Doug Mohney over at Satellite Spotlight has noticed how much hardware that we rely on needs Russian engines.
Category Archives: Space
The COTS Hearings
Based on the Twitter feed, it looks like the committee continue to be (as Michael Mealling tweets) asshats, but at least it was an opportunity for Gwynne to explain costs to them. There are lies, damned lies, and Congressional cost estimates (note in comments at the link “Edgar”‘s analysis — I wonder if that’s Edgar Zapata?). I’ll be curious to see Jeff Foust’s report later, though we probably won’t see it until Monday, at The Space Review.
[Update a few minutes later]
More on the cooked books from Keith Cowing. I’m guessing the culprit is Ken Monroe, head staffer.
Yet More Anniversary Thoughts
Robert Zimmerman has a post, with which I mostly agree. But since I seem to be unable to comment there, I would add a couple corrections.
Gagarin’s launch vehicle had reached escape velocity and orbited the earth.
No, it reached orbital velocity. If it had reached escape velocity, it would never have come back. Escape velocity is about 1.4 (root of two, to be exact) times local circular velocity.
Another point (besides the fact that the two Bushes aren’t Junior and Senior).
In all these declarations, it was assumed that the space vehicles and rockets to get into space would be designed and operated by the federal government.
That actually was not the case for the Vision for Space Exploration. If you go back and read the Aldridge report, it recommends commercial (and international) participation, and doesn’t require or expect NASA to develop any launch systems. It only directs it to build a “Crew Exploration Vehicle” (what eventually became Orion). All of the contractors for the Concept Exploration & Refinement trade studies considered existing commercial launchers, or larger versions of them, for the lunar architecture. No one considered anything resembling what became Ares, because it was universally recognized that a Shuttle-derived system would be unaffordable (not to mention that it was always a nutty idea). It was only when Mike Griffin replaced Sean O’Keefe and fired Craig Steidle that a Marshall-developed rocket became the baseline. In fact, other than eliminating the goal of moon first, the new NASA plans (or, at least, the 2011 budget submission) resemble the original VSE much more than Mike Griffin’s Constellation did.
More Anniversary Posts
Clark Lindsey has a link collection on today’s anniversary. I’ll have a blog post up at the Washington Examiner shortly.
[Update a while later]
Tom Jones has his thoughts, over at Popular Mechanics. I continue to scratch my head over worries like this:
Until roughly 2015, when American companies hope to produce a commercial rocket and spacecraft that can carry NASA’s crews safely and economically, astronauts will be renting rides on the Russian Soyuz vehicle (at $55 million per seat and climbing). The fact that presidents and congresses have seen this gap coming and failed to close it is a significant gamble, and not just because it’s unclear whether commercial spaceflight will be ready to deliver crews by the 2015 target. NASA has no backup: If the new space startups can’t make a profit on flying astronauts and other customers to orbit, they will hang up the out-of-business sign and walk away. We’d be forced to buy Russian seats indefinitely while starting an expensive crash program to regain access to the ISS.
So let me get this straight. He’s afraid that, multiple companies, having developed systems capable of getting people to ISS, won’t be able to make a profit, regardless of how much the government pays them? And when they can’t do so, they will “walk away”? And then what? Destroy the factories and hardware? Why wouldn’t they just sell it to someone else at fire-sale prices, who presumable could then make a profit? Why would we have to develop yet another system to reach the ISS when multiple ones already existed, and could simply be operated under new management? Does this make any sense at all?
[Early afternoon update]
My Washington Examiner piece is up now.
It’s Dead, Jim
Spirit has finally given up the ghost (so to speak). It had a pretty good run, considering that it was originally only supposed to last a few months.
Fifty Years On
I have some thoughts on today’s space anniversary at Pajamas Media (and no, neither the headline or subhed are mine — such are the woes of writers subject to copy editors, which is why we have blogs…).
A “Coast Guard” For Space
As previously discussed, on the eve of the half-century anniversary of the Kennedy speech that set us off on such a wrong course, Jim Bennett has a piece at The New Atlantis on a proposal for a much-needed restructuring of federal space policy and players.
[Update a few minutes later]
A sample, highly relevant to tomorrow’s anniversary:
Space activity in the United States was almost entirely military in origin: During the early years, most space launches were military — initially reconnaissance satellites, and later weather and communications support systems — and until the early 1980s, even non-military payloads were mostly sent into space on rockets based on military missiles. The civilian space agency, NASA (initially standing for National Aeronautics and Space Agency), was created in 1958 by vastly expanding the existing National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), a small research organization that supported the aviation industry. When NASA was started by the Eisenhower administration, it was envisioned primarily as an overtly civilian shell that would take selected spinoffs of military programs and operate them as a visible civilian program for prestige and demonstration purposes. Meanwhile, the real space program, run by the United States military, would continue to operate in secret as it had since its 1954 authorization. Since NASA’s expected role was minimal, the old administrative structure left over from NACA was deemed adequate — even though the organization had almost no significant experience with large systems management.
