idea-writes STL Aerospace

Say Goodbye to the Queen of the Skies

2020-07-16T12:13:00.002-07:00

Boeing is ending production of the original Jumbo Jet, Boeing 747, per a Bloomberg article. This plane has helped shape the world economy to what it is today. It is more than that, this is personal. The Boeing 747 has been a part of my life story from early on.

Boeing 747 by EC Holm

It had started its journey in 1970. I first flew on one on a transatlantic flight from New York to Madrid only four years after its debut. The captain came over and handed me a pair of wings. Those were my first. I was seven years old at the time. Yes, the airline was TWA.

The plane made intercontinental flights economical and thus opened up economies. Business people used them a lot. They were also used to ship products. In later years, shipping companies like FedEx and UPS made use of them. Heck, I got FedExed in one while I was in the Air Force to Okinawa. It was a joke because FedEx was the contractor to carry troops to Kadena AB from the States, but it was a passenger plane, no boxes.

The 747 has seen all kinds of variations to her both military and civilian. Some notable variations of the plane have been a firefighter (Supertanker), telescope (SOFIA), rocket launcher (Virgin Orbit), large cargo carrier (Dreamlifter), a laser testbed (YAL-1 ), an engine testbed (article), and 2 of them reconfigured into the largest plane in the world (Stratolaunch). I loved these things. I thought it was amazing how such a large plane could be a tool to do such amazing work. Of course, there have been many production variants of the plane to suit many needs. I remember reading in 1988 about a 747 SP making a world record for flying around the world in record time. The article said that the plane made use of the jet stream. I had realized from talking to Air Force pilots that you can go Mach 1 ground speed in an airliner if you take advantage of a favorable jet stream. Not that you are actually breaking the sound barrier with the air around you because the air is moving with you.

I do not know what Boeing is doing by discontinuing the 747, queen of the skies. Personally, I think it is a mistake on their part like many mistakes they have been making of late. Sure, they blame it on the market and fuel economy, but customers are still wanting the old girl.

I find it nostalgic and frankly sad to say goodbye to such a beauty. Yet the end it is still not (if I dare conjure up my inner Yoda). Many 747’s are flying and will fly the blue yonder for many years to come.

Planetary Life

2020-07-07T00:38:00.004-07:00

There are 36 planets with civilizations on them in the whole galaxy according to a new study (article). That's a very low number for the number of stars we have, and every star we looked at so far had planets orbiting it. The galaxy is 105,700 light-years in diameter or 8.77 billion squared light-years in area not accounting for the thickness of the galactic disk. That is 243.7 million squared light-years per civilization. WTF? No wonder we never see each other. We would have to be able to search that much of deep space. We cannot even send a probe to the next star, Alpha Centauri (4.5 light-years away).

Blue Marble by EC Holm

We are the biggest and baddest life we know. Earth has the only life we know about so far. We haven't found life anywhere else, but we are still holding out hope for Mars.

Earth is full of microbes down to the core. These are mostly the cause of methane from the ground. Mars has been found to have methane (article). There is a chance it has microbes hiding in its rocky depths. What if most planets have microbes that do the same? That would mean that life is abundant in the galaxy. In the 1990s, NASA JPL found microbial fossils in a meteorite that came from Mars (article). Though this is not conclusive evidence that Mars has microbes, it is strong evidence.

The Earth is full of microbes throughout its crust (article). This means something extraordinary. We never understood this before. It should have made more of a splash than it did. If the crust is full of life. When did life start? I suggest it didn't start on the surface in a pool of water. I suggest it started as the planet was forming, as the rocks, dust, water, and minerals were coming together in the Sun’s accretion disc that formed the Earth. Static electricity and other forces would no doubt be present at the time. Lightning at this time could spark the formation of amino acids which are essential for life. Here is an article supporting this idea. It is pure speculation how you get from amino acids to full-blown microbes of both bacterial and archaeal, but life does it. This scenario would result in widespread microbes on the crust both on the surface and below the new planet.

As a result of microbes exist throughout the crust of the planet, and methane emerges from the depths. Sure you may say what about abiotic methane. Well, most of Earth's methane is biotic, produced from organic material, and/or with the aid of microbes (article). Abiotic methane on Earth is rare. Methane outgassing has been observed on other planets in the solar system and assumed to be abiotic. What if it is biotic like on Earth? That could mean microbial life would be abundant in the universe. What a statement that would be.

If microbial life is abundant in the universe, then that gives a better chance for the other 35 civilizations to exist. Now wouldn't that be something? We are all formed out of the ground because the ground is alive. You can think about that the next time you are digging in your garden.

Much of this is based on assumptions, speculations, and a few facts. It is fun to think about the possibilities. It is also fun to watch science evolve like the new NASA rover to Mars, Perseverance. It is due to launch soon. Check out its mission page and follow along (mission page).

The Solar Sailer That Did

2020-07-06T02:41:00.002-07:00

Lightsail 2 by EC Holm

When Lightsail 2 launched a year ago and first set sail, it was evident that the team had on their hands that an orbit that was less than ideal. Their perigee was low. With a craft that had rocket propulsion, this would have been no problem at all. Lightsail 2 has kryptonite that rockets do not, the source of propulsion is coming from one direction. The craft can only get a push from the Sun on one side of the planet, so it cannot circularize its orbit without the help of additional thrusters. The craft was only able to increase the eccentricity of its orbit, increase the apogee while the perigee decreases. Lightsail 2 was expected to deorbit after a few months, but it didn’t. Its mission control team pulled a rabbit out of a hat and minimized the altitude reduction as the craft made passed through its perigee thus extending its mission life. It has now been over a year. That's amazing. Congratulations to the Planetary Society and to the Lightsail 2 team.

Check out their mission control website: https://www.planetary.org/blogs/lightsail-2-extended-mission.html

Check out the one year in space celebration video by the Lightsail 2 team: https://youtu.be/Y4k1p0-59WE

Orbital Commercial Space is Open for Business

2020-05-30T13:09:00.001-07:00

SpaceX has accomplished what many have said was impossible. They—a commercial company—have launched two humans successfully to orbit on the Crew Dragon (Dragon 2). Not only to orbit, but they have sent them to the International Space Station on May 30th, 2020. Some have said how important this accomplishment is for the United States to get back launching Americans from American soil. I agree; that's true. Nationalism aside, there is a much much deeper and more important milestone this accomplishment marks that few are saying, and it has to do with our future from here on out. It marks the beginning of commercial human operations. What does that mean? It means we are no longer dependant on government money to get humans to space. SpaceX will open the market to allow citizens and anyone to go to space.

An actor has a contract to go to the ISS on SpaceX Dragon to shoot a movie. Tom Cruise is reportedly going to ride on Crew Dragon to the space station in the near future (Verge article). This was announced almost a month before the launch. This is how Earth-shattering this launch is. It's already sparking space tourism.

A billionaire wants to go to space and take artists around the moon. He has a contract with SpaceX. The Dear Moon project by entrepreneur Yusaku Maezawa hired SpaceX to take him and artists on a journey around the moon on Starship. It's the most ambitious space tourism feat yet. The Crew Dragon launch validates SpaceX's ability to launch humans into space and thus to launch them on the yet to be developed Starship as well.

I heard on the webcast of the launch that SpaceX plans on sending making available twice a year on Crew Dragon a year to the ISS. This article from the Verge states that SpaceX made an agreement with Space Adventures to have four private citizens in the next year or so.

