That Next Big Thing

New Budget, New Direction, New Day

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:49:00 +0000

Here are the notes I took from Charlie Bolden's conference call announcing the new NASA budget:

Full budget:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_%20Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

Summary:

*Constellation gets the axe, including Ares 1, Ares 5, and Orion.
*Shuttle retired by the end of the year or first quarter of 2011.
*Commercial launch will be used to resupply and re-crew ISS. Focus on creating a commercial crew transport industry to and through LEO. New awards to be announced tomorrow. Existing and new launch vehicles will be used.
*ISS research capability will be fully utilized. ISS extended to 2020 and utilized as a commercial market for research and development.
*Move from focusing on destinations to a focus on building new capabilities via flagship missions and technologies.

Over the next 5 years
*7.8 billion towards large scale, new approaches to space flight including on-orbit refueling.
*3.1 billion for new heavy lift and propulsion research to go beyond LEO. This will be under the exploration directorate and will focus on next generation technologies, not apollo era launch technologies. This begins in 2011 as opposed to Constellation's investment in heavy lift beginning in 2016.
*4.9 billion for broad technology investment programs for game changing technologies using prizes and innovative funding mechanisms.
*3 billion for robotic precursor missions.
*2 billion dollars for new earth science missions.
*70 million for new aeronautics programs.

You can listen to a recording of the above conference (you really should). Call:
866-431-2903 or 203-369-0952

-end-

You can find out more about some of the new "game changing technologies" funding from the notes on the Commercial Spaceflight Federation's conference call over at this post on hobbyspace.

To be frank:

I welcome the new budget. NASA was badly in need of reform, constellation was behind, we wasted 9 billion on Ares 1 when we already have a Delta 4 capable of putting up slightly less, and an Atlas 5 capable of putting up slightly more than the same vehicle. Now we're finding out that we may be able to man rate these vehicles for as little as 6.7 million (not billion, million) as opposed to the estimated 15 BILLION required to get Constellation back on track. We will finally have commercial crew transfer to LEO, and I view that as being more valuable than more massively over budget NASA pork that was eventually going to get the axe anyways and leave us right back where we started. We had the opportunity to go for maximum return on investment, and the administration went for it.

As for losing the HLV, so what? It was unlikely to ever be commercially available anyways. In fact, it was unlikely to ever be built at all. Not only did NASA specify different sized solid rocket boosters, but they specified a different diameter tank that throws shuttle hardware heritage right out the window. All of that tooling we had for the space shuttle external tank that was supposed to keep costs down became worthless in a single blow. It was a program begging to be canceled and was unlikely to survive this president or the next. That part makes me sad, but I had already given it up for dead. I think of it as a concept drawing designed to carry maximum cargo directly into the garbage.

Now we have these commercial companies with vehicles more likely to put "people" into space than NASA rockets. By people I mean you, me, businessmen, academics, even my daughter. My daughter now has the chance to get "out there" that she would never receive under yet another NASA program designed to put a select cadre of astronauts into space. She actually has something to dream for that is far more inspiring than anything NASA has offered me in all of my time on this earth. There is finally the opportunity for growing commercial activity in LEO and (with the infrastructure proposed in this budget) beyond.

I've heard plenty of arguments over the past couple of days regarding NASA. The opposing arguments can be summed up in the following categories:

*Jobs.
My retort: The problem with NASA is that it is TREATED AS A JOBS PROGRAM. You don't get a good program by creating make-work. You get it by producing maximum capability for minimum cost. It's called efficiency. If you're putting jobs above progress as a space fairing civilization, then you're hanging out in the wrong crowd. The two are not mutually inclusive. If you want to create jobs then I suggest finding another economic sector where you can pay people to stand around in a circle and yank their poles. There are plenty of others that are far less likely to be cut than our floundering space agency.

*The end of human spaceflight at NASA.
I only need to point out that this is an outright lie.

