Category Archives: Space

Business, Economics, Political Commentary, Space

On Airbreathing Propulsion

13 Comments

Long-time readers know that I am not a fan. I believe that the benefits of airbreathing for launch vehicles are overhyped, and the technical risk too high for anyone trying to develop cost-effective space transportation in the short term (i.e., private investors), when properly designed rockets can dramatically reduced launch costs without such technical risk. That doesn’t mean, of course, that it wouldn’t be useful for the government to do focused technology development in this area, which will help with non-space applications, as NACA did to support the aviation industry throughout the first half of the last century.

That said, John Bossard, a fan of such propulsion systems, has a thoughtful essay with which I largely agree, particularly this part:

In the final analysis, the argument about whether or not airbreathers have a place in launch vehicle systems becomes secondary to how we will approach launch vehicle development. Anyone who doubts whether free-market forces can do a better job that government elites in deciding what is the correct approach for something as relatively straightforward as launch vehicle development, need look no further than the current debacle of our home-mortgage industry, or our nationalized car companies. Perhaps no better example exists than to look at our current national launch vehicle concept, a concept chosen by a elite cadre of our nation’s finest aerospace technologists, and compare the success of that program with that of launch vehicles being developed by private companies.

I would claim that if we allow it, nay, if we demand it, we can let free-market forces decide what the right approach is, and whether airbreathing propulsion has a role in launch vehicle development. We can let all-comers try their hand. Let a plethora of concepts take to the field, and let free-market forces separate the winners from the losers. Cheer your champions! Raspberry your competition! But whatever you do, support the process, be an enabler of the free enterprise and entrepreneurism, and do what you can to make the field open to whoever has the fortitude to try.

If NASA will finally start being a good customer, and purchasing transportation services instead of engineering services, the market might finally be able to sort these issues out, even if decades later than it could have.

Economics, Political Commentary, Space

Maybe The Ming Dynasty Had The Right Idea

48 Comments

Legend has it (whether true or not) that, after Zheng He’s voyages were shut down, it was made a capital offense to build a ship with more than four masts.*

If I were Norm Augustine, I would suggest that NASA be encouraged to innovate by being forbidden to develop a vehicle with more capability than the biggest existing Atlas V. This would finally force them to stop wasting money on the heavy-lift fetish, and get on with the business of developing a cost-effective (and scalable) in-space transportation infrastructure. If they really want to continue to indulge in this economically irrational behavior, let them do it with their own money, or find some crazy investor, instead of continuing to screw the taxpayers.

*It was not the size restriction of the ships that prevented the Chinese from being a naval power. The Portuguese and Spanish conquered the New World with much smaller ones.

Political Commentary, Space

You Know The Program Is In Trouble

11 Comments

…when the major contractors are running down the lines of the ship:

According to industry officials present, former astronaut and Boeing Vice President Brewster Shaw, Lockheed Vice President John Karas and other executives met with the staff of powerful U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby to discuss creating a media campaign to counter Ares I critics and alternative ideas. Shelby, R-Ala., is a fierce protector of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, which is designing the Ares rockets.

But the campaign never materialized. Instead, Lockheed and Boeing have softened their positions and even indicated some support for looking at alternatives.

Lockheed, which has a $4.5 billion contract to design and build the Orion crew capsule to ride on top of Ares I, now says it is “neutral” on which rocket takes its capsule into orbit.

In addition, it allowed United Launch Alliance, the company that Lockheed jointly owns with Boeing, to make a presentation to the Augustine Committee advocating its Delta IV rocket — now used to launch military and commercial payloads — as a cheaper, better alternative to Ares I.

When asked this week which rocket his company supports, spokesman Stephen Tatum replied: “Lockheed Martin is focused on building the best Orion crew exploration vehicle possible for our NASA customer.”

Diplomatically put.

Dead rocket walking.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

Moonbat

14 Comments

As Thomas James notes, Bruce Gagnon is off his meds (again? still?).

When the space craft arrives near the moon it will fire a missile, at twice the speed of a bullet, from the spacecraft into the moon’s surface. NASA maintains that the “test” will displace several miles of lunar material in order to find out if water is present on the moon’s surface.

Funny, I didn’t know that lunar material came by the mile.

NASA has publicly maintained in recent years that all of their space missions are now “dual use” – meaning that each mission they launch is both civilian and military at the same time. Thus one must consider that this LCROSS moon bombing mission is likely testing the capability of Pentagon technologies to launch missiles from space that could hit targets on Earth.

NASA has never “maintained” such a thing, either publicly or privately. I’m not aware of any, let alone every, mission that is “both civilian and military at the same time.” It would be amusing to see Mr. Gagnon attempt to come up with a citable source for this psychotropic fantasy. And of course, even if the premise weren’t nonsense, the conclusion doesn’t follow from it. It is no technological challenge to hit targets on earth from space — this is exactly what ballistic missiles have been designed to do for half a century or so. Only someone fundamentally ignorant about history, technology and physics (and probably deranged as well) would delude himself that the Pentagon would need to test such technology on a body with no atmosphere.

Hate to break it to you, Bruce, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

But I will admit, I do expect the president to apologize to the moon for this aggressive act.

Space

An Interview

20 Comments

…with the moon.

And, by the way, I don’t want to start yet another long and dumb argument, but I am not going to capitalize it. Capitalize Luna, capitalize Selene, but not moon.

Because “moon” isn’t its name. It’s “the moon.” The word takes a definite article. We don’t say, as Tarzan might, “Me going to Moon.” We say, “Me going to the moon.” When we use the definite article, at least in context, we all know which moon we mean (if it were a discussion about Jupiter and its satellites, then we would know from context that it wasn’t Luna). When we stop using the definite article for it, and it gets officially named “Moon,” then I’ll start capitalizing it. I don’t expect that to happen any time soon.

Business, Economics, Political Commentary, Space

Down The Rathole

12 Comments

Dick Shelby wins, our space future loses:

Shelby’s argument has been that the exploration funding in the bill was intended solely for reducing the Shuttle-Constellation gap, a spokesman for the Alabama Republican told the paper (although there is no specific language dictating that in the bill). And certainly Constellation can use every bit of additional funding it can get. However, would that $100 million have a greater effect towards reducing the gap in US human space access if it’s spent on Constellation (where it might accelerate schedules by on the order of a month), or on commercial efforts that might (but are certainly not guaranteed to) be operational years before Ares 1 and Orion?

It can’t use it in any way that’s beneficial to either the taxpayer, or a space enthusiast. I almost weep when I think of the useful things we could do with a mere hundred million dollars. Shelby is quickly making himself public enemy number one of anyone who wants a sane and cost-effective space program. More over at the Sentinel.

[Update on Saturday]

A lot more comments over at NASA Watch.