I had a week-long back and forth with Homer Hickam at the LA Times, a conversation that I think still holds up pretty well.

Here‘s what I wrote a couple years ago, which was also the fifth anniversary of the winning of the X-Prize:

The original X-Prize only had one serious competitor, but the variety of approaches being displayed in the LLC will provide a robust suite of technologies for affordable transportation not only for earth to orbit, but for access to other planetary surfaces as well. And it can be accomplished for a tiny fraction of the cost overrun on a typical NASA project.

Beyond that, it will provide a self-sustaining business base for some if not all of these new ventures that will allow them to provide affordable transport to both government and private customers. Their very existence has created a revolutionary new market for affordable space science that may provide the synergy with the providers necessary to profitably grow the industry. It will also demonstrate its value to the taxpayer by providing more science for the tax dollar. And as experience is gained in the suborbital world, the performance envelopes will be gradually expanded, flying higher and faster, applying lessons to newer generations of vehicles, until suborbital finally becomes orbital and space access finally becomes affordable, with all that implies for our future off planet.

It is a path from which we were diverted in the panic of Sputnik, over half a century ago, but are now firmly back on track as a result of that other anniversary half a decade ago. And with the continued disarray in the business-as-usual and unaffordable federal space policy, and as the establishment awaits a decision from the Obama administration in the wake of the Augustine report coming out this month, on this dual anniversary it’s looking increasingly like a new approach that will be unstoppable.

Well, it’s still going, even if not as fast as would be desired.

[Update a few minutes later[

Here is my blog post from the fiftieth anniversary, with many links. Note in particular my TCSDaily piece.

Business, Space

Falcon Heavy

25 Comments

A detailed technical and cost analysis.

[Update mid-afternoon]

Some thoughts on reusable Falcons from Henry Spencer.

[Update late afternoon]

I just received a press notification from SpaceX on potential launch dates for the ISS demonstration mission:

NASA is working with SpaceX on our technical and safety data for this mission while coordinating with its international partners to sort out a launch schedule once a definitive decision is reached on the next Soyuz flight to the International Space Station.

As a result, we’ve submitted December 19th to NASA and the Air Force as the first in a range of dates that we would be ready to launch.

We recognize that a target launch date cannot be set until NASA gives us the green light and the partnership of the International Space Station make a decision on when to continue Soyuz flights.

Our flight is one of many that have to be carefully coordinated, so the ultimate schedule of launches to the ISS is still under consideration.

So, likely no earlier than Christmas for the actual docking, and it could slip into next year. Note that this delay is not SpaceX’s fault.

Business, Space

A Reusable Rocket

49 Comments

The latest from SpaceX.

I wonder what the performance penalty is for carrying the deorbit/landing propellant?

[Update a couple minutes later]

Clark Lindsey is taking notes from the webcast of Elon Musk’s talk at the National Press Club today:

/– Exciting announcement to make but first preface motivation for SpaceX
/– His goals since college were to contribute to development of the Internet, electric vehicles, and expanding humanity into space.
/– Discusses why space is important.
/– Life becoming multiplanetary – next stage of life’s development that started with birth 3.8B years ago
/– Next natural step.
/– Life insurance – something humans could do or a natural disaster could destroy life on earth
/– What is an appropriate expenditure on life insurance – probably a 1/4 per cent of GDP is reasonable
/– One of the greatest adventures humanity could pursue.
/– Got to be more to life than just solving problems.
/– We all went to the Moon with the Apollo crews
/– Need some of those things.
/– Makes you feel good about the world.

More to follow, no doubt.

[Update a few minutes later]

Marcia Smith is covering it. Apparently he’s proposing a business venture for a Mars settlement.

Cool.

[Update a few minutes later]

There’s a thread running over at NASA Space Flight. Not that this has much of anything to do with NASA space flight.

