Category Archives: Space

Economics, Political Commentary, Space, Technology and Society

Energy Versus Space?

2 Comments

Jeff Foust wonders if new government energy initiatives will crowd out space budgets.

Maybe. His piece reminds me of an idea I’ve had for an essay on why energy independence isn’t like landing a man on the moon.

In fact, I had a related comment over at Space Politics this morning, in response to a comment from someone named…Someone…that cost-plus contracts are a proven means of success in space:

I know alt.spacers see cost-plus as some sort of ultimate evil. But recognize its been successful in the past, from the Saturn V to the Pegasus. And the X-33 would likely have been finished and test flown if NASA had used its traditional cost-plus approach instead of the fixed price model they used. If NASA had funded the X-33/VentureStar under the same procurement model as the Shuttle it would be flying today.

To which I responded:

But recognize its been successful in the past, from the Saturn V to the Pegasus.

Only if by “successful,” you mean it eventually results in very expensive working hardware. Not to mention that Pegasus was not developed on a cost-plus contract.

And the X-33 would likely have been finished and test flown if NASA had used its traditional cost-plus approach instead of the fixed price model they used.

Perhaps. At a cost to the taxpayer of billions. And probably a radically different vehicle than the one originally proposed.

If NASA had funded the X-33/VentureStar under the same procurement model as the Shuttle it would be flying today.

Perhaps. And likely just as big an economic disaster (and perhaps safety one as well) as the Shuttle.

We don’t like that form of procurement because historically, in terms of affordable access to space, it has repeatedly been proven not to work.

Anyway, I do need to write that essay. We’re not going to get energy independence from government crash programs (though prizes may be useful).

History, Space, Space History

One Week To Plan

Next Sunday will be the thirty-ninth anniversary of the first human footsteps on another world. As I do every year, I’d like to remind my readers of a ceremony that I and some friends came up with to celebrate it. If you think that this was an important event, worthy of solemn commemoration, gather some friends to do so next Sunday night, and have a nice dinner after reading the ceremony.

Oh, and coincidentally, Friday was the twenty-ninth anniversary of the fall of Skylab. James Lileks has some thoughts. Next year, it will be the fortieth, and thirtieth anniversaries, respectively, of the two events. It was ironic that our first space station came plunging into the atmosphere almost exactly a decade after the height of our space triumphs in the sixties. The seventies really sucked.

Space

It’s The Assumptions, Stupid

1 Comment

Clark Lindsey has some thoughts on NASA’s latest attempt to justify Ares, including the usual red herring about “man rating” (a phrase that I would purge from the vocabulary, had I the power).

…the initial conditions are the real problem. Griffin insisted on absolutely minimizing in-space assembly and avoiding unproven technologies such as propellant depots, even when such technology is close at hand and would tremendously expand space access capabilities for less money. These requirements lead to big and heavy throwaway payloads for the lunar exploration architecture.

I don’t know who the maligners of small vehicles are that she refers to in the article but I remember that there was a lot of bias within NASA towards a Shuttle replacement, i.e., a vehicle with similar crew and cargo capability. I’ve always thought the Shuttle was far too big for a first generation attempt at an RLV. Starting small, learning what works and doesn’t work, and growing vehicles over time seems like the sensible development path.

Of course, today I don’t think NASA should develop vehicles at all. Instead it should do R&D on leading edge technology the way NACA did for aviation and DARPA does today for general aerospace technology. Let Lockheed-Martin, SpaceX, etc. battle to offer the cheapest space access services.

And he is correct, Shuttle was never man rated. Which is one of the reasons why it’s disingenuous to claim that the Ares first stage is man rated because it was a Shuttle component (particularly since, with the additional segment, it’s become a new motor completely).

I’m a little confused, though, by his citing me, when the link goes to Jon Goff. I think that I have in fact pointed to Mike Griffin’s flip flop on the issue, but it’s not in any of Clark’s links in the piece.

[Update early afternoon]

This was the last time I commented on the man-rating canard, a couple months ago.