Now, the future can open up. Commercial Space Stations project entrepreneurs can make real plans because they have a way to get people to their stations. Axiom Space, Bigelow Aerospace, and the Gateway Foundation have been surely watching eagerly the Crew Dragon launch.

Low Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, the Asteroid Belt, and deep space are all potential destinations for commercial human missions and colonies. The successful launch of Crew Dragon is amazing and is also the key to an open and profitable space future. Ad Astra.

Virgin Orbit First Launch Attempt

2020-05-26T06:20:00.007-07:00

Virgin Orbit attempted its first rocket launch on May 25th, 2020. It experienced an anomaly shortly after the Boeing 747, Cosmic Girl, released the rocket, LauncherOne, and the rocket ignited. So far they haven't given any details as to what when wrong.

I followed their live Twitter feed as they attempted this launch. My impression is that this is a very complicated procedure, more so than a regular rocket launch. The rocket is powered by liquid fuel which is a first of its kind, air-launched rocket. The Pegasus of Northrup Grumman has solid rocket motors. The other thing Virgin Orbit is doing differently is that they are pitching the nose of Cosmic Girl up dramatically to release the rocket. This is to give the rocket a better angle than horizontal since it doesn't have a main wing-like Pegasus does. So, there's lots of variable and lots of things that can go wrong with LauncherOne.

Yeah, it was disappointing to hear that the rocket failed. It was a test flight, and there was no customer payload to lose. Still, I rooted for these guys, and they are doing something pretty extraordinary.

Virgin Orbit is focused on launching cube sats and compete with Rocket Lab. Air launch does have a couple of advantages over regular land launches. It allows for launches form any airport. The rocket uses less fuel since it launches at altitude. Virgin Orbit aims to keep the launch prices for the customer significantly lower than the customers of the Pegasus system.

UPDATE: According to Virgin Orbit post dated May 25th, the mission was a success, and data was collected to make modifications for the next flight. This kind of approach is reminiscent of the Russian way of development, which is to use actual tests to figure out the next step of development. It is a practical approach and can be more cost-effective than buying or making specialized test equipment just to develop one rocket. At least, that's opinions that I've heard over the years. I don't know how true that is. I just have to trust what they're doing and hope for the best. Any of these companies could always go the way of XCOR. Commercial space is a big gamble, but Sir Richard Branson is very resourceful, and his team of engineers and professionals seem really capable.

Posting Again

2020-05-26T03:33:00.003-07:00

I want to start posting here again. I think the time is right. I initially stopped posting in 2017 because a lot of YouTubers came on and started to inform the public on commercial space which was my purpose. So, at that time I didn't see much point continuing. Also, a lot of social media groups came on and fans started to gather. People started to become interested in Space and not only space but in more science, technology, math, and engineering. This was a good thing and I applauded it. I heard of people, both men and women going into science and engineering. That was awesome. I hope the best for them.

Years on, now we have more science detractors. We have a pandemic. We have more commercial space companies. SpaceX is booming. Virgin Group has grown and is still working on its projects. Blue Origin has flown its suborbital craft and is working on its orbital rocket. Statolaunch has been bought out. Xcor went under. Dreamchaser project still holds on to the dream, and its parent company, Sierra Nevada, still gets contracts, very healthy. Bigelow waits. Then Axiom comes up with a commercial space station contract with NASA. It's not called that but it does the job. There is so much to talk about. More YouTubers are on talking about space projects and the field seems endless. I think it's finally happening. Commercial space is making a foothold and is here to stay. So, it can only get bigger. And I can only give my two cents on what all this means and how all this is going down.

Mad Dash to Plan B

2017-08-03T12:14:00.001-07:00

NASA needs a bigger budget from Congress to get to Mars. Check out Dan Vergano’s article, NASA's Mars Program Is As Sad As It’s Ever Been

Elon Musk is considering pulling back on Mars for now. Check out this interview:

He needs to get the astronauts to space and to the ISS. He also needs to make it happen by next year. No pressure. Except, no more landing legs for Dragon (see minute 35:45). So no power landing for it either, so no Red Dragon, either, and Dragon won’t land on the moon either. Come to think about it, that’s a lot of things. And there goes much of Musk's Mars plans for Mars out the window. And why? Well, real practical practice takes priority over dreams.

Notice that Musk said, “If you want to get people fired up, you make a base on the Moon. And then going beyond that, getting people to Mars.” He said this in minute 24:46.

Robert Bigelow was also at the same conference Musk was at. Check out this video.

Bigelow proposes going back to the moon before Mars because the Chinese are heading to the moon and we need to beat them to it. The prize is resources.

ESA wants to make an international base on the moon. They have been in talks with China about it, (article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/moon-base-outpost-china-europe-chinese-space-agency-collaboration-together-a7702936.html) That’s very interesting. Let’s wait and see how things pan out.

It seems that Russia also has an interest in a mission to the moon (article: https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/15/roscosmos-first-manned-moon-landing/) We also need to wait on this as well. Maybe they will hook up with another country for this.

So what do we make of all this talk in the summer of 2017? To me, I can only conclude that for now Mars is out and the Moon is in on everyone’s agenda, including NASA’s. In my opinion this represents a change of plans that is steered by finances and resources. It’s sad that the dreamers dreams are put on hold for Mars. If you want to see a Mars landing, I suggest you keep healthy and plan to live a long life.

“The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry,” Robert Burns.

Second Stages in the Planning

2017-06-16T01:29:00.000-07:00

In recent history, SpaceX has demonstrated mastery of first stage reusability with the launch and landing of their first stage Falcon 9 again. What of the second stage? ULA, Blue Origin, and SpaceX all have planned, designed, and are building rockets that make innovative use of the second or upper stage.

The New Glenn rocket, by Blue Origin, is to be a very large reusable first stage. The second stage is a throw away, just like the traditional second stages. The innovation comes where they stack two second stages on top of one another. This effectively makes a bigger overall rocket without extra development costs of designing a bigger second stage. Sounds interesting, but nothing spectacular.

The Vulcan rocket, by ULA, will have the ACES upper stage. ACES will be more than just an upper stage, it will be a space tug capable of taking payloads to the lunar surface. It will also be able to refuel other ACES. It will have a fuel cell to produce its own electricity and take payloads on long duration missions. Reminds me of a five year mission I heard somewhere...hmm. I doubt that it's fuel cell will last that long without ref

Credit NASA: Saturn V second stage

ueling, but overall it sound pretty cool for commercial science missions.

The Interplanetary Spaceship, by SpaceX, seemingly doesn't have an upper stage. It's upper stage has been incorporated into the body of the spaceship. Yep, it's that thing in the back with 40 raptor engines. What SpaceX has done in designing this ship, is that they have created a ship straight out of classic science fiction. The second stage has become fully reusable. It does everything. It launches. It refuels. It lands. What more could you ask for from an upper stage? In my mind, this design takes the lot. It's far out there. It makes you think why we weren't designing spaceships like this in the first place. But that's a whole other discussion. In the interim, SpaceX may try to reuse land and reuse an upper stage on its Falcon Heavy. If successful, it would mean another technical and economic victory, over launch prices, for the company.

Rockets are changing, hopefully for the better. Which application of the upper stage will become standard? Only time will tell.

Clipped Space Wings

2015-12-30T03:21:00.001-08:00

2015 has seen some sad developments in new space companies that tout systems with wings. Virgin Galactic, Stratolaunch, and XCOR have all seen changes in their programs with not much progress.It seems to me that this is the year that space wings have been clipped.