*The end of US leadership in space.
Being a geopolitical playboy is not making progress towards becoming a space fairing civilization or towards the development of the moon. This is called Flags and Footprints. You plant your flags, you leave your footprints, then your program gets canceled because it was never designed to have any real world applications outside of an international pissing contest. The Russians required that their vehicles have a useful purpose beyond prestige that would justify the cost. Those vehicles are still flying FORTY FOUR years later. If your definition of "leadership" amounts to pizazz and flare, then we'll be losing it. If your definition of leadership means sustainability, justifiable budgets, maximum capability for minimum cost, and actual usefulness then we lost our leadership forty four years ago and are finally moving towards taking it back.

*General outrage and crushed dreams.
My retort: If you can't articulate a proper argument, you end up looking foolish. I saw one guy talk about moving to China, and the next day he was contemplating suicide. For god's sake people, get a grip. If you hedge your dreams on anything funded by congress you are asking to get the rug pulled out from under you.

Take a moment to look at the Purpose section on MoonSociety.org

"The objectives of this Society shall be, but are not limited to:

* The creation of a space-faring civilization which will establish communities on the Moon; promotion of large-scale industrialization and private enterprise on the Moon;"

Very first bullet. It was not, nor was it ever, the job of NASA to advance us towards a space fairing civilization, establish communities on the moon, industrialization on the moon, or private enterprise on the moon. NASA is a geopolitical tool. Remember that. Only now is that tool being used in a way that might actually open up space development and make such a civilization possible. We're looking at a return to the days of NACA, and this has been long, long overdue.

[update]
Apparently the blogosphere is alive with this topic. I should check it more often.
Rand Simberg has some good commentary with a variety of links to other analysis.
[update]
Al Globus comments on Obama's space policy with far more tact than I can muster.

Looking for Moon images

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 20:24:00 +0000

Ladies and Gentlemen,

If you happen to have a telescope and are fond of photographing the moon, I need your help! MoonSociety.org is undergoing a redesign and I need a truly stunning picture of the moon (full or near full) to be the center piece of the site.

We currently have a Public Domain NASA image being used on our site/as part of our logo, but it is nowhere near the resolution and contrast possible with modern amateur astronomy equipment. Please contact me if you have suitable images and would be willing to let us use one of them.

Pass it on

-------------

A bit about us:

The Moon Society is a non-profit 501(c)3 educational and scientific organization formed to further the creation of communities on the Moon involving large-scale industrialization and private enterprise. We consist of about 150 engineers, scientists and advocates from a variety of professions. Our chapters work to raise awareness about space issues and developments as well as sponsor activities for young people (such as rocket derbies and space-agriculture experiments) which increase interest in space, science, and engineering.

We're operating on volunteer labor and shoestring budgets. I can't pay you, and you would need to grant rights to The Moon Society to use the photo freely on the website and possibly as part of our logo if its accepted. All I have to offer in return is our eternal thanks and a special thanks/attribution within the new website. Use as a general society logo is not guaranteed but may take place in the future.
-------------

Update: 02/08/09

A suitable image has been located and a final version of the website concept has been decided on. Use will go ahead pending prototyping and final approval. Thanks go to many including Tony Rogers, Bryce Johnson, Michail Laine, Alex Bonnici, and Leonard Mercer. If I didn't list you (and I know there are several of you) please accept my thanks. I've only been awake for about ten minutes after a hard night of coding, and my caffeine injectors are still warming up. :D

Wow... Just Wow...

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:03:00 +0000

Obama freezes salaries of some White House aides

"President Barack Obama's first public act in office Wednesday was to institute new limits on lobbyists in his White House and to freeze the salaries of high-paid aides, in a nod to the country's economic turmoil."

"In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation."

"He said the orders he was issuing Wednesday will not "make government as honest and transparent as it needs to be" nor go as far as he would like.

"But these historic measures do mark the beginning of a new era of openness in our country," Obama said. "And I will, I hope, do something to make government trustworthy in the eyes of the American people, in the days and weeks, months and years to come.""