[Update a couple minutes later]

More notes from Clark:

/– Pivotal break-through is a fully reusable, rapid turnaround rocket
/– 2-3% of expendable initial total mass gets to orbit
/– Adding reusability cuts into that 2-3%
/– Very tough engineering problem. Wasn’t sure for awhile that it could be solved. In past year decided that it could be.
/– SpaceX will try to do it. No guarantee of success.
/– Calculations and simulations say it should work.
/– See simulation (video above).
/– Some inaccuracies in animation, including some due to proprietary techniques.
/– Powered vertical landing of both stages.
/– Falcon 9 is the lowest cost rocket in world at ~$50M
/– Fuel is only about $200,000
/– So if could reuse it would lead to 100 times reduction in cost.
/– Fully reusable rapid turnaround is absolutely required for practical spaceflight and making humanity multiplanetary.
/– A little base is not interesting.
/– Definitely going to be an adventure to make this happen.
/– Doesn’t think mining anything on Mars to bring back to earth is viable.
/– If you could make moving to Mars cost around $500k, that would be a viable business model.
/– If only 1 in a million decided to do that, that’s 8000 people. Probably number would be far higher.

Q&A:
/– Near term – use for sat launches, ISS resupply, etc. Have $3B in orders. Moderately profitable.
Have to stay profitable to make all this happen. Most orders of any launch provider in the world.
/– Made competition is China, which has told them SpaceX they intend to compete with them.
/– Role of govt?
US space spending still leads the world. Budget crisis is limiting this.
Expect compression of all budgets including space.
/– Launch facilities- plan on developing a new commercial launch site.
/– NASA has been a major benefit to SpaceX.
/– USAF wants to maintain ULA monopoly through 2018. SpaceX has 1% lobbying power of Boeing/Lockheed-Martin
/– Russian launch situation wrt ISS?
SpaceX launch will probably be delayed until crew with proper training is on board.
Probably in January assuming current launch schedule met.
/– Soyuz is a good vehicle with good record.
Lot of experienced people are retiring so wonder about long term problems with Russian rockets.
China is the long term competitor.
Little progress in Russian technology since Soviet times.
Confident that SpaceX can handle Chinese competition.
/– Can SpaceX fast track launch to ISS?
Could launch astronauts on next flight if acceptable safety level was same as Shuttle.
Need launch escape system to exceed that.
Will take 2-3 years to build and test the LES.
Using a system that also allows for powered landings.
/– With NASA funding, are you transparent as NASA projects?
Generally a very open company.
Have to obey ITAR limits.
NASA and FAA get very detailed information. Both have oversight roles.

Emphasis mine.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s more:

/– Can you sustain a tragic failure?
Think it will be OK.
Other modes of transport suffer accidents with loss of life.
There would be no transport if no risk allowed.
/– Enough private market business to sustain SpaceX.
SpaceX is largest customer. But have a big manifest of private orders.
Even a pencil maker probably sells 40% to govt. customers.
/– Getting a job at SpaceX?
NASA spending only about $300M on commercial crew, and that’s spread over 4 firms.
Looking for engineers who have worked on and solved real hardware problems.
Very demanding environment.
/– Climate change debate?
Can’t be 100% sure of human caused global warming.
But essentially running an experiment to see if putting large amounts of CO2 into atmosphere will have an effect.
Oil is a finite resource. Need to plan ahead for other alternatives.
Lean towards sustainable technologies. Lean slightly away from non-sustainable tech.
/– Tech loans and Tesla?
Solyndra has become a political football.
Portfolio investment programs – must assume that some firms in a portfolio will fail.
A number of top notch venture capitalist lost on Solyndra as well.
Tesla doesn’t face same problem that Solyndra did: commodity price collapse due to Chinese competition.
China probably put $40B into its solar industry.
Elon expected solar prices to fall and didn’t think Solyndra was a good bet.
Solar City is doing super well. Growing at 50-100% per year and positive cash flow.
Just show up at board meetings and hear the good news.
/– Innovation in the US?
Least bad at encouraging innovation.
Silicon Valley is great at that.
Still could be better. Avoid excess regulation. Tax system reform
Small companies are like tadpoles that die very easily.
Governments tend to protect big companies which don’t in fact need protection.

You don’t say…

[Update a few minutes later]

Todd Romberger: “Interesting that a private company has more clearly stated goals and strategies for enabling the settlement of space than NASA itself.”

[Update a few minutes later]

Lyrics from the song in the video:

They will not force us,
They will stop degrading us,
They will not control us,
We will be victorious.

“Burn the land and boil the sea
You can’t take the sky from me…”

[Update about quarter to three Eastern]

CSPAN has the video. It’s about an hour.

[Update early afternoon Pacific]

Marcia Smith has the story up now.