Virgin Galactic was the venerated company that inherited the technology from Scaled Composites’ SpaceShipOne, winner of the Ansari X-Prize. Yet, its SpaceShipTwo suffered a disaster that killed a crew member, injured another, and destroyed the ship. It never made it to space. Due to constant changes to engines and other design features, it probably never will. I realized that this program was in real trouble when I read the article Virging Glactic gets a 747 jet to serve as a flying launch pad for its LauncherOne rocket . It said that VG had changed the mother craft for LauncherOne to launch from from the WhiteKnightTwo to a Boeing 747. That tells me the company sees no end to SpaceShipTwo’s problems. Perhaps we should also see no end either.

Stratolaunch was touted as the largest plane in the world. Then I read the article Stratolaunch Without Final Conception which said that not only has its company changed the rocket it would launch twice, but now the plane itself was in jeopardy. Someone seems to have bitten off more than they can chew; I think.

Then there is XCOR. They were to be a competitor to VG with their space-plane Lynx. Now the main guy Jeff Greason has left his position to a board position according to their news post. They also have not made much progress. What is taking so long? I fear the worse: lack of customers and cash.

All of this comes in a year when two new space rocket companies have made fantastic progress in doing the impossible: landing rockets. I'm talking about, of course, Blue Origin and SpaceX. Both companies have money backing them, one way or another, a strong handle on development, and strong top people to see the projects through. I think, in the end, that makes all the difference.

Shall we say farewell to the dream of space-wings? Perhaps, it’s farewell for now.

Jupiter Spacecraft - Proposed Reusable Tug

2015-03-19T00:26:00.001-07:00

Well, someone has heard. Someone has come to reason. In the Tech Times article called Lockheed Martin In Collision Course With SpaceX In Providing Reusable Spaceflight Architecture by Sumit Passary, Lockheed Martin is proposing a reusable space tug to compete in the new cargo resupply contracts bid to the ISS coming up. I first wrote about a tug that was very similar in January of 2013 in my post Space Exploration Plans From Beoing. I am happy to see that someone is taking the idea seriously. This proposal is sophisticated and versatile enough for future infrastructure in space.

Locheed Martin calls it Jupiter spacecraft. It has solar panels, propulsion (chemical), a robotic arm, and a refueling system. Once in orbit, it will receive canisters called Exoliners one at a time. After delivering the initial Exoliner with which Jupiter is launched, Jupiter will rendezvous and capture the subsequent Exoliners for deliver. Exoliners can also be deorbited as trash. This is a very sophisticated if not complicated procedure. Where is the refueling coming from? I'm sure the Jupiter spacecraft is getting its fuel from the Exoliners. Sure, it's not straight forward like Cygnus or Dragon cargo spacecraft, but the benefit is that it is reusable which brings down the launch weight and subsequently the cost.

Now, a craft like this can operate for years. It may out live the ISS and start servicing other missions like a Bigelow Aerospace commercial space station. The technology could be expanded into satellite repair/refuel. It can also be upgraded to service flights to the Moon and back. Such a technology is quite versatile. It can not only move cargo pressurized or not, but also space capsules carrying people to higher orbits, different orbits, to asteroids, or the Moon. It can expand our presence in space. The idea of automated space tugs is not a new one, but this is the first commercially proposed one.

Jupiter/Exoliner space tug system is sophisticated, versatile, and commercial. I'm happily surprised that Locheed Martin came up with the proposal. Now, if they would only replace their venerable and rapidly obselete Atlas V with a reusable rocket that uses more principles from my Space Faring Standards post, they would be set.

Set Orbit Around Ceres

2015-03-17T00:16:00.001-07:00

Courtesy of NASA

Dawn, the amazing unmanned spacecraft at the command of Marc Rayman as Mission Director and Dr. Chris Russell as the Principal Investigator with thier crew of scientists and engineers, has entered into orbit around Ceres. This is a remarkable achievement as it is the first time in human history that an unmanned spacecraft has entered into orbit around a second space body in one mission. Dawn was able to do this thanks to its multiple ion drives. Dawn is an amazing spacecraft and will likely find new discoveries at Ceres.

No other spacecraft has been as powerful or versatile as Dawn. It has been in orbit around the asteroid Vesta and has made geologic observations with spectrographic data. Then it left Vesta and made its way to Ceres, a 30 month journey. It did encounter equipment failures, but the crew was able to work around them to keep the mission alive.

Ceres is currently labeled as a Dwarf Planet. That is the same label Pluto ended up with. There are other Dwarf Planets of lesser notoriety. Dawn will take some time to close its orbit around Ceres to get good image resolutions. Ceres is already causing mystery. It is sporting a bright spot or two that is making people get messed up hair from all the scratching. I'm sure conspiracy theorists and ufologist are loving this. Yep, drama may ensue.

So finding new discoveries at Ceres and being just amazing I think Dawn is flipping the bill. For sure it is a mission to keep track of. So here is to the venerable crew of Dawn. Live long and prosper.

Space Faring Standards

2014-12-26T00:54:00.003-08:00

IF we want to be a space faring people, we HAVE to adopt new launch vehicle standards. This has become painfully obvious to me this fall with that failure of the Antares rocket and the political fallout of the RD-180 rocket engine which makes the Atlas V as useless as if it had a catastrophic in-flight failure. You can say this sentiment has been building since SpaceX arrived on the scene and Elon Musk talked about improving the rocket. I see it now. I see how deficient our rockets have been. The rocket is basically in a state that the automobile was in the pre-Model T period. They are costly and unreliable. They are toys for the rich. Small efforts have been attempted to bring the launch price down. The only company that is bringing prices significantly down is SpaceX. Those prices still need to come down MORE. SpaceX can't do it alone either. There needs to be more companies in the effort. Well, I came up with some standards to start with that should get us in the right direction. Of course this is just my own opinion. They cover items from payload to the first stage.

1. The payload needs to be recoverable in all phases of flight. Capsules with crews have had abort systems which were high speed rockets that separated the payload (capsule and crew) form the failing rocket and allowing the parachutes to activate and bring the payload safely to the ground. Why don't we have this on unmanned payloads? Unmanned payloads today just blowup with the rest of the rocket in case of an abort. Thus making vapors out of hopes and investments. Then the insurance companies have to pony up cash. I have no doubt this drives up cost of launch to some degree. If some degree of recovery of the payload could be guaranteed I bet cost would come down.

2. The upper stage needs to be able to orbit the Earth and make a reentry and landing back to it launch site to be able to reuse. This is a plan for SpaceX. They want to make the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket reusable. They want it to land after a launch back to base, preferably. Today, all second stages are discarded after launch. This means all that hardware has to be created from scratch and tested for ever launch. That's a lot of man hours. That's a lot of material. That's a lot of money. It's just a bad way to operate. We've just been operating like that since the beginning of the space age. The one exception would be the Space Transportation System which, arguably, had an orbiter that was held the payload and was also the second stage. It was totally reusable. It's drawback was that there was a lot of maintenance to it to get ready for the next flight. Yet, overall reuseability should bring down the price of each launch. Beneficial reuseability was demonstrated in the suborbital world with SpaceShipOne in 2004.

