Category Archives: Space

Space

PDR Problems?

3 Comments

I’d sure like to know a lot more about this:

Recently, an attempt at a PDR by ATK was called up short by the minions. Not even a goatee could make you feel warm and fuzzy that day. Having failed in their quest to show some level of design maturity, ATK was not even allowed to finish their presentations and were sent back to the showers to try again. And, oh, by the way, none of the ARES 1 designs at PDR, including the upper stage, include any of the modifications that will be required to turn the bladder basher into a real human space transportation system. That will come later. Makes one wonder why the PDR was scheduled if the design is that immature and missing pieces, don’t it?

If true (and there’s little reason to think otherwise, despite the happy talk from Jeff Hanley), how long will this farce go on?

Space, Space History

Mark The Date

I just got an email from Pat Kelley:

I received a call from Anne Greenglass to tell me that Len’s ashes will be interred at Arlington cemetery with full military honors on September 17. Any of Len’s friends and cohorts who are in the Washington area on that date are welcome to come to the service. As we get closer to the date if I have any more information I will pass it along.

He’s referring to Len Cormier, who died of cancer a few days ago.

Political Commentary, Space

Senators Lecture George Bush

16 Comments

…about space policy

The three say they don’t know for certain why the White House has failed to provide the appropriate guidance and funding needed to implement the Vision, “though we suspect it can be explained by Bush not knowing all the facts about what the real impact of NASA’s annual budgets has been since the loss of the Columbia in 2003.”

I think the problem is less in the funding, and more in the lack of guidance. Once Griffin was hired, the White House apparently decided that it was mission accomplished, and refocused to much more pressing issues, despite the fact that NASA’s implementation seems to fly in the face of the original vision and the recommendations of the Aldridge Commission.

And Clark Lindsey gives them a lecture of their own:

These Senators don’t seem to know that NASA could have chosen to pursue an innovative low cost approach to space development and lunar exploration rather than choosing a very long and very expensive path to two new vehicles, both of which will be very costly to operate. These Senators apparently don’t even know about COTS, the one modest effort taken by the agency towards lower costs for space hardware development and operations.

Well, what most Senators don’t know, particularly about space, could fill a small library. Maybe even a large one.

Political Commentary, Space

“Not Silent”

As usual, Doug Cooke defends ESAS:

The “direct” variation fails to meet NASA’s needs on several grounds. It is vastly over-capacity and too costly to service the International Space Station, but worse, its lift capacity would not be enough for NASA to maintain a sustained presence on the moon.

Advocates for the “direct” variation are touting unrealistic development costs and schedules. A fundamental difference is that the Ares I and Orion probability of crew survival is at least two times better than all of the other concepts evaluated, including “direct”-like concepts.

Also as usual, he provides no evidence for his assertions. We are simply supposed to accept them because Doug Cooke says so. Have we ever seen the actual report that came out of the sixty-day study, with a description of methodology and assumptions? I haven’t.

I’m not necessarily a big fan of “Direct,” but his statement raises more issues than it answers. Why doesn’t the “lift capacity allow a sustained presence on the moon” in a way that ESAS does? Why should it be assumed that NASA’s new launch system will service space station? I thought that this was what COTS was for? What are the marginal costs of an additional Jupiter launch versus Ares 1?

Give us some numbers, and provide a basis for them, and we might take this seriously.

[Wednesday morning update]

More thoughts and comments at NASA Watch, and from Chair Force Engineer.

Political Commentary, Space

“Not Silent”

21 Comments

As usual, Doug Cooke defends ESAS:

The “direct” variation fails to meet NASA’s needs on several grounds. It is vastly over-capacity and too costly to service the International Space Station, but worse, its lift capacity would not be enough for NASA to maintain a sustained presence on the moon.

Advocates for the “direct” variation are touting unrealistic development costs and schedules. A fundamental difference is that the Ares I and Orion probability of crew survival is at least two times better than all of the other concepts evaluated, including “direct”-like concepts.

Also as usual, he provides no evidence for his assertions. We are simply supposed to accept them because Doug Cooke says so. Have we ever seen the actual report that came out of the sixty-day study, with a description of methodology and assumptions? I haven’t.

I’m not necessarily a big fan of “Direct,” but his statement raises more issues than it answers. Why doesn’t the “lift capacity allow a sustained presence on the moon” in a way that ESAS does? Why should it be assumed that NASA’s new launch system will service space station? I thought that this was what COTS was for? What are the marginal costs of an additional Jupiter launch versus Ares 1?

Give us some numbers, and provide a basis for them, and we might take this seriously.

[Wednesday morning update]

More thoughts and comments at NASA Watch, and from Chair Force Engineer.

Business, Space

Where Is The Money Coming From?

2 Comments

And where is it going, in commercial space?

I have to say, I thought this was pretty funny:

Virgin Galactic has already been watching its back with the EADS suborbital space plane (pictured above), set to make its first flight by 2012. But now there’s cash across the pond. “We have invested substantial money into this project,” Auque said without citing exact figures. “The problem is that we need to create this market.”

I doubt very much that Virgin Galactic is worried that EADS Astrium is going to raise a billion dollars to build a suborbital tourist vehicle. There’s a reason that Auque didn’t cite “exact” (or even approximate) figures. He expects to do it mostly with someone else’s money, if he can find a sucker (like ESA?).

Business, Economics, Political Commentary, Space

The Rough Road To Space

2 Comments

I have a new piece up over at Pajamas Media on space transportation and the Interstate Highway System.

Hey, it was Mike Griffin who made the analogy, not me.

I should also note that while the title is mine, the subheadline is theirs.

[Late afternoon update]

Only Mark Whittington would have the native talent to so misread this piece as to think that I was “expressing astonishment.” Of course, it’s not the first time that he’s fantasized about my views.

[Another update]

Now Mark is fantasizing that I actually want, or expect NASA to build the Interstate to space.

Well, it’s totally in character for him.

I sure wish he’d learn to read for comprehension.

Political Commentary, Space

Nothing New About That

Keith Cowing thinks that the Coalition for Space Exploration is asking the wrong questions.

If the Coalition for Space Exploration really wants to further the notion of a robust taxpayer-funded program of space exploration – one based on a solid footing of public support – then they need to start paying attention to what their polls actually say and stop trying to skew the results to say something that the numbers do not support. If, however, they want to support space exploration – regardless of how it comes about – then they need to re-examine their motives – and ask different questions.

People might not want to pay more taxes for space exploration, but they might be interested in buying a ticket.

Indeed.

As usual (and perhaps inevitably), an organization ostensibly set up for the purpose of supporting space exploration in general ends up being a NASA cheerleader. That’s partly because a lot of the funding for it comes from the space industrial complex. In any event, these polls should always be taken with a grain, if not a whole shaker of salt. They’re based on public ignorance, and once again demonstrate that support for the current plans are a mile wide and an inch deep.