Wow...

Tweaks and changes

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 04:39:00 +0000

I've started playing around with the Blog Template, so you may notice some changes. Wanted to make it a bit more user friendly. I also shut off the autoplay on that damned google video. The thing was driving me bonkers.

Oh, did you listen to the inauguration speech? "We will restore science to it's rightful place..." YES!!!! Bout damned time too.

Here's a vid:

That's one change that I really can believe in. Haha

Nanotubes to the Future?

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:58:00 +0000

How many companies have attempted to break through into the nanotube market, I wonder.

One problem is ramping up the nanotube production while bringing down the impurities and reducing defects. Another problem that needs to be addressed is creating defectless nanotubes of sufficient length that they can be woven together. Thus far, none of the centennial challenges teams have been able to overcome those two core issues. If they can pull that off, the near term applications are far more exciting to me personally than the idea of a space elevator.

The military and commercial applications of super strong fibers are extensive (to put it mildly). This new weaving method Cambridge has come up with looks promising. I could obviously poke a number of holes into this reporter's assumptions about space, but those aren't my focus. Toss everything he says about space in the garbage, because most of it is inaccurate, and skip to the second page about the nanotubes. That's where the good stuff happens.

Could this be the breakthrough that we've been waiting for?

Update: Brian Wang over at the Lifeboat Foundation is also covering this in his blog.

NASA is merging with the Air Force

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:19:00 +0000

I keep getting asked about the NASA merger with the Air Force. It just doesn't stop. I'm tired of explaining it, and it's pissing me off having to repeat myself when I keep getting asked the same questions by the same people saying:

"Oh, but the news says..."

"But it's practically a done deal once Obama gets in office..."

Etc Etc. Don't believe everything you see on TV, ESPECIALLY if it's the "news." With this in mind, I now have a blanket response. Hide your children in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1..

Lets clarify a couple of things (again, this time in technicolor):

Rockets:
Air Force Space Command HAS NO ROCKETS in that class. EELVs are NOT military rockets. Not, Not, Not, Not, Never have been, Never will be, military rockets. Development was subsidized with air force money, but they are ****COMMERCIAL**** vehicles. Anybody can buy them. I could walk in to ULA and buy one myself if I had the money, and shoot my sperm into space, fling my feces at Mars, or do whatever the hell I wanted with it. Nasa already buys these vehicles. There IS NO AIR FORCE FLEET OF ROCKETS. They buy them, use them, they’re gone. It’s like KY jelly. You don’t keep a fleet of KY laying around. You only buy it when you need it and you sure as hell don’t make it yourself (I hope).

Merger:
There is no merger. Never has been, never will be. Just because you buy the same car as your friend does not mean you’re getting married in Massachusetts and making out under the five color rainbow. Just because you buy your beer at the same store as the Air Force guy down the road doesn’t mean your joining the Air Force and beating each other with soap-in-a-sock. This idea is NONSENSE that was thought up by some complete retard at Bloomberg news who had no idea what he was talking about. Being an extremely juicy pile of complete bullshit, it was quickly picked up by Fox News and a variety of overseas outlets known for publishing absolutely juicy complete bullshit, like The Register and Sky News.

Holy Shit...

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:41:00 +0000

That's exactly what I said. Oh, and there was an "Oh my fucking God!" in there somewhere as well. Is it blasphemy for a Pastafarian to take *another* deity's name in vain?

http://vimeo.com/1778399

The other side..

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:00 +0000

It isn't often that I post anything related to contentious issues. This is due to the rampant irrationality of "true believers" on all sides. However, in some rare cases I feel it necessary to point out that there are multiple sides to any story. I feel it personally necessary to hear all sides of a situation before drawing my conclusions. To do otherwise is folly. This case in particular involves a heated issue both political AND religious. Below is one of those sides that we, as westerners, rarely hear about.

Full Screen

"True believers" can start posting their emotionally charged flames in the comment section.