3. The first stage needs to be able to lift the upper stage and the payload to a certain altitude guaranteed even in the event of an engine failure. One rocket today meets this standard. That rocket is the Falcon 9. It demonstrated it in Oct 2012 where one Merlin engine shut down. The rocket kept on flying and thanks to its design got it main payload to the International Space Station. If that happened to any other rocket, the mission would have been a total failure. The Falcon 9 can do this feat because it has 9 rockets which allows it to loose one or two engines before mission failure. This needs to be a standard in all future rockets. The area from the launchpad to the altitude where the second stage can ignite is a critical one. The Earth is the most dangerous object to a flying rocket. The more distance it can get away from the planet the safer it is. That's why this standard is so important. It give a high degree of guarantee to get to that second stage at a reasonable cost.

4. The fist stage needs to be recoverable in one piece and reusable. No one has ever accomplished this. Oh, now your thinking about the SRBs in the STS. Well, those were not reused in one piece. They were broken down and rebuilt. I'm not talking about breaking down and rebuilding. I'm talking about launch, land, recover, refuel, and launch again. SpaceX is trying to learn how to do this. They are currently trying to land their first stage on a large barge in the ocean. Nobody else is even trying. Well, Blue Origin was proported as wanting to accomplish this but they are not releasing where they are at or how far they got. With them it has been so long that I can only conclude they were unable to finish the project. First stage reuseablility is essential to bring down prices. It represents the biggest hardware in the rocket stack. It is only a suborbital vehicle by itself.

5. Intensive and comprehensive checks on first stage, and upper stage systems need to be done at the launch time where the computer has the ability to abort at the sign of any failed test. Most, if not all, mainstream rockets have implemented this standard to some degree or another. The more successful the rocket, the more comprehensive their computerized checks are. This stands to reason. This is why there are delays at launch time. Though they may be a little frustrating, I take the delays as a sign that the checks and tests are working and working hard. It is a good thing. Could Antares have used more comprehensive checks and tests to avoid its catastrophic failure? Possibly. Time will tell. As far as I can tell, these tests and checks have become more and more computerized over the years. Where many of them were just people staring at numbers on a screen to see if they see any anomalies. This is thanks to miniaturization of the computer circuits on silicon chips and more sophisticated software. Progress in this area should continue. We need to get smarter software and more powerful computers as time goes on. I have no doubt this trend will continue. So this standard is the one standard that is being implemented by all successful launchers. Great! 1 out of 5 ain't bad?!

Elon Musk, in an interview with Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher, mentioned that reusable rockets were needed to make space more accessible. So he's working on the reusable rocket. In my estimation, reusable stages just cover 2 of 5 standards that ought to be implemented by all launchers if we are going to be a people that live and work in space. I don't mean low Earth orbit. I mean the Inner Solar System, to include: the Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Asteroid belt, and Near Earth Objects. It's time we look at the big picture and make plans to inhabit this playground. To do it we not only need to be scientifically smart but also economically smart in all things.

These standards are mostly from other people through the decades. Many have realized we needed reusable vehicles to access space to include many science fiction writers. Computerized tests came out of necessity from real life launch companies and government entities. Von Braun and his team implemented the multi-engine first stage to where if one goes out it could still get to orbit. Maxime Faget came up with the idea of a rocket as a launch escape system for crews. I just expanded the possible idea to non-human payloads.

I'd like to see other launch companies make new rockets that take on these standards. I know a couple of start ups that are targeting the small satellite launch market that design their rockets with multiple engines on the first stage. One of them is called Firefly. We need to wait and see what happens. For now, we have to make due with the clunker rockets as we see Falcon 9 develop and incorporate 4 out of the 5 standards I've stated. Watch the other companies tremble in fear.

Revenge of the Stick

2014-12-08T23:39:00.001-08:00

Ares I 'The Stick'

Could solid fuel be the cure to SpaceX competitors? ATK seems to think so. Look what they are touting.

A Nasaspaceflight.com article titled 'ATK expand on its domestic alternative to Atlas V’s RD-180' said that ATK is bidding for a solid state first stage for the Atlas V. Has the much hailed hero rocket by ULA plummeted this far from the heavens? According to the article, plans to make the politically maligned RD-180 engine in the US fell through. Now, they are hoping for the BE-4 from Blue Origin to save the rocket. But wait! Here comes ATK with an alternative solution, solid fuel first stage for the Atlas V. What?!

Yes, solid fuel first stages. Ahhhh! Those where the days. Oh the thrust, the power, the long slender look. Doesn't just give you goosebumps? I'm referring to the 'Stick.' No, not some sleazy battery operated toy, but the rocket that was supposed to put astronauts back into space after the Shuttle was decommissioned as part of the ill fated Constellation Program.

Ares I was to be powered by a large solid rocket booster based on the Shuttle SRB. It was aptly and despisingly nicknamed 'the Stick.' The only launch, or proto-launch of such a configuration was in 2008 with the Ares 1-X.

Also according to the article, ATK is also petitioning Orbital Sciences and offering a solid rocket booster as a first stage to Antares. This would make Antares an all solid fuel rocket, perhaps the biggest in operation. It's not the best of options that could exist for them, but I suspect it would be a quick fix for the troubled rocket.

Now, this is all fine and dandy for ATK. They are making smart moves for their business. I don't blame them for offering solid rocket boosters as first stages for troubled Atlas V and Antares. However, if ULA or Orbital Sciences have any delusions of competing with SpaceX on the basis on solid fuel, they better think again. SpaceX prices are already so low the launch market members are tossing up their lobster dinners and scrambling for ideas to compete. SpaceX is still on the move. They are learning how to catch a flying Falcon 9 in the ocean, and then fly it again. This is sure to bring their prices down even further, causing more tossing of lobsters. Hmmm...maybe SpaceX will get an award for saving lobster populations on the planet.

Commercial Launch Market Made Different

2014-11-24T02:19:00.000-08:00

"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." - George S. Patton.

For years after the Saturn V rocket was retired, rockets in the United States were reduced to a set of parameters. This reflected a way of thinking in the industry. If a rocket failed on liftoff, it was to be blown up. It was an easy solution to minimize collateral damage. Of course, computers then had a tiny fraction the power of today's computers. By the way, that smartphone you just dropped? Yeah, it has more computing power than they could dream of back then. Manufacturing was largely done by hand, or by hand operated mechanical/electrical machines. Flaws were checked by only human hands and eyes for hours on end. Now, we have robotic arms equipped with X-rays, infrared, ...etc, sensors. The flaw checking is done in a fraction of the time it used to.

Saturn V was the so big that it took five of the biggest rocket engines on its first stage. It was said that it could loose one engine and still complete the mission, or at least it could get its payload to orbit. That capability went away with the Saturn V. Elon Musk brought it back with the advent of Falcon 9.

So now, we have a contrast of operations. One is a legacy operation founded on old technology and a robust track record. The other is based on new technology capabilities and the need to take launch operations in a whole new direction. I say 'new' though it's been in operation for four years now, it's still relatively new compared to the many decades of launch history we've had.

On October 7th 2008, Falcon 9 rocket lifted off carrying the Dragon capsule bound for the International Space Station. There was an engine anomaly and one engine shut down. The rocket kept on going. The primary payload got to complete its mission. The secondary payload did not. The rocket was not blown up. If any other rocket had a main engine anomaly and was shut off, the rocket would have to been blown up because there would be no way it could get its payload to any orbit. Atlas V and Delta IV would have to be blown up if such a thing happened to them.

