I’m not sure that it’s necessarily “good news,” but here’s an extensive rundown of how NASA made out in the “stimulus” bill. Whether or not it’s good news to me depends on how they spend the money.
Category Archives: Space
Space Is Really Big
But not quite big enough:
In an unprecedented space collision, a commercial Iridium communications satellite and a presumably defunct Russian Cosmos satellite ran into each other Tuesday above northern Siberia, creating a cloud of wreckage, officials said today.
What a mess. At that altitude, the pieces are going to be there a long time, and present a hazard to other LEO satellites. I hope that this isn’t the event that sets off a cascade. I don’t understand why NORAD didn’t predict this. I know they don’t have the elements to a precision necessary to know that they’ll collide, but I would think that they could propagate enough to see that they would come close. And if we had true operationally responsive space capability, we could have sent something up to change the orbit of one of them, if they couldn’t do it themselves. This is the price we pay for not being a truly spacefaring civilization, despite the billions wasted over the past decades.
[Update in the evening]
Clark Lindsey has more links, and thoughts.
[Thursday morning update]
The Orlando Sentinel was somewhat prescient about this story, having run a piece on space debris last weekend.
[Mid-morning update]
Clark Lindsey has several more links.
Stimulating SpaceX?
SpaceX is lobbying for COTS D funding to be included in the stimulus. It would be nice to see something worthwhile included in it, but it’s not enough to make it worth it to me. I’d rather have no stimulus and no COTS D.
Goodie
Iran will have enough fuel for several Hiroshima-level bombs by the end of the year.
I should note that their ability to put a satellite into space isn’t quite as concerning to me as it has been portrayed by some in the news. Though we had ICBMs before we had launch vehicles, it doesn’t follow that having a launch vehicle implies ICBM capability. It’s actually a lot easier, from a guidance standpoint, to put an object into orbit than it is to hit a target precisely. Also, warhead and entry vehicle technology is a completely different beast than a launcher, so simply having throw capability doesn’t mean that you have all of the pieces in place. In addition, it’s one thing to build a bomb — it’s another to make it small enough to be able to loft it around the world.
Of course, none of this is of much consolation to Israel, because it’s a lot closer, and I would imagine that the Iranians are indifferent to how precisely they can kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.
What Could Go Wrong?
The Orion spacecraft will have to be operated with remotes, due to the vibration environment. In addition to the introduction of a new comm failure mode (will it be IR, Bluetooth, what?) there’s the other problem noted in comments over there: “Time to deorbit. What did you do with the remote?” And all (as another commenter notes) because NASA thought it would be a dandy idea to have a huge solid first stage.
I wonder if they would even be considering this if it weren’t for the vibration problem?
Increasing Lunar Mission Frequencies
Jon Goff has a proposal for doing lunar missions with a bi-elliptic transfer. It makes a lot of sense, actually, for Low Lunar Orbit, or deep space, though I’m not sure there’s any benefit for a Lagrange point, because the plane change out at that distance doesn’t cost much anyway (one of the many reasons that I find Lagrange points preferable to LLO).
The basic idea is to do the plane change at a very high altitude. In fact, this is a technique that can make sense even for LEO plane changes, if they’re big enough. I forget where the crossover is, but there is a certain amount of plane change where it is actually cheaper to go out to GEO (or higher) and back than to do it with a single burn in LEO. We looked at it a lot back in the eighties when we were doing tug studies.
Get Out Your Apogee Wrenches
Here’s what looks to be a great site for orbital mechanics, with lots of software, free and otherwise.
Can Obama Ban Space Weapons?
Some thoughts from (space lawyer) Glenn Reynolds.
Is Space The Next Frontier?
Nader Elhefnawy remains skeptical. But I think he misses one of the strongest drivers, only mentioning it once, almost in passing:
Such miseries as famine, war, and persecution cannot be ruled out in the future, of course, but they are hardly a likely driver of space development. In fact, given the extraordinary economic demands that any space development effort will make, it may be much more practical for a prospering world than one suffering through such disasters to undertake such efforts in any foreseeable future.
Emphasis mine. One of these things is not like the other. One can have persecution in the midst of prosperity, and that combination may well result in emigration, just as it did from England to the Americas in the seventeenth century, and from the American east to Utah in the nineteenth. I think that a combination of a desire for freedom in concert with evolving technology is the most likely driver for human migration into space. Unless we’ve all uploaded ourselves first.
[Late morning update]
Clark Lindsey doesn’t buy Elhefnawy’s thesis:
If there existed large O’Neill habitats today, there would be no problem in attracting tens of thousands or even a few million people to move to them. The number will depend on the cost of getting there but when talking about a fraction of a percent of the world’s population, you can find that many people to do virtually anything. The excitement of building a new world in the new environment of space will be charm enough to attract large numbers of people.
Of course, the trick is finding a way of getting from where we are today to a point where building large habitats becomes feasible. I agree that such progress will not be attained by individuals heading out into the last frontier in their own spaceships. But that does not mean that individual action is not the essential element in making it happen. Even if one buys the revisionist view that the expansion into the American West was primarily due to “railroads and speculators, [] logging companies and mining concerns”, one should remember the fact that these organizations were made up of individuals who took huge personal risks. Many, if not most, of those companies and concerns failed and took down all the individuals involved with them. Similarly today the individuals involved in a private entrepreneurial space start-up are taking huge risks with their careers and investments. Many, if not most, of those firms will fail. The people involved know the risks but they make the effort anyway. That is the nature of tough endeavors on earth and it is the same for space.
Of course, perhaps the biggest question is whether modern culture and government will allow, let alone encourage, such risk taking.
What Should NASA Do?
Go take the poll. I picked the last choice, but I think that Clark must have voted for the penultimate one. But between the two of them, they currently grab about sixty percent of the vote. The others are mostly down in the noise. Don’t expect the powers that be to pay any attention, though.
Oh, and here’s the official NASA version. Note which options are missing. Steve Gonzales has thoughts, and asks for input.