Category Archives: Space

Business, Political Commentary, Space, Space Science

Space Political Action Alerts

9 Comments

As a result of the disastrous initial markup of the House appropriation for NASA last week, the Space Access Society, the Space Frontier Foundation, and Tea Party in Space have all put out alerts for everyone to call your Congressman (extra points if your congressman is one of the chairs of the appropriations committee or subcommittee, Hal Rogers or Frank Wolf).

Briefly, to summarize, the top line of the NASA budget has been cut back to pre-2008 levels (no shock, except to those living in denial), but the real problem is where the cuts are, and aren’t. The Webb Telescope was canceled, which was probably necessary given how out of control it was, but Commercial Crew and space technologies were severely chopped back as well, putting off further the day that we will no longer be reliant on the Russians for ISS, and that we can start moving humans beyond LEO. Instead, the Senate Launch System and Orion-by-another-name earmarks were actually increased, though there is still insufficient funds to build them in any timely manner, and no missions described or funded for them. Go follow one or more of the links, where there are useful instructions as to who to call and what to say. And as always in these matters, be firm, but polite. You have until tomorrow to make a difference.

[Update a few minutes later]

One other disastrous cut, though it’s small, is the CRuSR program. It’s only fifteen million, but it could really help jump start the suborbital industry. Given the trivial amount, it can’t really be about the money. I would guess that it’s pressure from the traditional sounding rocket people, who stand to be put out of business by low-cost reusables.

Business, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

It’s Not The End Of American Leadership In Space

9 Comments

So sayeth Dana Rohrabacher.

[Update mid afternoon]

Jay Barbree has finally noticed that there’s more to the commercial space industry than SpaceX, but he’s still drinking the ATK koolaid:

he key here would be the launch vehicle for Boeing’s CST 100.

Standing by is arguably the world’s most reliable rocket: a U.S.-European vehicle which is an upgraded version of the space shuttle’s solid booster rocket that has flown perfectly 216 times, and France’s Ariane-5 rocket as a second stage that has flown 41 times successfully.

The rocket, called Liberty, is being offered by ATK Space Launch Systems. It’s capable of carrying all crew vehicles in development today.

“Both stages of Liberty were designed for human rating from the beginning,” said ATK Vice President Charlie Precourt, a veteran astronaut and former director of NASA’s flight crew operations. The other rockets haven’t yet gone through the time-consuming process to be certified as safe for flying humans.

Without getting too deep into the details of this nonsense (any discussion containing the phrase “human rating” are almost predestined to be nonsense), he writes this as though Liberty exists in any form other than marketing viewgraphs. Here’s a question I have. Can an Ariane-V even handle the vibration environment on the top of an SRB without major beefing up of the structure?

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

Six False Lessons

31 Comments

…of the Shuttle program. With Atlantis in orbit for the last time, I have some cautionary words over at Popular Mechanics.

[Update a few minutes later]

I also have a piece up over at National Review Online — is the era of big-government space programs over?

[Update at 12:45 PM PDT]

I’m on hold right now with Bill Carroll on KFI-AM in LA, who’s been bewailing the end of the space program. Don’t know if I’ll get on or not.

[Update a while later]

The segment ended before he got me on, but I’ve been in an email discussion with his producer, so maybe next week.

Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

The Last Shuttle Flight

29 Comments

…and the state of the space agency. A pretty good story by Joel Achenbach. I wish that he hadn’t let this stand unchallenged, though:

“It’s sad. There’s a lot more left in them. The airframes are certified for 100 flights. This one had 39 flights,” said senior mechanical technician Bill Powers, 58, who works for United Space Alliance, the primary contractor for the shuttle. USA already has laid off thousands of shuttle workers across the country. On July 22, the contractor will lay off about 1,900 more people here in Florida.

“It’s not wore-out. It’s just broke-in,” said Tim Keyser, lead mechanic for the orbiters. “It could fly another 20 years. We get into the guts of this thing, it’s pristine.”

That’s not what the CAIB said. The notion that the orbiters were “certified” for a hundred flights is one of the canards of the program. That was a design specification, but it’s a matter of the highest conceit to think that NASA could really know how many flights they were good for. If it were really true, they wouldn’t have needed so much inspection and TLC every flight, which was a dominating factor in the operating costs.

Business, Economics, Political Commentary, Space

An Open Letter To Certain Senators

8 Comments

…who are writing open letters to the NASA administrator.

Dear Senators Shelby, Boxer, Feinstein, Warner, Chambliss, and Murray:

Why are you only calling for competition on one particular component of the SenateSpace Launch System? It is a huge project, estimated to cost many billions of dollars. If the taxpayer would be best served by competing the side boosters, why not increase the joy by competing the entire system, including main engines, tanks, upper-stage engines, and design? Why is that only the boosters would benefit from this novel procurement approach? For that matter, why not simply have a competition for the most cost-effective proposal to get humans beyond low earth orbit, or to resupply space station, since these are the reasons that we have been given when asked about the requirements for the SLS. Of course, such a competition might result in no SLS at all, if someone can come up with a cost-effective way of meeting those goals without it, but this is about the taxpayers, right?

Most sincerely and cordially,

Rand Simberg

[Cross posted at Competitive Space]