Administrative, Space

Job Bleg

46 Comments

I’ve been running my trap lines with my contacts, but I might as well see if any of my readers know of anything. The blog doesn’t pay the bills, and I’m kind of at the end of my financial tether, so if anyone is aware of any jobs out there in the industry, I’d appreciate a tip. I can relocate, but my preference would be either the Denver area or southern California, due to existing housing.

[Update a while later]

For those interested, a brief version of my resume can be found at my personal web site. I’m looking for work in space systems engineering and management, preferably manned space. I could also do temp work, though that’s kind of hard for the big companies under the FAR, unless I come in through a job shop, which skims a lot in overhead for no value added.

[Friday afternoon update]

For those suggesting that I try to make a living writing columns, I’m already doing that as much as I can. There’s no way that it will pay my bills, even if I did it full time. It just doesn’t pay that well. I have to be earning on the order of several tens of dollars an hour to keep ahead of them. The only place I can do that is in the space industry.

I do appreciate all the kind thoughts, though.

[Friday evening update]

Several have commented that I should put a tip jar up. I’ve had one up for years. Unfortunately, it’s not Paypal but Amazon, but I think that you can use any form of payment with it. Is it not appearing in the upper left corner?

Not that I’m asking for handouts, but the thought is appreciated.

Political Commentary, Space

The Next NASA Administrator?

10 Comments

Ferris Valyn has some candidates. Most of them seem implausible to me. The only ones that I can imagine are at all realistic are Patti Grace Smith, Lori Garver and Pete Worden (the latter would certainly shake things up, which is one reason that he almost certainly won’t get the job). Certainly Hansen has nothing in his resume that would qualify him–he’s a scientist.

Of course, much depends on who the next president is. One likely name not on the list, assuming that McCain wins: Craig Steidle.

Political Commentary, Space

The New Space Race

There’s a piece over at the WaPo today by Marc Kaufman that lays out pretty well the problems that we face in civil space policy, though I think that the international competition aspects are overstated. The pace of all these other activities remains almost as glacial as our own, and until someone develops a transportation breakthrough (and by that I mean a high-flight-rate reusable system, not warp drive or space elevators) none of it presents a serious threat to us. But it points out that the policy apparatus, as I always says, doesn’t view space as very important. The beginning of the article, and first two pages, are all about budget constraints, and I was wondering if he would ever get around to mentioning ITAR. Toward the end of the piece, finally, he did. In terms of our losing our dominance in commercial space, this is the number one reasons. It’s really been a disaster, and a bi-partisan one.

It’s a little out of date, since it mentions that Mike Griffin claims that additional funding could accelerate Constellation by two years, to 2013, because Griffin’s own program manager now says that it probably wouldn’t.

I disagree with Mike Griffin’s comment here:

“We spent many tens of billions of dollars during the Apollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth,” said NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who said his agency’s budget is down by 20 percent in inflation-adjusted terms since 1992.

“We’ve been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40 years and have not . . . chosen to invest at a level that would preserve that commanding lead.”

We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on human spaceflight over the past four decades, more than enough to have developed a robust transportation and in-space infrastructure that would have kept us well in the lead. The problem was not how much was spent, but in how it was spent. Jobs were more important than progress. That sadly remains the case today.

Space, Technology and Society

Space Power Relay

1 Comment

Clark Lindsey has some space-related thoughts in response to T. Boone Pickens’ solar energy proposal:

…one major hurdle, among several, with the plan would be the need to build more long distance electric power transmission lines to reach the more populated and more industrialized areas. This will be difficult since people all along the routes will fight having the lines and towers in their backyards.

Occasionally in discussions of Space Based Solar Power, the topic of microwave relay satellites comes up as a way to move power around. For example, in this paper, Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite (2004) Geoffrey Landis talks about using relay sats for distributing power to different parts of the globe from a single Solarsat. So it should be similarly possible for relay satellites to move power from the Midwest to where it’s needed.