In contrast, on October 28th 2014, Orbital Sciences rocket, Antares, lifted off and had allegedly a main engine anomaly within seconds. It was blown up by mission control as soon as they detected the anomaly. I gathered that from the briefing after the mishap and some articles. The exact reason and conditions of he anomaly is still being investigated. Antares was built on the old mindset on how you design a rocket. Orbital is good at getting parts together and making a rocket. They leverage the market.

You can see the difference here between the mishaps between Falcon 9 and Antares. Falcon 9 was purposely designed to succeed with redundancy and Antares was not. You can say the designers of Antares didn't know or didn't realize. I say that is total BS. Everyone knows! Everyone in rocket design knows the Saturn V. They know about all the mishaps in the past. They are just making the same mistake as everyone else is doing by not thinking, or they are rationalizing the problem away. This problem still exists in Atlas V and Delta IV. The designers of those rockets did not account for this problem.

I was going to go into other points, but this point is so big and poignant. It just makes me mad. It makes me mad that for years big companies have been ripping off NASA and the US taxpayers with high cost for launches on rockets that are sub quality. In contrast, this entrepreneur is offering high quality rockets at low cost launch service. How can anyone pass that up? The reality is they can't. The Atlas V days are numbered because it's too costly and its engines are politically risky. So they are trying to give it different engines. Europe is trying to make a new rocket in an attempt to compete with SpaceX. Through all of this money is scarce. Recession is coming back to Europe and things are slowing down in China. So reducing cost to launch satellites is too tempting. The old ways have to go. Elon has the floor.

Lack Of Imagination

2014-11-12T00:28:00.001-08:00

In the HBO miniseries "From The Earth To The Moon" the episode "Apollo One" depicts the investigation into the deaths of Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee and the loss of the Apollo capsule CSM-012. They perished in a fire during a plugs out test on the launch pad. In the episode, a Senator asks Astronaut Frank Borman what was the cause of the fire. His answer was, "failure of imagination." The idea was that nobody thought that the conditions of that particular test were dangerous. They were all thinking of getting to the Moon. NASA lost its innocence because of that incident.

Now we live in the wake of two commercial space disasters, One commercial astronaut is dead. One is wounded. For all those who love space and commercial space, this is a time of pause. One reusable space plane is destroyed. One non-reusable rocket and cargo spacecraft with all of its cargo and research is also destroyed. Accounting and insurance takes care of the rocket and the spacecraft. The cargo must have had many customers with their hopes going to ISS. Their projects may be insured but their hopes were dashed.

Many outside of the industry do not understand how these accidents happen. There is a lot of anger out there on the net. That's understandable. There's a lot of fear and uncertainty. That's also understandable. Understand that these things affect everybody. They affect all the CEO's of every space company to every kid who dreams about space and all the people and engineers in between, We are all rattled even if we don't admit it.

Our innocence is gone. Now, we will see how the space market reacts to it. Investigations have to be completed. They will find stuff that nobody may have suspected before. Other stuff may be confirmed. Plans will be made and implemented to avoid the same disasters. These things must happen and will happen to move forward. Moving forward is in the hands of the market.

Why are we doing this? Why are we going to space at all? Why did the crew of Apollo One and of VSS Enterprise die or get injured? Why did Orbital Sciences Cygnus' customers loose their hopes? Why did they even try?

They did it because they believe in a future that was better than this present one. Space is out there. We have been dabbling in low earth orbit for several decades trying to figure out how to proceed out in deeper space where higher radiation lives, Out there where asteroids can be studied and mined and where a moon can be settled. Out there where a second planet can possibly hold life again (Mars). Where we can study a dense atmosphere up close and figure out how to keep climate in check (Venus).

One of the biggest reasons is that life as we know it is a single point failure. That means we know that if a big enough asteroid hits the planet it will wipe out all of life, We know the size of the asteroid it would take to do it. We know there are many asteroids much larger than such a size. So in a real sense we are trying to save no just the human race of all of life from certain extinction. It's not a matter of if but a matter of when.

My condolences to the family of the Virgin Galactic astronaut who died. I hope the injured astronaut makes a full recovery. I sincerely hope Virgin Galactic and Orbital Sciences are able to carry on with their programs.

Space programs should continue. We must renew our hope in space. We owe it to those who have perished and to our children and their children. We must imagine again.

Remember the fallen: Apollo 1, Challenger OV-099 STS-51-L, Columbia OV-102 STS-107, VSS Enterprise 4th rocket powered test flight.

PS I call the pilots astronauts as a way to honor them.

Launch Reimagined

2014-10-26T05:24:00.001-07:00

In my opinion, there is a fundamental flaw in our efforts to commercialize launch operations to space. We had scientists show us how to do it under NASA and then had companies do it for a profit. OK. That sounds all nice and good. Except we end up with an enormous launch cost per payload weight measure. Now, scientists take into account to most efficient way to do things. They did a good job of this in getting to space. They developed a very efficient way, scientifically. Sometimes scientific efficiency opposes financial realities. I was shocked when my physics teacher, back in high school, said that to travel from point A to point B in a vehicle and to have that vehicle at point B at the end of the trip was not very efficient. Of course in my mind, I thought I still needed that vehicle to go other places, and that's where economics came in. So why do we throw away rockets? We do it for efficiency, not economy. Maybe we should alter the way we go to space to make it more economical. SpaceX has an idea, DARPA has and idea, and I have an idea of how to make change this efficient operation into and economical one.

SpaceX, as most people know, wants to make throw away rockets into reusable rockets. That's tall order. So tall, that they are the only ones actively pursuing this avenue. They have succeeded in reentering their first stage Falcon 9 v1.1 and flown it all the way down to the ocean. Now there is talk of them wanting to land their first stages on a floating platform. Kudos to them for getting this far. They are ahead of everyone else.

DARPA came up with an idea that uses wings. It's called the XS-1. The idea is to have an unmanned space plane act as the first stage of a rocket to launch small satellites. Supposedly, these would fly back to base. That would be good. You want your first stage to come back to base to reuse it and not haul it back to base.

Here's my idea, as crazy as it sounds. Scientists, scream if you must. In a 2 stage rocket, make the first stage suborbital. Yes, you heard me. Let it only go up and down, like an elevator. Let the second stage be responsible for the lateral velocity. Mull that over a bit. Sure, how high should that first stage go? Pretty high, I can imagine. Perhaps even beyond the atmosphere (greater than 100 km in altitude). How mush fuel should that second stage have to get from 0 to 17,000 mph before falling back to Earth or sustaining altitude while accelerating laterally? How much fuel would the first stage need for all the fuel the second stage would need and to land as well? A lot. OK. What are the benefits? How about having a first stage that can land on the same landing pad as it launched from. Conceivably, it could be prepped with another second stage, payload, and fuel and fly in short order again. Now we're talking rapid turn around for a first stage rocket. What is that worth?

So there they are. SpaceX has it's plan to alter the launch operations to make it more economical and is working it. DARPA has a competition with an idea using wings. I just throw science to the wind and take an idea that leverages most fuel possible to get the most out of the hardware. What is sure is that launch as we have seen it in the past is not how it's going to be in the future because we just can't afford it anymore.

