…the interview by Glenn Reynolds. It’s worth watching.
Category Archives: Space
Space “Democratization”
Ferris Valyn has some thoughts on that WaPo editorial on commercializing LEO transportation.
It’s kind of amusing to see him arguing with some of the lefty anti-capitalist loons who populate Kos. This was a little less amusing:
Competitive markets (and I stress the word competitive) can be very good at lowering price points. Sometimes they can get too low, and we end up with things like Wal-mart, but this is an situation that desperately needs its price points lowered.
I doubt if the millions of lower-income people whose lives have been improved by Walmart think that their prices are “too low.”
The Constellation Empire
The video itself is perhaps a bit subtle: it’s arguing for staying the course in Constellation, but doesn’t hit the viewer over the head repeatedly with that message. The closing slide asks viewers to contact the White House and Congress and “tell them you DO NOT Want to ‘Take a Chance’ with the U.S. Human Space Flight Program.” (capitalization and punctuation in original.) The information on the YouTube page, though, is rather more blunt: “Although a thorough review was conducted four years ago—and a direction chosen, contracts awarded, tests conducted, and rockets built—the Augustine committee wants to stop work and do something new,” it claims. “This will widen the gap between the retirement of the shuttle and its replacement vehicle, waste billions of dollars and threaten Americas [sic] presence in space. You can STOP this.”
It’s going to be an interesting fall for space policy and politics.
What A Bargain
Japan is going to build a solar power satellite, and it will only cost twenty-one billion dollars.
More Road Apples From NASA
So, Orion supposedly passed its Preliminary Design Review (even though it never really made it through a System Requirements Review, and the requirements are still all over the map as a result of the Ares 1 problems and other issues). But I don’t buy this:
If Orion’s companion rocket — dubbed Ares 1 — is spiked in favor of another rocket, then any Orion mission would be delayed by up to two years so engineers could fit a new rocket to the capsule.
That possibility looms large. Ares 1 faces mounting technical and financial problems and an independent presidential panel said this summer that it would be impossible for Ares 1 to meet its goal of a first mission in 2015 without a funding increase of tens of billions of dollars.
Given these funding pressures, it’s uncertain when Orion could be ready for a new mission if a new rocket is chosen.
This is just more FUD by Hanley to try to save Ares 1. It is six years until 2015 (and they already had less than a 35% confidence of hitting that date even with Ares 1). Sure there will be some changes to the vehicle if they switch over to an affordable and safe launcher, but there is no reason in the world that those changes would have to add two years to an already long schedule. I’d be curious to see the project schedule and critical path.
[Afternoon update]
“Rocketman” has a plausible alternate theory:
Viceroy Hanley, standing on one leg with his fingers crossed behind his back, came as close as he’s going to admit the real status of Orion at it’s PDR. He’s at least two years behind schedule. How do we know that?
“It’ll take up to two years to fit a new rocket to the capsule,” he said. Design changes to accommodate weight and size differences are required he says.
But at least one EELV provides more mass margin than the corndog does.
As I note in comments, playing “schedule chicken” like this is a win-win for him — either he gets to keep Ares, or he gets an excuse for his schedule slip. But only if he keeps his job, and someone doesn’t call him on it. If I were Bolden I’d demand a briefing showing (as already noted) the assumptions behind his claim.
[Update a couple minutes later]
What is schedule chicken, you ask? It’s a game in which multiple teams on a project are behind, but they don’t want to report it, and they don’t in the hope that someone else will fess up first, making their own slip moot so they don’t have to. It can have just as disastrous program results as the road version, in terms of delays and cost increases.
Just To Clarify
I just posted this in comments over at NASA Watch, in response to a foolish comment there:
Space X boosters need to become reliable cargo transports before they can be trusted with manned space craft. And with only a 2 out of 5 success rate, they have a long way to go!
I guess this is the new mantra of the simple-minded commercial space bashers — the implication that Falcon 1 is only 40% reliable because of its “2 out of 5 success rate.”
Here is the real story. The vehicle had a flight test program as part of its development. The purpose of flight test programs is to wring out design issues, and it shouldn’t be surprising to have some failures in that process.
The first flight barely got off the pad. They figured out what was wrong, and did a second flight. That one had some slosh dynamics issues. They figured out how to fix that and had a third flight. It had a separation problem because they hadn’t accounted for the longer thrust tail-off of the upgraded engine. They fixed that with a minor software change, and the two flights since were perfect.
In other words, they had some teething problems, but have solved them, and now have a reasonably (certainly more than 90%, and probably high nineties) reliable vehicle.
Remember this as you see these morons continue to say “2 out of 5.”
[Afternoon update]
Clark Lindsey has further thoughts.
Lynx Propulsion
XCOR is reporting significant progress on the engine for the Lynx:
“Like all of our rocket engines, this engine has demonstrated the ability to be stopped and re-started using our safe and reliable spark torch ignition system”, said XCOR CEO Jeff Greason. “The basic cooling design has also been completed and the engine is able to run continuously at thermal equilibrium. With those milestones reached, the 5K18 test program is now moving forward into a second phase of tuning and optimization, in which we will also greatly increase our cumulative run time.”
Here’s hoping for continued progress.
[Update a few minutes later]
Clark Lindsey has more, with videos.
A New Space Race
Will Boeing or Lockmart do anything to address the growing gravity-tractor gap? Let’s get some competition going here.
Coming To His Senses
Neil Armstrong has finally wised up to the hoax:
One of the main arguments posited on Coleman’s website—that America could not, in 1969, have realistically possessed the technological capabilities needed to put a man on the moon—was reportedly one of the first things to cause the legendary astronaut a pang of doubt. Despite having spent thousands of hours training for the historic mission under the guidance of the world’s top scientists, technicians, and pilots, Armstrong said he knew the conspiracy theories were true after learning that website author Coleman was “quite the engineering buff.”
“Yes, at the time I thought those thousands of NASA employees were working round the clock for the same incredible goal, but if anyone would know what was really going on, it would be Ralph Coleman,” Armstrong said of the 31-year-old part-time librarian’s assistant. “He knows a lot more about faked moon landings than I ever could. He’s been researching the subject on the Internet for years.”
“Literally years,” he added.
The conspiracy should unravel quickly, now.
[Update]
As noted in comments, will Buzz deck Neil when Neil tells him the awful truth? Or will he fake it, like he did the last time?
More Conflict Of Interest
Anybody else see what’s missing in this editorial in the Houston Chronicle by several “NASA astronauts,” asking for more money to “stay the course”?
That’s right. No mention of the fact that the vast majority are former astronauts, now working for ATK, Boeing, Lockmart, etc. This is just a special pleading for more taxpayer money for their employers, and their phony baloney jobs.
People with such conflicts of interest certainly have a right to plead their case, but I think that the paper has a duty to make us aware of their affiliations, and not just describe them as “astronauts.”
And that’s a separate issue, of course from whether or not it’s a good idea for people, and particularly people who want to see large-scale human spaceflight activities for all people, and not just a “program” to send a few government employees at a billion dollars a flight, to take advice from astronauts. There’s nothing in the resume of an astronaut that renders them more qualified than others to provide wise judgement on space policy. It makes no more sense than it does to ask a “scientist,” as reporters often do.
[Update a while later]
There’s something else missing from the piece — it’s real big on flight safety (never mind that it’s not at all obvious that Ares was going to be safer than Shuttle) but says nothing about cost, or the fact that every flight is going to cost over a billion dollars. Apparently they think their lives have infinite value.