In 1961-62, NASA (renamed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to reflect its upgrade) was repurposed by the Kennedy administration to take on a massive development task: creating the Apollo system for manned lunar exploration. The agency also began conducting unmanned planetary exploration, prototyping satellite communications and other commercial activities, launching privately-funded commercial satellites on legacy military-derived launch vehicles, and a variety of ancillary aeronautical and space functions. More or less by default, NASA became a space transportation utility, a de facto regulator, and the de facto American interlocutor in any international space activity.
Apollo-era NASA was effectively an emergency governmental mass-mobilization effort, comparable to Germany’s wartime V-2 program and the Cold War “missile race.” (Indeed, veterans of those undertakings played prominent roles in the Apollo program.) In the case of Apollo, as in the other instances, the head of state was committed to the project, time was more of a constraint than was cost, and the effects of success or failure were quickly felt. However, as NASA moved from the era of Apollo to the era of the space shuttle, the agency’s mode of operation changed dramatically. The primary driver for NASA’s work became institutional self-preservation. Political pressure from Congress and the White House made job preservation a priority. Resource constraints consistently trumped schedule and performance. Shifting goals and pressures made clear accountability difficult to attain.
The cumulative legacy of these transformations — from NACA to NASA, followed by the turn to Apollo, followed by the switch to the space shuttle — is an agency that dominates its sphere in a manner unlike any other in the executive branch. The agency also has unusual lacunae in its management capabilities, with a span of responsibilities always outmatching its span of attention and control; ultimately, these lacunae have harmed the agency’s technical capabilities as well. The agency’s bureaucracy is characterized by very powerful entrenched internal fiefdoms with their own external political patrons giving them effective vetoes over administrative decisions, and a strong sense of privileged authority over large areas of national space activity.
Read the whole thing, though it’s appropriately long.
Ultracapacitors
Some potentially exciting breakthroughs, using nanotech. This will be a very important technology for space as well.
Turning On A Dime
Remember the Bob Zubrin who cast scorn on the idea of propellant depots?
Well, now he has a new proposal:
Zubrin’s concept is, at its core, a space access subsidy program. Rather than spend billions on new launch vehicles, he envisions NASA instead spending a modest amount of money—he suggested $1.2 billion a year, about six percent of its current $18.5-billion annual budget—buying the most “cost-effective” launch vehicles available. That cost effectiveness would be some function of its price and payload capacity; Zubrin has a particular preference for SpaceX’s proposed Falcon Heavy, which could launch up to 53 metric tons into low Earth orbit (LEO) for as little as $80 million a launch.
NASA would then, in turn, resell that launch capacity to itself, other government agencies, and the private sector, at the artificially low price of $50 per kilogram, or about $2.65 million per fully-loaded Falcon Heavy. Those launches, he said, would take place on a regular schedule, regardless if the capacity on each vehicle is fully subscribed. “You don’t hold the train in the station until it fills up,” he explained. Any excess capacity would be filled with consumables like water, oxygen, and propellant, which could be stored on orbit for use by any interested parties.
Emphasis mine.
In what does he propose to store the propellants, if not depots?
I should note, though, to be fair, that he wrote the PJM stuff a few weeks ago, so it’s possible he’s changed his mind.
So How’s The Engine Coming?
…why the relatively silence from a media savvy Virgin Group that understands the PR value of showing a rocket engine firing?
Nobody knows for sure. However, people familiar with such things thought the engine firings in the initial video looked rough. (At least from what they could see of it through the enormous cloud of dirt and dust the engine threw up.) Soon after the video was released, stories circulated that engineers at Sierra Nevada Corporation were having a hard time scaling up the hybrid engine system from the small, X-1 sized SpaceShipOne prototype to its business jet sized successor. Oscillations sufficiently severe that nobody would want to ride the vehicle.
The stories have persisted and, if anything, have grown stronger. The latest one circulating in Mojave is that the test in March didn’t go well, and that the propulsion team has decided to abandon the hybrid rocket for a liquid system. There is also a confirmed report that Virgin Galactic has formed its own propulsion team and hired the former director of SpaceX’s Texas engine testing facility — and an expert in liquid propulsion — as a member of it.
On Saturday, I asked Whitesides whether they were considering dumping the hybrid system entirely. He reaffirmed that the company are focused on hybrids for now; liquid propulsion is something that would be consider down the road.
I’ve always thought that the hybrid was a mistake. The late Jim Benson sold Burt on it for SpaceShipOne, though, and the success of the X-Prize apparently gave him the confidence to stick with it for SpaceShipTwo, despite its operational disadvantages. After the explosion in Mojave, I suggested to Alex Tai that it was a good opportunity to change course, but he said that it would cost too much in vehicle redesign, due to the different mass distribution. I’ll bet that they’re now really regretting that decision, if they have to do so anyway, because it has cost them years in schedule. Also, I wonder (assuming the rumors are true) why they’re developing their own, instead of just buying from XCOR? That was the mistake they made with the hybrid.