Boeing CST-100

2014-10-15T01:13:00.001-07:00

Credit NASA

Boeing and SpaceX have won NASA's Commercial Crew Transportation Capability competition in the last month. Good job to both teams. Now, I've written a lot about SpaceX because there has been a lot to write about. Here, I'm gong to change my focus on the Boeing team. It may come to a surprise to some of my readers that, in fact, I like Boeing as a company. I've been a customer, both for pleasure and business, for many years of their jetliners and never had a complaint. Boeing is mostly a mainstay company. They have their jets for many decades. Sure, they change them to meet market demands, but for the most part, they keep them up and running for as long as possible to keep costs down both for themselves and for their customers. On the rocket side, they have the Delta family. It has been operating well for many years. There has been a couple of mishaps, but overall everything is OK. They do make the currently largest rocket in the world, the Delta IV Heavy. Then they have business with the military and NASA in miscellaneous projects - at least for this post. CST-100 is a different project for Boeing. For a company that is a safe company as Boeing, CST-100 is really out there.

The first thing about CST-100 is that it is not business as usual. It is not a 'cost plus' contract. It is a contract where risk is taken on by Boeing. That, I sense, is a big deal to the company. Sure, they do take on that sort of risk when they sell a jetliner to an airline company, or do they? Well there is no airliner to go between the end user and the company. So far, the contract will be just between NASA and Boeing. In the unforeseen event Boeing decides to put in a third party, like ULA, then the dynamic would change a little. Let's assume that it won't. Boeing will take responsibility for the craft and all the technicalities. That means that they retain ownership. For a disposable craft, ownership is a short lived thing. Risk is the important item here. Any technical malfunction leading to human injury or fatality could lead to money lost by the company. Amount will vary on a case by case basis. Of course, since this is rocket industry, the sky is the limit. (These are generalized statements. I have no clue what agreements NASA and Boeing will have including anything pertaining to risk.)

Credit EC Holm

Now, in face of the higher risk, I can see why the CST-100 was designed the way it was; it has little innovation. About the only two major innovations it does have are that it can land on land using airbags and has autonomous docking. Otherwise, it is shaped like the old Apollo capsule, most of its supporting systems are in the service module like in Apollo, thrusters are in the service module like Apollo. So the craft has a strong design basis in legacy systems. I believe this was to reduce risk.

There seems to be a belief out there on the net that this craft's electrical system is only powered by batteries alone. If that is the case, it is unprecedented and could possibly be a significant innovation. Batteries are traditionally heavy and don't last long. They are usually replenished with power form solar cells or fuel cells as is for all modern maned or cargo carrying craft.

The CST-100 team was in a tough situation. On one side, they had a company that was adverse to a lot of risk, and on the other side, they had a project that demanded to take on a lot of risk. So the design reflected lower risk. I applaud the team for their excellent work in such a tough situation. Is CST-100 really what we need to advance commercial space? Maybe. Time will tell. It is not the best. It was design for five people but can fit seven. On the other hand SapceX Dragon 2 was designed for seven people. Dragon 2 is a riskier program to build. CST-100 has a better chance at success. I think both will make it. I can't stress enough how extraordinary it was for Boeing to take on this project in the first place. There was never a manned capsule made in Boeing's name. Instead Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas who had made both the Mercury and the Gemini capsules (late 1950's to early 1960;s). These are on display at the St Louis Science Center. I took pictures of them - seen above. They are strikingly small. So small that they look like some mesh between modern art and engineering built around humans. This is a really risky project for Boeing. I applaud them in taking this leap.

Future of the Dream Chaser

2014-09-30T23:12:00.003-07:00

Credit Ken Ulbrich/NASA

NASA has made its choices. SpaceX and Boeing are in and Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) is out. In their comments, NASA said that it was a hard choice. I believe them. The Dream Chaser was based on the HL-20, a NASA project. This gives Dream Chaser good credibility. So, what possible future could there be for a spaceship that needs someone to fly it?

It's an unprecedented situation in the world where a company has an almost ready made space ship but needs someone to fly it. SNC has vowed to keep on with the project with possibly using it to compete for NASA's next round of cargo hauling to the ISS (see Denver Business Journal article). In a Denver Post article, SNC said it will offer flight to anyone or even sell a space ship to anyone. You can see they are trying their best to keep the project afloat.

Now, bear with me in some speculation. I can think of two customer/buyers that would be in their interest to buy services or a craft.

European Space Agency (ESA) has for a very long time toyed with the idea of having their own manned access to space without relying on Russia or the United States. They considered making a space plane they called Hermes a long time ago. They are considering leveraging the ATV technology and making a capsule to launch on an Ariane 5 launcher. They are currently about to launch a technology tester to test reentry systems known as IXV. Why not just forgo development and buy a Dream Chaser? They could take their astronauts to ISS and bring home experiments landing on a european runway. Sounds like an opportunity Europe would be crazy to pass up.

Virgin Galactic (VG) is about to fly people to space. Six people at a time get to fly to suborbital space in the new SpaceShipTwo space plane. They get to experience weightlessness for 5 minutes and then come home. A chance of a lifetime, nay, a chance never before offered, What would be the next step? Why orbit of course. With a Dream Chaser, Virgin Galactic could take passengers to orbital space for a day or a week and then come home. Up to six passengers can fit on board. Then they can land on a runway just like SpaceShipTwo, Heck, it can be the same runway. Dream Chaser shares some technologies with SpaceShipTwo. They have the same non-caustic hybrid engines, and they have the similar type of landing gear configuration. They are both made out of carbon fibers and resin.

So here we are. In an unprecedented situation in the history of commerce, a orbital space ship is offered to the world. Isn't it exciting? Will ESA and VG make an offer? We have to wait and see how the market responds. Is it too early for a commercial orbital space craft? Does anyone really have the money to purchase? It the answers are 'no' then SNC will probably store Dream Chaser for a future venture, hopefully.

Future Growth of Pressurized Cargo Deliveries Imagined

2014-09-11T02:13:00.000-07:00

Ares V

NASA wants to build a rocket bigger than Saturn V, the Space Launch System 130 metric ton launcher. This is to get the hardware they need to go to Moon, Astroids, and Mars. It's basically a cargo hauler. Now the Ares V, from the cancelled Constellation Program, was going to be a 188 metric ton rocket. I had done some of my own calculations to realize that it could potentially haul the equivalent of 4 shipping containers to low Earth orbit. Now, Saturn V was a 118 metric ton rocket. Take a moment and thing about these numbers. Think, also, about how much stuff people use every day. Most of the stuff we use come in shipping containers. Now consider a city in space. The content of the many shipping containers that come by train and sea ships has to be launch off the Earth. Has it dawned on you how much stuff such a city will need? Has it dawned on you how big the rockets need to be to launch such stuff? I came to realize that we are just at the very beginning of space colonization. We have cargo carriers that supply the International Space Station (ISS) now that are both from government and commercial entities. How much will the rocket launchers of the future have to grow to meet the demand?

ESA ATV

I looked at data shipped to the ISS in 2012. I then reduced the number to tons per person per year. I got 3.8 tons. This is a pretty rough number. I then did the same with the United States in 2012 and got 6.2 tons per person per year. It would seem that the astronauts and cosmonauts are living on a shoelace compared the people on the ground.

If that is the case, our current launchers are, for all practical purposes, the smallest they can be to support 6 people permanently in orbit. Falcon 9 (13.2 metric tons), Antares (6.1 metric tons), Ariane 5 (16 metric tons), Soyuz (6.5 metric tons), and H-II (10.1 metric tons) are the launchers for cargo to ISS. This is our baseline. On average, our launchers are 10.4 metric tons to low earth orbit.

