Paul Dietz points out (in comments) that if Frances hits the cape as a Cat 4 or greater, none of the major facilities are designed to take it. If the VAB, OPF and LC-39 are significantly damaged, it could mean that the Shuttle will retire even sooner than the current plan (i.e., it will never fly again). It would be a strange end to the current trajectory of our four-plus-decade manned space program, but it might be an opportunity for a clean start, since there won’t be an opportunity for a rear-guard action to save the Shuttle (and it may even finally put to rest notions of Shuttle derivatives, though that’s probably asking too much).
[Update a few minutes later]
As Paul mentions, he found the info at the new and improved NASA Watch, now with an infinite percent more permalinks.
I’m curious about the VASIMR engine, its performance and maturity. I understand you are working on Prometheus via JIMO and was wondering if the VASIMR technology is going to be used on that mission. For that matter how close to an actual space engine is this? What I’ve seen in print indicates that it has performance throttleable between ion engine efficiency and thrust like a chemical rocket. How does this compare to, say, a Spaceshuttle engine? Could it be used in a launch vehicle for instance? How big a breakthrough is it really?
JIMO is planned to use ion propulsion, a technology that is currently in use (in communications satellites and in Deep Space 1), and only requires scaling up. VASIMR is an entirely different kind of electric propulsion. Both types work by accelerating charged particles with electromagnetic fields, but ion propulsion is driven by electrostatic forces, whereas VASIMR accelerates a plasma using electromagnetic forces. It has the potential for much higher thrust (though lower specific impulse, so the fuel efficiency isn’t as good), but it’s only in the preliminary development stages. Neither type of engine would have high enough thrust/weight ratio to be used as an engine on a launch system–they’re only useful in space. There’s a good tutorial on the subject here.
Via Wired, it looks like the Da Vinci Project (now renamed the GoldenPalace.com space program) is running into problems with finding insurance.
Insurance is a huge deal for suborbital startups, and will probably turn out to be a showstopper for at least some of them. I was very surprised to find out how much of a problem insurance and launch licensing (including environmental regulation) were going to be when I first got seriously involved with this area. Launch licensing is partially addressed by Senate bill 2772, but insurance is still out there. If I was to start a suborbital launch services company tomorrow I’d tackle the insurance issue in parallel with vehicle development. The right vehicle design will keep insurance costs low, and the wrong design will drive them towards infinity.
Tim Worstall has some post-apocalyptic thoughts that are applicable to pre-apocalyptic space policy. I can never remind people enough the reason that we aren’t a true space-faring nation is not lack of technology or technologists–it’s lack of the viable institutions and means of organizing resources toward that end. Fortunately, that’s starting to change.
Tim Worstall has some post-apocalyptic thoughts that are applicable to pre-apocalyptic space policy. I can never remind people enough the reason that we aren’t a true space-faring nation is not lack of technology or technologists–it’s lack of the viable institutions and means of organizing resources toward that end. Fortunately, that’s starting to change.
Tim Worstall has some post-apocalyptic thoughts that are applicable to pre-apocalyptic space policy. I can never remind people enough the reason that we aren’t a true space-faring nation is not lack of technology or technologists–it’s lack of the viable institutions and means of organizing resources toward that end. Fortunately, that’s starting to change.
There’s a huge (and largely pointless) argument going on over at Space Politics about whether or not we should go to the Moon before Mars (kicked off by Bob Zubrin’s wishful thinking).
I liked Ed Wright’s comment:
We don’t have a national consensus on what to do in the air or on the sea or on land.
We don’t need a national consensus to decide whether Americans will go to Las Vegas or Disneyland next year.
Why is that when it comes to space, people think there can only be one destination and one goal, which is chosen by national consensus?
That is the question. Sam Dinkin discusses the pros and cons of pilots in space vehicles. He ignores the most critical issues, though–the willingness of passengers to fly, and the FAA to license, an unpiloted space transport. I’ve discussed this issue in the past.