Elon Musk has a long update on progress on the new Merlin engine, the Falcon 9 and Dragon. Those are the first pictures I’ve seen of the Hawthorne facility. It sounds like they have a lot of room to grow.

I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that they’ve gone with hypergolics for reaction control. That’s going to complicate turnaround.

But overall, (in contrast to Orion/Ares) progress seems to be good. Note that they’re continuing to hire, and even offering bounties, if you know anyone to refer to them.

[Update a few minutes later]

SpaceX should look into this engine for RCS. Presumably, the hypergolics were chosen for reliability (no igniter required) and storability, but XCOR has pretty reliable engines, and they don’t use such nasty propellants, and they have been working on well-insulated LOX tanks.

Eric Hedman has some ideas. I agree with Clark Lindsey–he is far too optimistic about the prospects for scramjets providing a solution to the problem:

Scramjet propulsion theoretically has the advantage of increasing a vehicle

Dennis Wingo thinks so. So do I.

In over 30 years of reading space literature from NASA, congress, and the president, this is the first time that the presidential stamp has been placed on the development of extraterrestrial resources. This was not the only step in the development of this thought at the highest reaches of our government. In 2006 at the 44th Goddard Symposium the presidential theme was extended and amplified.

“As I see it, questions about the VSE boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, “The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.” So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.”

These two speeches, one by President Bush, and another by his science advisor, the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy laid the foundation and provided the ground rules, and gave very explicit policy direction to NASA regarding what we are to do in the return to the Moon and conduct exploration to Mars and beyond.

The problem is that NASA has not embraced this expansive goal for our national space program. Why is this? It seems to be just the kind of red meat goal that NASA has dreamed of forever. Even in the SEI era there was never this kind of clear cut, practical direction for a policy, as Marburger states, from the President and Congress. It boggles the mind that this has not been incorporated as a core value for the lunar exploration program–it is exactly this type of effort that has the potential to connect to the American people.

Just as was the case with SEI, VSE is being done in by NASA, though in a different way this time. In SEI, they did it by deliberately sabotaging the program with outrageous cost estimates, and actually lobbying against it in Congress. With VSE, it’s more a case of negligent manslaughter, rather than premeditation. ESAS, and NASA’s lack of vision, is killing the Vision. And the administration is too preoccupied with other things, and long in the tooth, to do anything about it.

I just got my fall issue of The New Atlantis–its focus is space, in keeping with the Sputnik anniversary in October. I just glanced at it, but it’s got lots of good stuff in it, by Oberg, Mike Griffin, and others, including a long review of Rocketeers by me (well, that one may not be so good). Unfortunately, no links, because it won’t be on line for a couple weeks or so, but when it is, I’ll remind folks. So if you’re not a subscriber, this is just a teaser.

No launch today, either. Maybe tomorrow, but I don’t think I’ll hang around for it–Patricia has to work.

Anyway, I’m guessing that they’ll ultimately have to roll back, and launch in January. These sensors seem to be even more flaky than usual.

[Update about a minute after posting]

Yup. I just got a text message that they’ve decided to give up on it for the year.

[A couple minutes more]

Here’s confirmation on the web site. January 2nd at the earliest.

[11:20 update]

Here’s more info.

There have been a new development in the story about Mojave potentially losing its spaceport license.

Thomas James has found another way for NASA to get around the Congressional prohibition on human Mars exploration, as a result of the blinkered mentality of the people who wrote the language. As he says, though, it’s unlikely that NASA would use it.

Based on what I’m reading here, this is extremely disappointing, given how supportive FAA-AST has been of this fledgling industry to date:

MOJAVE – The nation’s first inland spaceport could lose that designation by the end of the year.

The Federal Aviation Administration informed officials at the Mojave Air and Space Port of its intention to suspend or revoke the space launch site operator’s license Dec. 31.

“I have no reason to be optimistic we’re going to keep our spaceport license,” said General Manager Stu Witt, reporting on the issue to the East Kern Airport District board of directors Tuesday. The district governs the Mojave Air and Space Port.

…Witt said the FAA has asked airport officials to dream up possible launch vehicle scenarios, imagining various types and amounts of propellants and devising safety plans for dealing with those chemicals.

“I’m not in the business of dealing in stories; I deal in fact,” he said.

The airport does have safety and storage plans in effect for those propellents and other energetic materials in use at the site.

The facility’s 2006 safety inspection found no compliance issues, Witt said. However, the safety inspection this year resulted in a notice that the facility had 90 days to come into compliance but failed to state what the problems were, he said.

One of the implications of this is that companies like XCOR and Masten Space Systems (not to mention the SpaceShip Company) are going to have to pull up stakes and move somewhere else, though it’s not clear how any other US spaceport can meet what seem to be unreasonable FAA demands.

Look. One has to go back to the original intent and basis of the regulations. FAA-AST (and its predecessor, the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, which reported directly to the Secretary of Transportation, and was not part of the FAA) exists for one reason–to meet the obligations of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Our participation in that treaty means that the US government (unlike any other mode of transportation) is liable for any activity involving spaceflight that occurs from its boundaries or its citizens/corporations. (In fact, that means that suborbital flight within the confines of the US is not even relevant to the treaty, but that’s a discussion for another time.)

But ground testing, and development that doesn’t involve actual spaceflight is not covered in any way by that treaty. No part of FAA-AST should be involved in, or even interested in, vehicle development activities that do not involve vehicles that don’t go into space, let alone ones that don’t leave the ground at all. These were accidents in propulsion testing on test stands. If any federal agency should be involved (I would argue that none should) it would be OSHA. The FAA (and particularly FAA-AST) should only be involved when testing of actual flight vehicles occur. They have no business worrying about what kinds of propellants are used in vehicle development (let alone engine development), until operators and developers actually seek launch licenses for flight testing using those propellants.

I know, and have friends, at FAA-AST. I hope that one of them will (convincingly) explain to me why I’m wrong.

[Update late evening]

I don’t actually hope they’ll explain to me why I’m wrong, because if they can do that, it’s bad news for the industry. What I really hope is that they’ll realize that they’re wrong, and not strangle this young industry in the cradle.

And Clark Lindsey is more succinct than I in describing the problem.

[Friday update]

Patti Grace Smith is denying the report:

Earlier I noted a report noted by Rand Simberg and several other space bloggers that the Mojave Space Port was in danger of closure by the FAA. I also emailed Patricia Smith, the FAA’s Associate Adminstrator for Commercial Space Transportation. She responds: “The report is totally inaccurate.”

That’s good, and like Glenn, I appreciate the fast reply, but it would be nice to see a more expansive, and clarifying response. If the report is “totally inaccurate” (hard to believe that anything can be totally inaccurate) what is accurate? What, if anything, is going on?

And if Stu is crying wolf, that won’t help him the next time he needs to deal with AST.

I’m not planning to drive up to see the launch this afternoon–I’ll try to see it from here (something I’ve never done, but the sky is quite clear). But it looks like they may have to scrub, anyway. Fuel sensors again.

By the way, The Flame Trench is probably the best place to go in general to stay on top of what’s going on for launches from the Cape.

[Update at 10:20 EST]

Today’s launch has been scrubbed. Another attempt tomorrow at 4:09 PM.

Well, new to me, anyway. I discovered Amanda Bauer via the latest Carnival of Space, over at Robot Guy’s place. Good stuff, but I hope that she uses the shift key when she writes her job applications and thesis.