Category Archives: Space

Business, Economics, Political Commentary, Space

The Senate Launch System

8 Comments

I’ve added a new page to the “Issues” section of the Competitive Space Task Force web site.

[Update a while later]

The Space Frontier Foundation has just issued a press release calling for people to hit the Hill:

Please remind your Representative & Senators they are not rocket scientists!
Let NASA compete all the best ideas for a Space Launch System…
Don’t mandate an unaffordable/unsustainable “Senate Launch System”!

Six months into Fiscal Year 2011 the U.S. Congress is still trying to write a budget for a year that’s half over. Down in the weeds of the final “continuing resolution” (CR) will be NASA’s budget for human space exploration. The House-passed CR provides flexibility for NASA to choose the most affordable and sustainable approach. The Senate’s draft CR, which didn’t even pass the Senate, told NASA to build a 130-ton heavy-lift launch vehicle right away… using current contractors and 1970s era technology.

Everyone reading this alert wants NASA to start exploring again. But there are a lot of options for exploration transportation that don’t require paying the huge fixed costs of the Shuttle or Constellation forever. Heavy-lift capabilities can be developed incrementally over time, as we can afford them and are ready to use them.

Our space program needs an open and fair competition among not just different contractors but different and even multiple approaches to see which are the most affordable, most flexible, and most sustainable to develop and operate.

Instead, some in Congress want to make NASA build their favorite rocket, without competition, even though NASA has already told them it can’t be done for the resources available on anything like the timetable Congress wants. It’s time to stop the Congress from mandating the Senate Launch System, and let NASA compete ideas for one (or more) Space Launch System(s).

We can’t afford to repeat the mistakes of Constellation, and just rubber-stamp a pre-selected design for a rocket.

No more sole-source, non-competitive procurements for cost-plus contracts!

Every pro-space American should call their Senators and Representative, and tell them that they must encourage NASA to compete the Space Launch System’s design and contracts! This means you!!!

What we‘re asking you to do: Call the congressional switchboard (202-224-3121) – when you talk to them, tell them who your Senators and Representative are (or where you live), and they’ll connect you to the appropriate office. Alternatively, look them up, then call or fax their Washington, D.C. office.

How to communicate: Be polite and respectful, but don’t lose your passion. It’s important to avoid swearing or insulting words, but at the same time it’s also important to let the staffer know that this issue is important to you.

What to say: Congress should stop telling NASA what kind of rocket to build, and instead advocate the tried and true American approach of competition. NASA should be encouraged to compete not just the contractors but the best, most affordable ideas for exploration transportation. Anything less will be unaffordable, unsustainable, and un-American.

Thanks for your help!
Bob Werb, Chairman of the Board, Space Frontier Foundation

Well, what are you waiting for…?

[Update a while later]

Here’s the release at the SFF site, if you want to comment there.

Business, Economics, Space

Location, Location

1 Comment

There’s a good article at The Space Review today on the pros and cons of L-1 versus L-2 as a stepping stone for operations on the moon and points far beyond cis-lunar space. I tend to favor L-1 myself, for the travel-time reasons, but there are good arguments to be made both ways. Eventually, I would expect the market to sort it out, and there will probably be facilities at both locations.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

Heavy-Lift Follies

5 Comments

Keith Cowing, Marcia Smith and Jeff Foust all have reports on General Bolden’s comments yesterday, some of which were in response to questions from Keith. I would note (as Jeff does) that Congress doesn’t want a vehicle sized in metric tons — it asked for one in tons. NASA seems to have confused this issue by sizing in MT, and now Keith and Marcia are stating that as though it’s the requirement. But that oversizes the system considerably, as I noted in my satirical but sadly accurate robot theater a few weeks ago.

Media Criticism, Space

No Orbital Animals For Iran

2 Comments

Remember that goofy press story a few days ago about Iran putting a “life capsule” in a 75-mile orbit?

Well, I just got confirmation from the JSpOC that it was indeed nonsense:

According to our Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC): “Our sensors did not detect, identify or track any space launch from Iran of the type described. No new object originating from Iran was entered into the orbiting satellite catalogue.”

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Very Respectfully,

Rodney E. Ellison Jr., Civ
Media Operations
U.S. Strategic Command
Public Affairs Office (J020)
901 SAC Blvd. Suite 1A1
Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6020

AP and the BBC probably just bungled the Farsi translation, when it was clearly suborbital.

Business, Space

An RL-10 Killer

30 Comments

I’ve known, or at least guessed, that this was in the works for several months (almost a year, really). It was the only thing that made any sense in terms of why ULA would have wanted XCOR to build a hydrogen piston pump. It’s not good news for Pratt & Whitney — they’re going to lose what has been essentially a monopoly for decades. I would assume that the engine production will not occur in California. They’ll be looking for some place with a sane business environment. Again, I have no specific knowledge, but Florida would make a lot of sense.

[Update a few minutes later]

The latest Lurio Report is out. Clark has the T of C. If you don’t subscribe, you should.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Clark also has additional links on the XCOR story.

[Update a few minutes later]

Busy space news day. The latest Space Studies Institute update is out.

[Update in the afternoon]

It turns out that “Joe” in comments had a good guess as to development time:

Sowers said Monday that the pace of the development will depend on the level of investment as milestones are met in the build-a-little, test-a-little approach favored by XCOR. Under the low-cost development approach, it would be 5-10 years before flight engines are available, depending on how the work goes.

Of course, as I said, my estimate of much less time was based on having “adequate funding.” Sounds like they’re doing go as you pay.