Slashdot Mirror

Dr. Gilbert V. Levin's "Labeled Release (LR)" experiment on the Viking had positive results. He has published in peer reviewed journals analysis on why the results indicate life. He was interviewed on The Space Show last year

For those interested, there is a lengthy and interesting interview with Dr Neumann about this on The Space Show. http://thespaceshow.com/show/0...

Gwynne Shotwell already announced it won't launch until 1st quarter of next year at the earliest. I would take her word over Rand Simberg any day.

One of the big things that needs to happen with the Falcon Heavy is to complete the engine test stand in McGregor that will fire all 27 engines for a full mission burn simulation. There appears to be some construction going on that may get that to happen this summer, so I don't think this is something you can shrug off and suggest will never happen, but there certainly are some steps that must happen first before that launch goes off. The current hang-up doesn't appear to be getting engines built for other launches as the Hawthorn plant (from the same interview) is now producing about one full 9 engine rocket core each month, three of which are going to be used for the Falcon Heavy.

The lease on pad 39A at Cape Canaveral is also going to be used for the Falcon Heavy launch, but the upcoming flight is going to launch at Vandenberg instead for the initial test flight. Pad work on the Vandenberg launch site has been ongonig for a couple of years now in preparation for the Falcon Heavy. One of the problems with LC-40 is that the strongback lifter system is positioned in the wrong location to work with the Falcon Heavy in terms of having the flame trench positioned for all 27 engines properly and needs to be rotated 90 degrees, hence why the move for 39A. That is one of the things being worked on in Vandenberg.

I won't even touch the rest of the disparaging remarks you made here about SpaceX, but I will say that sometimes fans do get the best of themselves and are overly optimistic. I hope that is some actual analysis that shows some reasoning for some actual launch dates, and I'll even admit the launch could be pushed back another six months to another year even beyond next year. On the other hand, critical issues like getting the engines developed are already done and the other sub-systems are not really seen as significant critical path issues. The largest hang-up is the cross-feed system between the cores that may or may not even be fully implemented on the maiden flight.

I get a little frustrated every time I see people confidently asserting this. The assumption seems to be that because there was no market in the past this will be true forever...after all, if it were possible wouldn't somebody already be doing it? This same argument could have been used prior to the advent of the transcontinental railroad or the internet. In each case it was difficult to see more than a marginal business case before it happened and took off. The same is true with space. That being said, there are a lot of smart people whose job it is to look closely and try to see a pathway to a genuine market, who think it can happen. There are a lot of Newspace players I could cite, but since they are easy to dismiss as dreamers, lets look at Boeing instead.

Boeing is a conservative company and I think if they are going to do the CST-100 they are going to want a fairly fault tolerant business case to help mitigate the risk of fielding it. I think they are willing to give it a shot (in competition with 3 other players) only because there is a mixture of different market possibilities which provide redundancy if any single market does not work out for them.

-NASA ISS servicing
-Future non-ISS NASA missions (if Orion never flies)
-Sovereign Clients to Bigelow stations
-Tourism to Bigelow stations
-Private research to Bigelow stations

This last one is something which I think is often overlooked and which could be bigger than people think because I think many people ask "How many companies would have both the big $$$ and the research needs to rent a module and fly their own astronaut?". I think this question makes some fundamental assumptions that are probably wrong and consequently leads to the answer (not very many) which causes this type of demand to be sidelined in the discussion.

The more likely scenario is the rise of some companies that act as middleman human tended in space lab operators. These companies are the ones holding the leases with Bigelow and flying the astronauts, and then they turn around and provide a turnkey, low hassle, cost effective, user friendly way for companies and universities to get their research projects flown. Because the projects are paying for only what they need and not having to personally manage astronaut staffing & station leasing, the market is open to a much broader set of users than might otherwise be possible.

Because of the commercial nature of things, I am sure Bigelow and these middleman companies will be happy to keep CCDev craft flight rates and station facility sizing in line with the demand from the market so there won't be long waits in line for research projects to fly like you've seen with ISS and other options which have been available historically. Potientially this could cause what has historically been a fairly minor market to bloom into a much larger one.

Don't believe it'll work out? Have a look at the success of Nanoracks on ISS:
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1591

Beyond that, history does seem to give us a high degree of confidence that there will be at least a minor tourist market of a couple people per year based on flights of anousheh ansari, charles simonyi, dennis tito, eric anderson, greg olsen, guy laliberte, mark shuttleworth, etc. particularly since Bigelow would be cheaper than a Soyuz/ISS trip. Beyond that, there even seems to be a market for beyond earth tourism: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1855/1

Even if tourism is a relatively modest business, it adds to the cumulative business case provided by the research market.

Then there are the soveriegn clients: http://www.space.com/9358-bigelow-aerospace-soars-private-space-station-deals.html

It is unclear at this point how large this market is, but it looks real enough to at least

It's been little reported, and they are yet to update their schedule on the web site, but Elon Musk has said SpaceX won't be launching another Falcon I until next year. The two launches planned for the second half of this year have been scrubbed so they can make performance improvements to the vehicle. Most notably, changing the engine from Merlin 1a to Merlin 1c, and upgrading the material on the second stage tank to a higher strength aluminum, along with some improvements to the second stage engine. Robustness issues will also be addressed.

Check out the Space Show at http://archived.thespaceshow.com/ The host has a moderately annoying voice, but the guests are first rate and the content is deep enough to satisfy the interested nerd. Shows are generally more than an hour, so also good for long drives.

- Jim

With a focus primarily on Space and the people making it happen today, 'The Space Show' is one of my favorites. It is available as a live feed on Tuesdays and Sundays and as a podcast.

I tried submitting a story on SpaceX a couple of weeks ago, but it was sadly rejected. Here's the text of the submission, along with some other interesting info:

Spaceflight Now has an article on SpaceX, a low-cost space launch company started by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk (he is no longer with PayPal). The article describes SpaceX's small-size Falcon I rocket, scheduled to launch a military imaging satellite on its maiden flight in March, and their medium-size Falcon V rocket, scheduled to lift a prototype Bigelow inflatable space habitat next year. Interestingly, the Falcon V has enough capacity to lift a Gemini-style capsule with 5-6 people to orbit. Both rockets have per-pound launch costs approximately one-fifth that of comparable rockets. Long-term plans call for evolving the basic design to heavy-lift and super-heavy lift rockets, assuming SpaceX survives its legal battles with defense giants like Northrup Grumman. Musk believes that ultimately a launch cost of '$500 per pound or less is very achievable' (compared to $10,000 per pound for the Space Shuttle). Elon Musk is a member of the Mars Society, and started SpaceX after he realized that current launch costs would be a large barrier to his plans for a philanthropic mission to put an experimental greenhouse with food crops on Mars.

This radio interview with Elon Musk from 2001 is pretty neat, and has some information I haven't seen elsewhere.

Long interview on The Space Show

Also, the story adheres to Slashdot's usual standards of accuracy, as Rocketguy never did have plans for an X-Prize launch.

Quirks & Quarks on CBC Radio One Join host Bob McDonald each week to find out the latest in science, technology, medicine and the environment. We cover the quirks of the expanding universe to the quarks within a single atom...and everything in between.

also, check out the websites of conference recording companies. That $300 seminar you missed at PC Expo is now probably a $10 tape or CD.