If the astronauts lived like we do on earth, by how much will our launchers grow? I calculate that our launchers would have to be 19 metric tons on average for 6 people with 6 launches per year. You can see how that number already dwarfs our current launchers.

Now what if we had more than one space station or one big one, in orbit and a total of 100 people living in space full time? If they live like astronauts do now, they would need 380 tons launched from the ground annually. They will need launchers of 1,040 metric tons to launch 6 times a year.

Now if those 100 people lived like we do on Earth, then they would need 620 metric tons in a year. The launchers would need to be 1,900 metric tons for 6 launches.

Can you imagine a 2000 metric ton rocket launcher? That's about 17 times the size of a Saturn V. That is huge.

You might say what if we increase the number of launches a year? Won't that decrease the size on the average launcher? Sure it will. Let's see.... I calculate that for 100 people that need 620 metric tons a year and 20 launches, they would need average launcher size of 510 metric tons. That's still about 4 times the size of a Saturn V. Now 20 launches a year is quite a hefty schedule. I suppose if they spread out the load over 4 companies and/or countries it's not so bad. Though a 510 metric ton rocket is quite large, I believe it is within the realm of possibility to accomplish.

You can see how the number expand with the increase of people.

This is only to LEO. What about the Moon and Mars? Well the numbers get exponentially larger. So the rockets get exponentially larger. The ones we have now are puny by comparison. That is why people have suggested learning to 'live off the land' and reduce the need for new cargo from Earth. Even in deep space living off of asteroids and comets will be necessary. It's just too much for us to lift that much stuff out of the Earth's gravity well. The other thing we can learn to do is recycle, and recycle everything. Air, water, waste (yes No 1 and No 2), soil, plant matter, and parts are things we need to learn to recycle if we are to live in space, or on the Moon, or on Mars. New technologies are bound to be needed to this end. Are we up for the challenge?

Commercial 130+ Metric Tonne Rocket Competition Imagined

2014-08-10T04:52:00.002-07:00

COTS; Courtesy of NASA

The current Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that is in development is a 70 metric tonne vehicle. By comparison, SpaceX's Falcon Heavy is a 53 metric tonne rocket. The Falcon Heavy is slated to make its maiden flight towards the end of 2014. SLS is slated for a 2017 maiden flight, but that time seems to be slipping. These dates often slip, even for commercial companies like SpaceX. The SLS program is also slated to create a 130 metric tonne rocket to explore the solar system. Consider that commercial space services have already been successful and saved NASA money. Consider also that a new space services market has been created and is growing. I do not think that SLS will survive long in a commercial space services dominant environment. I think a competition for a 130 metric tonne rocket is in order for NASA.

In 2006 NASA's Commercial Cargo & Crew Program Office (C3PO) created the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) which was a competition for companies to create rockets and spacecraft to provide the International Space Station (ISS) with cargo. COTS also lead to Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) which was the operational missions to supply the cargo. While there were many entrants into COTS, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences won, and are supplying cargo today. The CRS contracts were fixed price versus the traditional Cost Plus contracts which is how SLS is being developed. Under CRS the companies retain ownership of their rockets and spacecraft, and also the risk associated with development and operation. Risk is one of the potentially most costly aspect of any project or program. By giving companies the risk, NASA has also given the companies freedom for innovation. Essentially NASA has helped create new competition in the space launch world and has saved money at the same time. SpaceX's Dragon first berthed with ISS in 2012. Orbital Sciences' Cygnus first berthed with ISS in 2013. The success of COTS is historic for the planet. For the first time, orbital commercial services became a reality.

Think of the future where commercial space companies dominate launch and operation services. What place does a costly SLS have in this environment? Already Falcon Heavy encroaches on the lifting capability of the 70 metric tonne SLS. SpaceX has plans to launch cargo and people to Mars. They will make a very large rocket that competes with 130 metric tonne SLS. What future does SLS have? Even is SLS functions perfectly, its cost will make it obsolete. With a constraint budget, NASA would be tempted to launch the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) on a commercial launch service. They might even be tempted to use a commercial capsule for missions like a new version of SpaceX's Dragon. To me, the mighty dollar is going to doom SLS the scrap heap.

In the aerospace industry, competitions is what spur innovation and development. Charles Lindbergh won the Ortieg prize in 1927 by crossing the Atlantic Ocean in a non-stop flight with his plane the Spirit Of St Louis. This resulted in our current transatlantic flight market. This also resulted in round the world air commercial air travel. Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites won the X-Prize in 2004 by flying their space craft SpaceShipOne to suborbital space twice in a two week period. This has spurred the new commercial space market. Now Virgin Galactic, Xcor, and others are competing for customers for their first suborbital passenger space flights. These competitions work. Let us go a step further and make a competition that will result in more than one commercial launch system of 130 metric tonnes or greater.

Why would we need such monster rockets you may ask. Commercially, the bigger the rocket, the less money per kilogram is needed to launch anything. Who would use these? Besides NASA, there are current companies and organizations with big plans and ideas. Bigelow Aerospace makes inflatable habitat modules for future commercial space stations/space ships/moon bases. The Mars Society members long to get to Mars. Google Lunar Xprize participants have big plans for the Moon. B612 is an organization with a mission to help protect Earth from asteroids. Our current rocket only can start these big ideas. These represent many people from many countries. They want to go to space. They need very large rockets to get to their endgame.

As wonderful an idea SLS is, it is just not cut out for the future that is just around the corner. If NASA is not relieved of the burden of a 130 metric tonne SLS, the agency will be bypassed by commercial companies in the field of exploration. NASA should take the lead in exploration, not lag behind. They should not make any more rockets. They should hold a competition to develop 130+ metric tonne rockets. Then they could use those commercial rockets and services to get their spacecraft out in the solar system. Then they can make more of the wonderful discoveries they have been doing since the 1970s. These discoveries have helped people on Earth through the decades. New discoveries can only help those on Earth and those out in the solar system.

Congress is at it again....SLS underfunded.

2014-07-31T01:13:00.001-07:00

Well, here we are again. For some reason, Congress cannot fund a rocket once it demands it. Congress should desist from demanding rockets from NASA. Somebody please sue Congress for overstepping their constitutional bounds.

On July 23rd, 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that NASA didn't have enough money to complete the Space Launch System (SLS) in time for the 2017 first launch of the rocket according to Marcia S. Smith's of SpacePolicyOnline.com article entitled "GAO Warns NASA $400 Million Short to Finish SLS by 2017" (click here to see article). What the hell?

The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 "required immediate development" of the SLS. Where does it say in the Constitution that Congress can require development of anything? Such a demand would lie in the executive branch of government, not the legislation. Well, legally I'm sure I am wrong here, but logically I am right. NASA, DARPA, and other government research agencies ought to be directed by the executive branch only and not by the legislative. The reason is obvious, research drives military power and economic health of the nation. Yes, it's national security. See, I think economic health should be a part of national security and not just national secrets. Yet, we have to live with these short sited authorization acts. Ideally, any legislation authorizing money to a very large project ought to grantee funding for the projected life of the porject. But the authorization act of 2010 only gave money to 2013. What the hell!

I knew this was coming, and when it came I still felt mad and betrayed. This is exactly why we are not further in our space program as we expected to be. This questionable way of financing large NASA projects puts into question Congress' concern for the nation's welfare. This system is broken. It needs to be redone, rethought over. I think its time for the US people to start thinking of better ways to proceed in space. The space research has expanded to a point where there is more space projects than there is available money. There are commercial alternatives now to launching spacecraft. There are new spacecraft designs with cost in mind. Tell Congress to grow a brain and get smarter about space. It's no longer about jobs in a particular state. It's about the economy as a whole benefiting from research that is waiting to be done.