Update - 1/20/09
Figured out how to turn off auto play because it was just plain annoying. Also, a full screen link was added right before I started tweaking the dimensions of the blog template.

Extending Human Intelligence?

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 02:56:00 +0000

I wouldn't consider mechanical/electronic additions, be they internal or external, as figuring in to intelligence. You can have all of the toys in the world and they will be useless if you don't understand how to properly use them and why.

This is the same way that I view information, whether it be facts, ideas, or formulas. You can have all of them stored in your head (no, not really, but just for the sake of argument) and they are useless if you do not know how to utilize them and why.

You could also have none of them stored upstairs, but instead have them available in some other searchable medium. If you know what to actually do with them, where they come from, and why each aspect is important and how it can be tweaked to suit whatever purpose you have at hand, that is what I consider to be understanding and for me that equals intelligence.

Some people can run intellectual circles around others. In my opinion, this is not because they have some massive library of information in their skulls or an engineering calculator. It is because (while they do not have the specifics stored for ready retrieval) they understand the ideas, where they come from, what the effects are, how they can be used, and the recognizable patterns that they create. They can also recognize patterns and formulate entirely new ideas and methods based on the information that they have. That is also understanding/intelligence.

Wiktionary.org doesn't really factor into a person's ability to convey ideas in an intelligent manner (just my opinion). Understanding how to use language does.

As for the diminished math skills of our current students, I would not attribute this to the rise of calculators. Students should be taught to use most mathematical concepts using pen and paper, and it should be hammered into their heads repeatedly with more and more complex problems. The failure is not in the calculators, but in the teachers who do not properly educate those in their charge. I've met several students who took Pre-Calculus at a local private university and failed Calculus 1 miserably. They were taught how to punch numbers on a calculator while the fundamentally important concepts of Trigonometry and College Algebra were simply glossed over. They could use the calculator to get the right answer some of the time, but for most problems they had no clue how to set them up in the first place. They had no understanding. As Dr. Verhyden drilled into our skulls: Up till now, you've been taught to take an equation and do "stuff" to get X. We don't do "stuff" in here. We find solutions. Do not let me catch you doing "stuff." That is WRONG and you will FAIL. Do not let me catch you punching numbers into a calculator unless I tell you you can. I want EXACT solutions. If you can't find your solutions without using this (TI-83 calculator) you will fail. Your calculator is dumb, and it wont help you if you you don't know what the heck you're doing.

I spent nearly as much time in her office asking questions as I did in her class. That woman is the most hard assed, no bullshit, excruciatingly difficult to keep up with math teacher I have ever had and I Thank Her For It. Show me a piece of technology that can do THAT for me, and it will be an extension of intelligence. Plug me in, baby!

Questions about 2012 and "The End of the World"

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 02:01:00 +0000

Can somebody tell me where exactly is the prediction in the Mayan Calendar that the world will end in 2012? Does it even exist? Is this just something that someone made up?

Bear with me here. What if we don't know what's going to happen in 2012? What if it's like the edge of an ancient map, where we sail into the unknown and fall off the end of the earth, get eaten by sea dragons, or slide into an enormous pile of cosmic turtle poop?

But what if we use a different map... say one that is based on modern knowledge. On this map, when you reach the edge, maybe you pop up on the other side! What an ingenious idea!

What we need is a calender that works just like that....

(I take no credit for this calender, but I do give credit to this guy for pointing out the obvious.)

