I’m struggling through my Internet issues to do a little posting tonight. Mike Griffin was interviewed by the BBC, and had some interesting comments. Think of this less as a fisking, than an analysis of what’s really going on in the agency.
…having spent about
…but head over to Space Transport News, and keep scrolling. Lots of good stuff.
…but head over to Space Transport News, and keep scrolling. Lots of good stuff.
…but head over to Space Transport News, and keep scrolling. Lots of good stuff.
Well, the “safe, simple, soon” launch vehicle doesn’t seem to be as simple or soon as advertised. I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you.
Whether or not it’s safe remains to be seen.
[Update on Thursday morning]
Chair Force Engineer has some further uncharitable thoughts:
It would be wise to ask the engineers behind the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, Was “The Stick” really better than Delta & Atlas, or did you just do what Scott Horowitz told you to do?
[Another update on Thursday afternoon]
Jon Goff isn’t impressed, either.
Saturday was a little-noted anniversary for the space program. Jeff Foust has some thoughts.
FAA’s authority from Congress extends only to takeoff and landing. This is duly implemented in the new proposed regs. The Outer Space Treaty makes the US liable for damages caused by US spacecraft and citizens to other signatory’s people and stuff whereever they are. That includes outer space and the rest of the planets. These areas too should be considered and governed for every US citizen and corporation that wants a US flagged spacecraft. There are excellent opportunities for US (mobile home) colonies in unoccupied territory. It’s time to appoint someone whose job it is to make that happen. A new position should be created: the Governor of Outer Space Territory.
Like the Space Paidhi in C.J. Cherryh’s Foreigner series, there would be a need for bridging tremendous cultural gaps between political leaders and spacers, quick thinking about governance modes, and even some rough frontier justice.
Why stop there? We should have an Ocean Territory Governor, a Sky Territory Governor and (an underground) Crust Territory Governor.
Mark Whittington has an idea to solve the methane problem (no, not that methane problem–that one we’ll solve by burning down the rain forests):
If NASA feels that building a methane/LOX engine is too risky for the ESAS, there is a solution. Make such an engine one of the Centennial Challenges. Critics of the Vision for Space Exploration will be less unhappy because that would be another piece of technology developed by non traditional means. NASA will benefit because it gets the engine for the CEV and Mars Lander relatively cheaply.
Well, maybe. The problem is, I guess I don’t see LOX/methane engines as particularly risky, at least no more so than any other generic propulsion development. It’s not a technology risk (in the sense that there may be some unknowns out there that prevent it from being possible) so much as a programmatic risk, in terms of schedule delays or cost overruns. NASA has a lot of experience with these in propulsion programs, so they’re wary of new engine developments (though I suspect that XCOR has broken a lot of the conventional industry cost/schedule estimating models for propulsion system development). Our lack of methane propulsion isn’t because it’s a Hard Problem, but because no one has had sufficient requirement to date to fund it.
If we have unlimited money for prizes, I guess that a prize would be a good way to fund this, but prizes are better employed in those cases for which innovation is required to solve a really difficult problem that many have attempted and no one yet solved, not for a straightforward development program. Rather than offer a prize, I’ll bet that someone like XCOR (or the other companies working on the problem) would be happy to take a fixed-price contract to develop engines to NASA’s specs (they could use the technology contract they have from Marshall to develop a reusable cryo tank as a model), and it would be a lot cheaper than funding a cost-plus contract to Aerojet or Pratt. There are lots of other ways to do innovative procurement than offering prizes.
We’re starting to see the programmatic consequences of NASA’s political inability to get the Shuttle/ISS monkey off its back. I was reading the final Call For Improvement from NASA on the CEV program, that just came out this week, and noted that one of the biggest changes in it from the draft that came out late last year was that the word “methane” had been excised from it, whereas in the draft, it had been baselined. Apparently, NASA doesn’t have the funds to pursue this propulsion technology, despite its potential for improved safety, reduced operational costs, and extensibility to eventual Mars (and Near-Earth Object) missions.
The Shuttle and ISS have both been programmatic disasters exactly because of decisions made early in their development to skip key technologies that could have dramatically reduced down-stream costs, and (as seems to be inevitable with a space program funded on an annual basis by a Congress that’s focused on the next election), we’re apparently following the same path with CEV.
NASA Watch has more on this subject, as does Clark Lindsey:
The fundamental criticism of the Exploration program that has come from the alt.space community is that the program as currently designed will make little progress towards development of a sustainable, long-term, in-space infrastructure. This decision further pushes the program towards “flags and footprints” rather than “return to stay” or “steppingstone to Mars.”
Clark Lindsey points out a potentially interesting program tonight for those of my readers who get BBC2.