Warp Theory

2014-07-24T04:44:00.002-07:00

We have a warp theory. We have a warp theory. I still can't wrap my head around it. Thanks to Einstein, and some very intelligent Star Trek fans who became scientists, we have a warp theory. Check out the following video put out by Huffpost UK. If your a Sci-Fi fan, a space enthusiast, a math student, science fan, or even if you have a heart beat watch this video. Caution, your mind will be blown.

Far out, man! What this means is that we are tinkering with the math model to find the best engineering model. It's warp theory in the making.

You too can tinker with the numbers. Download Dr White's pdf document entitled Warp Field Mechanics 101. If you don't understand it all, at least you know where you stand in learning this level of math and physics.

IXS Enterprise - artist envisioned warp ship

Things like this are reasons why we so desperately need students to go into Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) fields. Sure, the economy doesn't look great or even good now. But were talking the future. We need to make the future. The first ingredient to make a great future is always enthusiasm.

As an added bonus for the public, Dr White got together with artist Mark Rademaker to produce a pic of what a warp capable ship could look like according to the math of the warp theory. They called the ship IXS Enterprise. How cool is that?

Could Atlas V Days Be Numbered?

2014-07-04T01:30:00.002-07:00

Atlas V

The Atlas V was derived from what is called the family of Atlas rockets. This family started launching in 1957, so Atlas V has a great heritage. It has also been the main workhorse launcher for NASA and USAF satellites for about 12 years now. As such, it was a rocket that was built strictly on government money. It is now under scrutiny because its main engines, RD-180, are from Russia and Putin's administration is threatening to stop providing them. The response to this is that the US government will put up money to research a new engine. Wow! Taxpayers are still paying full price for this rocket system.

With the advent on NASA COTS (commercial orbital transportation services) and CRS (commercial resupply services), the taxpayer has been getting a break. NASA invested some money for the development of two launch vehicles and spacecraft from two different companies; SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. These companies paid the rest of the development and own the risk for each launch. In contrast, United Launch Alliance owns no risk to the Atlas V launches. NASA deems the COTS and CRS programs successful and successful at reducing launch costs. Will Atlas V survive in such a stark contrasted means of doing launch business?

Now, the Antares rocket is in a similar predicament with its main engines as Atlas V, though for different reasons. The Antares main rocket engines are from the old Russian N-1 rocket, and those are of limited supply. So Orbital Sciences is seeking a new rocket engine as well. The difference is that they are flipping the bill themselves. After all, they own the rocket.

So we can see the inconsistencies for the taxpayer. On one hand we have the old way of paying for the rockets as in Atlas V's case (the so called Cost Plus contracts). That is, taxpayers pay for the launcher development, the launch service, and the launch risk. Doing things the COTS and CRS way (services contracts), taxpayers only partially paid for initial development and for each launch service. They don't pay for further development nor for the launch risk.

If the USAF got on board with paying only for launch services, they could save a lot of money, have companies competing for launches, and have national security all at the same time. Sounds like the holy grail for the Department of Defense. In my opinion, this would require a major change to EELV or even a replacement. My reasoning is that the word 'expendable' might become a thing of the past since SpaceX is actively developing reusable multistage rockets.

I highly doubt that Atlas V could be converted to take on contracts for launch services only. The reason is that it was developed under the attitude of limited savings as opposed to the drastic savings now sought after by the US. No, Atlas V would have to be retired. Of course engineers are pretty crafty guys. If, by chance, Atlas V becomes reusable then I will rethink my position. Otherwise, you really need to design a rocket with cost effectiveness in mind like Falcon 9 and Antares.

Now, SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Orbital Sciences' Antares do not have the lifting capabilities on Atlas V. So for now, the USAF and NASA needs Atlas V. Future developments from SpaceX and Orbital Sciences could change all that. SpaceX is planning to make the Falcon Heavy which will eclipse the Atlas V by a factor of __ in launch capability. Orbital Sciences is creating the rocket for Startolaunch that will go after the Delta II payload market. Could there be any more developments in affordable launch vehicles? I would say yes as long as the market holds up and funds become available. In such a case, we may see the end of the Atlas family. Atlas V still needs to get over a couple of hurdles. One is, as mentioned before, getting new main rocket engines made in the United States. Another hurdle is the Commercial Crew Development for NASA. Atlas V is slated to carry one of two crewed vehicles to space: Dream Chaser lifting body by Sierra Nevada, and CST-100 capsule by Boeing. What would the pricing be to take these to orbit by Atlas V? Will such pricing be competitive? Will such pricing be acceptable by NASA? In other words, can Atlas V compete with Falcon 9 in the market?

SpaceX and ULA

2014-06-20T02:25:00.001-07:00

SpaceX and ULA are fighting. It started when Elon Musk went before the Senate Appropriations Committee to testify how unethical it was for the Air Force to grant ULA a large contract for EELV missions while SpaceX is in the middle of the registering with the EELV program.

In the process, Musk not only made clear the successes of SpaceX but the fact that all Falcon rockets parts are made in the US while the Atlas engines are made in Russia and are subject to Putin. Then they hyperbole started. ULA claimed sixty some odd successful launches in a row. Well, as a company, ULA is not that old. In fact ULA (6 years old) is younger than SpaceX (12 years old). But it's the two companies behind ULA that have the successful launches, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. In my mind, ULA is just a front man. ULA is really a ploy to compete with the new space companies. I question that ULA should even be in the EELV program. Instead it should be Boeing and Lockheed Martin competing still. The government should have never allowed a sole company to compete for EELV launches. That's a monopoly.

Now the fight is still ongoing. It's becoming a 'he said' and 'she said' thing. It's really pathetic and sad. What it should boil down to are the price tag. SpaceX claims it can launch satellites at at fraction of what ULA charges. In the end that is what matters. The government has to save money. It has to keep national security assets and at the same time lower the cost. That's for all our sakes.

On commercial principles, Congress has a dilemma. Clearly the Air Force has disregarded competition and fair trade principles in favor of keeping assets flying to orbit. Should Congress punish the Air Force? Or, should the EELV program be overhauled? Some might say that the word 'evolved' could be taken out if all they are going to launch are old Atlas Vs and old Delta IVs. Maybe the 'expendable' word could be taken out since SpaceX is about to make the rocket reusable. In any case the program seems broken and/or mismanaged.

In the meantime, let's sit back and watch the drama unfold. Maybe the fireworks will come before the 4th. Perhaps some popcorn and a lounge chair is in order. At any rate, in the end SpaceX seems to be holding all the cards. It's just a matter of time. Really, I guess time is what this feud is all about. After all, time is money.

2013-10-07T00:39:00.000-07:00

I am discontinuing this blog because of personal and medical reasons.

Thank you for your readership and support over the last year. It has been really fun looking at current planes and spacecraft, and speculating about possible future developments.

EC Holm
Ad Astra.

Ammendment 6/20/2014

I am reconsidering the 'discontinue' of this blog. I have decided to keep writing, but periodically and not weekly. I still love aerospace and have comments about it. Yet it is a slow going industry, and I found it hard to find material that is interesting.

Thank you kindly for your reading. I see that people still read this blog, and it's much appreciated.

EC Holm