Thoughts on Lunar Power

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:44:00 +0000

While there is a great deal of aversion to fission, it is being investigated as a viable method of power on the moon.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_08-227_Moon_Power.html

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/11/nasa-looks-at-fission-reactors-for-power-on-the-moon/

The best part is that for nuclear waste disposal you just leave it where it is and dig a different hole for a new reactor. I fully support the commercialization of this technology for use outside of NASA. There is also the option of mining lunar KREEP deposits for fuel.

http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=KREEP

As for non-nuclear power storage, if we're going to import all of that water for fuel cell storage we might as well just import a vanadium redox flow battery for higher efficiency. This method does not need cryogenic storage of H2 and O2, which will tend to boil off. That's a terrible waste of precious hydrogen.

http://www.vrbpower.com/technology/index.html

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/01/vandium_reflux_.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

Multiple Kill Vehicle

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:15:00 +0000

Ian O'Neill introduced me to this Terminator like gadget in this article over at Astroengine.com. A multiple warhead intercept and kill vehicle. This is not the standard kinetic vehicle, but an advanced robot capable of tracking multiple targets simultaneously and intercepting them with warheads. See the video below. I recommend playing it along with this soundtrack or maybe this one.

@Ian:
Scary as it may be, tactical developments have a way migrating into every other sector of society and revolutionizing the way that we work and play.

As long as we don't strap it to a homicidal AI embedded within the internet or the extracted brain of a serial killer, I'll be able to sleep just fine. I guarantee that this same technology will be integrated into NASA missions in the coming years.

New Record! 333sec ISP via bipropellant

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:57:00 +0000

Contributed by Greg Francke

hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, 150lb thrust in a standard 100lb form factor.

iridium-lined rhenium combustion chamber run at 4, 000°C, wide throttle range, no practical limit to restarts.

storable, but toxic propellants.

For anybody who doesn’t know, but cares: ISP is a figure of efficiency, it states how long a given mass of fuel generates the same ’amount’ of thrust, usually given in seconds.

So: SSME (space shuttle cryogenic liquid fuelled)= 465 sec- (a pound of LOX and LH2 will generate a pound of thrust for 465 seconds in a shuttle main engine)

SSRB: (solid booster for shuttle) 269 sec

Spaceship One: (hybrid)= 250 sec

This thing: 333 seconds.

Final analysis:

It’s a relatively easy to use storable propellant fully throttleable unlimited restart high ISP engine with good scaling potential for future small-scale stuff like spaceplanes and such.

Aerojet Bipropellant Engine Sets New Performance Record

Aerojet News Release

Obama transition team seeks comment on space solar power

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:35:00 +0000

change.gov — Space Solar Power (SSP) - A Solution for Energy Independence & Climate Change. Paper prepared and submitted by the Space Frontier Foundation and other space advocates, calls for the new Administration to make development of Space Solar Power a national priority. The SSP white paper was among the first ten released by the Obama transition team.

http://digg.com/space/Obama_transition_team_seeks_comment_on_space_solar_power

If you support it, now is the time to go there and show that you do. The current debate on the page is rampant with ridiculously uninformed assumptions and misconceptions. Example: fear of a monopoly on sunlight, fear of burning a hole in the atmosphere, fear of using an SPS as a giant death beam, etc etc. They are just plain hilarious but please try to keep a straight face when responding.

Cheap & Reliable Access to Space (CATS)

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:51:00 +0000

Please Sign this Petition by clicking here.

About this Petition:

We need CATS if we want to:
• Enhance the national security of the United States, deter war in space and foster peace on Earth by reducing the incentive to
attack U.S. space assets in the first place - since allowing for the rapid replenishment of our satellites, CATS would eliminate most of the benefit of a surprise attack in space.
• Accelerate the growth of the existing $250 billion/year space economy, potentially to over $1 trillion/year, creating millions of new high-wage jobs for Americans;
• Inspire millions of American children with the tantalizing possibility that they might one day live and work in space — thus motivating them to study science, technology, engineering and math;
• Tap the unlimited clean and renewable, solar energy available in space to enable a modern standard of living for all 6 billion people on Earth and for the rapidly growing global economy that
is lifting billions out of poverty;
• Increase the amount of environmental research and monitoring of planet Earth with a larger number of cheaper and more powerful remote sensing satellites;
• Enable the birth of new space industries like satellite servicing and refueling; commercial human spaceflight of thousands of people per year; point-to-point global transportation in a few
hours; on-orbit tourism, research and manufacturing; and the mining of asteroid and Lunar resources;
• Open the “space frontier” by making human activity, presence and settlement in space economically self-supporting and starting a virtuous cycle of economic development;
• Enhance our ability to study the Universe and to search for life beyond Earth with many more scientific missions and a new generation of larger space-based telescopes; and
• Achieve “all of the above” within our constrained
Federal budget environment.

