Category Archives: Space

Political Commentary, Space

Make Or Break Time For NASA

3 Comments

I have some recommendations for the new Augustine Commission, over at PJM.

[Afternoon update]

Just to clarify for Mark (who as usual misunderstands my point), when he writes:

Is it really NASA’s job to do something like commercial transportation that should be built–well–commercially?

The answer is no, and I didn’t say or imply that it was. It is NASA’s job to provide basic technology and incentives to private industry for them to provide transportation services, though. NASA should be a good customer, and purchase commercial services (like propellant from depots, and rides to various locations, including from earth to orbit). If the private sector had any confidence that NASA would be such a customer, it would be able to raise the funds itself for development of the infrastructure. Though it wouldn’t be unreasonable for NASA to build the first depots itself, to reduce technical risk for the later private investors. This would be the closest equivalent to the Interstate Highway System analogy. What it shouldn’t be doing is developing launch vehicles. We have plenty of those, with better ones in prospect if NASA will provide a sufficient market for them.

[Bumped]

Political Commentary, Space

Competition

15 Comments

There’s a good analysis in comments over at Space Politics about the COTS-D situation (comment by “TANSTAAFL” at 9:32 this morning):

SpaceX clearly over-reached with their lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill in the last year. I believe that Elon’s large ego is getting in the way — going up on the Hill and (in effect) saying “Just give me the money and I will eliminate the gap” was not an effective message strategy.

Not even the advocates of COTS-D want to just hand Elon the market. He gave the opponents ammunition, and lost many of his allies. It was an ill-advised strategy.

If Elon had lobbied, instead, for a COTS-D initiative that would fund many competitors, it probably would have had a different result.

In reality, there are multiple “real” competitors. Boeing bid COTS-D in the last competition. SpaceDev (now owned by Sierra Nevada) has a COTS-D concept. There is at least one serious, credible (and well funded) COTS-D competitor that is not publicly known. Under the right circumstances, even tSpace and Rocketplane Kistler could re-emerge if NASA seriously funded COTS-D.

IMO, if this nation is serious about substantially reducing “The Gap”, we could (and should) have a COTS-D competition with 4-5 winners. This nation should adopt a portfolio investment approach to diversify risk, and to increase competition and innovation.

If the Ares 1 costs $44 Billion, why can’t we take $2-3 Billion of the savings, and apply that to COTS-D? That amount of money would get us 4-5 well-funded competitors. That would be an exciting competition.

It sure would.

Space

Hubble Fix

16 Comments

Fifteen minutes until launch. We’re heading over to the beach to watch. It will be the last Shuttle mission ever to launch due east.

[Update a while later]

Well, that was the first time we ever tried to watch from Spanish River Park. The problem is that down here, the beach runs north and south, but the Cape is north-northeast of us, so the launch actually starts inland from our vantage point, and there was an apartment building blocking the lower portions of the ascent. From here (about a hundred fifty miles away) we saw the first-stage burn once it cleared the building, but once the SRBs went out, there was nothing left to see. Too far away and the sun was too bright (another cursed day of no clouds and no rain here, with us almost a foot below normal rainfal for the year). If it had been dark, we would have no doubt seen it much longer.

[Tuesday morning update]

In comments, I speculate on how they’ll inspect the Shuttle tiles (the first priority, so they know ASAP whether or not they’ll have to launch a rescue mission). Here’s a description of the process.

[Afternoon update]

So they found a few dings, but it doesn’t look like anything serious.

[Bumped again]

Media Criticism, Space, Technology and Society

The Myth That Won’t Die

6 Comments

Once again, scramjet proponents are touting them for space access:

Officials hope the engine eventually will provide a speedier transition between conventional aircraft in the atmosphere and rockets in outer space for deployment of satellites, and reconnaissance or strike missions.

“The long-range goal of this for the Air Force is access to space,” said Charlie Brink, an Air Force Research Laboratory propulsion directorate official who manages the X-51 program from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

I wonder if he’s actually done any systems studies to see whether that’s going to pan out? I have.

I’m all in favor of scramjets — they have lots of interesting and useful military applications, but it is very unlikely that they will be helpful for space access. I won’t repeat what I wrote the last time this issue came up (geez was it really five years ago?), but you can go read it here:

Proponents claim that by allowing airbreathing up to high Mach numbers, there is no need to take along as much oxygen for the rocket engines, because they can gather it for “free.” This argument assumes that space transportation is expensive because propellants are, but those aren’t the cost driver. If they were, space would already be affordable, because liquid oxygen is actually about as cheap as milk. Propellant costs are such a tiny fraction of launch costs that they’re down in the noise. If we ever get to the point where they become a real issue (as they are for airlines), we’ll have solved the problem.

Their argument also fails on the grounds that collecting oxygen isn’t really “free.” As the old joke goes, there’s no free launch.

If your space transport were to be single stage, you’d now need three propulsion systems — conventional jet, scramjet, and rocket for when you left the atmosphere (which you must do by definition to go into space). It may be possible to have a scramjet lower stage and a rocket upper stage, but the bottom line is that time spent in the atmosphere (necessary to utilize the scramjet) is time spent fighting drag, defeating the purpose. Rockets want to spend as little time as possible in the atmosphere, and carrying two other kinds of engines along and spending enough time in the air to utilize them, just to save on a propellant as cheap as oxygen, just doesn’t make design sense.

In addition, a scramjet engine is designed to operate at a specific vehicle speed, and has poor performance in “off design” conditions, rendering it a poor propulsion choice for an accelerating vehicle.

Henry Spencer debunked airbreathers to orbit earlier this year as well.