Yes, this is one of the “tiers” that Peter Glaser proposed in the development of powersats when he first came up with the idea forty (geez, has it really been that long?) years ago. He envisioned that before energy was produced in space, it might be relayed from energy-rich areas that didn’t have local demand (such as a large dam in Venezuela or Brazil). He envisioned such relays as passive microwave reflectors, which are currently a major structural challenge in terms of keeping the surface the right shape within a fraction of a wavelength. But at least at GEO, they wouldn’t have to move much.

Rather than giant relay sats in GEO, it might be preferable to place a constellation of relatively small ones in LEO since this would allow the beams to be much more narrow. Perhaps the switching techniques developed for Iridium/Globalstar could be built upon. Smaller beams might also lessen NIMBY resistance to transmitter/receiving sites.

Perhaps, but now you have high slew rates on the reflectors, which makes for even more of a challenge. An active phased array system can be steered electronically as it switches from rectenna to rectenna as it orbits. A reflector has to rapidly move the entire structure while maintaining its shape. The higher the orbit the better in this regard, because it won’t have to slew as fast. Also, it would make LEO pretty crowded. A medium orbit (a couple kilocklicks) would probably be better, both because it would require slower motion, and would allow more ground rectennas to be seen at a time, while not cluttering up LEO. The slewing problem could be ameliorated by going to an active system, but that means that the satellite must now not only receive and convert the power, but reconvert and rebeam it to the ground, with all the attendant efficiency issues.

Anyway, I suspect that, regardless of size, NIMBY resistance to rectennas will dwarf that of resistance to transmission lines and towers, given that it’s a devil they don’t know.

Space

More Happy Talk

4 Comments

From Jeff Hanley:

Hanley stated his belief that Orion 2’s Initial Operational Capability (IOC) test flight to the ISS will “remain” on track for March, 2015 – although the ongoing PMR (Program Management Review) budget review shows the first ISS crew rotation (Orion 4) will take place one year later (March, 2016).

How in the world can someone believe that a program with as many uncertainties–technical, political, budgetary–as this one has can be “on track” for a date seven years out? Particularly considering this:

No specific references are made to ongoing problems that face the Constellation program, such as Thrust Oscillation, mass and performance concerns, etc. Noting only ‘key technical challenges’ – whilst citing the workforce’s ‘hard work and dedication’ as key to a successful resolution.

OK, so they don’t even know if there is a solution within the constraints of the program, let alone what it is, yet he thinks they’re on track to a 2015 IOC? Sometimes “hard work” and “dedication” aren’t enough. Unfortunately, when one manages cost-plus contracts, it’s easy to fall into a Marxist “labor theory of value” mode of thinking.

This would be more credible if he would at least caveat it.

[Update a few minutes later]

Hanley says that more money won’t close the gap. That’s probably right, short of an Apollo-like crash program. You can’t get a baby in a month by putting nine women on the job. Some things just take a certain amount of time.

People who complain about this program’s schedule forget that Apollo had essentially an unlimited budget, in terms of hitting the schedule. More money could have been poured into it, but it probably would have been wasted, in terms of getting men on the moon any sooner. NASA is not in that position today–they are budget constrained, yet they’re taking exactly the same economically unsustainable approach that got us to the moon the first time, and not developing affordable or routine spaceflight capabilities.

Which is something to consider in terms of looking for asteroids. It’s not sufficient to find them–we have to find them soon enough to be able to do something about it:

Smaller rocks matter, too. Perhaps nowhere is that so evident as in central Siberia, where 100 years ago last week, something — presumably a meteoroid, most experts say — streaked across the sky and exploded at an estimated height of 28,000 feet with a force equivalent to 185 Hiroshima bombs, leveling some 800 square miles of forest. Simulations by the Sandia National Laboratories showed that object could have been just 90 feet across.

Which is why we have to develop the spacefaring capability now, and not wait until we spot something, at which point it may be too late to do so. And unfortunately, Constellation in its current planned form is not what we need for that job.