The Desired Outcome of this Petition:

CATS cuts across all space agendas, all space agencies, and all space programs. It is a clear national imperative.

We urge the new President of the United States and the U.S. Congress to:
• Establish CATS as a national strategic priority;
• Learn from, and avoid, the failures from previous attempts to achieve CATS, all of which tasked a government agency to pick “The Solution”;
• Focus instead on promoting the growth of a competitive private CATS industry by encouraging private
investment, development and innovation while also drawing on proven examples of government support for technological and industrial development — e.g., NACA, DARPA, NSF, focused X-vehicles, Space Act agreements, the Kelly Airmail Act, tax incentives, and prizes;
• Undertake a review of current U.S. policies that may hinder the achievement of CATS; and
• Re-establish the National Space Council to help implement CATS as a top national priority.

This petition is sponsored by the Space Frontier Foundation.

Beef with Space Solar

noreply@blogger.com (James Rogers) — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:56:00 +0000

You've heard of it: Space Solar Power. It's the Next Big Thing; the solution to all of our energy needs. It's going to jump start the economy and get us off of foreign oil. At least that's the story in the space advocate community.

The plan is to launch all of the hardware needed to build giant solar arrays in space, and then beam all of that energy back down to Earth. It's a beautiful idea, and in theory it works. The basic technologies exist and the numbers are sound.

The key word here is “theory,” which in normal language doesn't always translate to reality. In theory any six people can hop on a rocket and fly to Mars in six months, but then the questions set in. We have the people, but does a rocket that big exist? If it exists, can we get one? If we do decide to get one, who's going to pay for it?

It's a great idea until you think about hardware and who's going to foot the bill. At this point the people who advocate these kinds ideas invariably decide that the government should fork out the cash. After all, government money grows on trees and there's no possible way that the people who run our beloved country could possibly screw anything up. Right?

And advocates wonder why space has a “giggle factor.”

It's at this same place that Space Solar comes crashing into reality. Remember the last big, government rocket that was supposed to reduce launch costs and finally make space-based industry economical? We all know how that worked out, and many of us are still groaning about it. Does anyone else remember what was supposed to be our next big break-out into space manufacturing? It was called Space Station Freedom, and the plan was to revolutionize medicine with micro-gravity research and build ships that would colonize the solar system. Then the politicians got involved and we all know how that turned out.

Twenty-three years later and we have a research lab that produces almost no research to the tune of two-billion dollars per year, and it isn't even finished yet. Only now are plans in the works to contract out space-station cargo services to private ventures that can accomplish them far more cheaply than NASA ever could. Only now is on-board manufacturing even being considered.

The simple fact is that we have neither the launch vehicles or the orbital infrastructure in place to build a solar power satellite at this point in time. Trying to get one built is like trying to masturbate when you don't have any hands. It's nice to think about, but at the end of the day you've got nothing to show for it. Right now we can't even get the government to build or pay for a power plant right here on earth, so even if we can invoke government funding, we're not likely to get any orbital hardware for many decades and it will be nowhere as capable as originally planned. This means we wont be building any power sats.

Instead we should be focusing our efforts on enabling technologies and launch vehicles that either currently exist or are on the drawing board so that we can build a Commercial Space Industry. An industry that can be expanded upon and will actually be capable of building solar power satellites; one that will expand our economy beyond Low Earth Orbit and be a new and sustainable step towards the Moon, Mars, and Beyond.

This article is a commentary by James Rogers and does not represent the views or opinions of any of the organizations or individuals with which he is involved. He is an advocate of space solar, but will be severely beaten anyways when his friends read this post.