Political Commentary Disguised as a Video Game Review
Keith's note: I got an email from an editor at Popular Mechanics asking me to consider posting a link to this article on NASA Watch. I read the article and responded that I thought that the author had used the excuse of reviewing a video game as an opportunity to just dump on NASA, Obama's space policy, etc. Indeed, the bulk of the article seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the video game it purports to review. Rather it goes on at length about how bad NASA has been. The editor tried again and again to convince me that I was wrong, but in re-reading the article I am now firmly of the opinion I originally voiced.
To be honest I have not played the game since it is not functional on Macs without running windows. So I have no idea if it is as "excruciatingly boring" as the reviewer claims it to be. That said, NASA aimed this game at an audience: students. This review makes no mention as to whether the reviewer is a student or if any students were asked to review the game and provide feedback for inclusion in this "review". So if there is a mismatch between reviewer and intended audience one would expect that the review is inherently flawed, yes?
If Popular Mechanics wants to dump on NASA, by all means, have at it. But trying to cloak political commentary under the guise of a game review is rather misleading to prospective readers.
I'll predict that we'll instead see most of Wave's functionality/technology incorporated into gmail, either as a separate panel like Buzz or integrated pop-ups like Google Talk is. It really didn't make sense to have it be a dedicated site, since it made it harder to integrate with one's other activities. I imagine that within a few months Gmail will probably introduce functionality to convert an existing email and/or chat thread into a wave.
Nobody seems to have mentioned this yet, but it looks like at least part of the reason for the delay are "unforeseen requirements" that weren't in the initial arrangement with the city that Google's had to deal with. For example:
As for the delay, Google says that they are working with with the City of LA to "address requirements that were not included in the original contract." One example of these possible requirements that came up is that the LAPD wants to conduct background checks on all Google employees that have access to Google Apps data in the cloud. Doing these checks of course add more time to the adminstrative clock.
LAPD background checks on Google employees may very well be a reasonable request, but things like this add time to the schedule and weren't part of the original contract.
It would seem that the $18 million was to draw the picture & maybe a mockup or two.
Actually, there's a fair bit more of that Boeing will have to accomplish if they want the full milestone-based payments, if you look at the Space Act agreement they signed with NASA:
Boeing/Bigelow ($18M): trade study and down-select between pusher-type and tractor-style LAS, system definition review, Abort System Hardware Demonstration Test, Base Heat Shield Fabrication Demonstration, Avionics Systems Integration Facility demonstration, CM Pressure Shell Fabrication Demonstration, Landing System Demonstration (drop test and water uprighting test), Life Support Air Revitalization demonstration, AR&D hardware/software demonstration, Crew Module Mockup demonstration. It also explicitly mentions that the capsule is designed for Atlas, Delta, and Falcon 9 launch vehicles
Although the crew capsule has been receiving most of the attention, if anything the escape system is the more difficult and costlier part to develop. Although the Russians have extensive experience with them, nobody in the US has built a capsule-based escape system since the 60s or 70s. SpaceX, Boeing, and Blue Origin are also working on developing novel "push-based" (rather than the typical tractor-based) escape systems, and I'm curious if they'll end up consolidating their efforts if Congress doesn't come through with sufficient commercial crew development funding.
Finally, I don't think anybody's yet posted the video of the CST-100 (it's somewhat rudimentary, but does the job of depicting the basic architecture):
It's still a stretch to call it "showing off" when you haven't even got a mock up.
A mock-up of an earlier version with model crew inside was shown off last year, back before Bigelow had announced Boeing as its partner (I believe they actually were partnered back then, just hadn't officially announced):
If I were SpaceX founder Elon Musk, I'd be hopping mad right now. After developing Falcon9 and Dragon on the basis of a truly competitive commercial space program, the porkbarrel senators for aerospace/defense contractor states wrote a new NASA budget to basically hand money over to Boeing and the rest of the usual cast of trough-feeders to continue but with changes and more delays the Ares/Orion program.
I think you're conflating two separate things, here, which is understandable, because it's kind of convoluted. The thing is, Boeing is involved in -both- the commercial crew capsule, and is also involved with the Ares program (they're contractors on the upper stage, but LM is the contractor for the Orion capsule). If the current push in Congress for a government-designed launch vehicle goes through, Boeing will also probably be one of the main contractors.
I personally think their cost-plus government-designed launch vehicle work is rather unfortunate, but their fixed-price commercial crew work is pretty awesome. It's important for them to be a competitor in the commercial crew arena, and Elon Musk actually agrees:
(This is from a May interview, and Boeing's changed their tone a fair bit since then. I could've sworn I saw a more recent interview with Musk where he stated that he foresees SpaceX being a cheaper provider alongside Boeing/ULA, but I can't find it)
BRENNAN: But when you look at your business, it's a really interesting venture here. But it is relatively untested. We heard from NASA's chief himself who said he might be more comfortable working with a Boeing, with a Northrop Grumman. Why would a start-up like yours really be able to compete in this space? Relatively untested.
MUSK: Yes, and I agree with that assessment. And I agree with the administrator. In fact, the opponents of Constellation cancellation have tried to strong arm the argument by claiming that Constellation will be cancelled and handed over just to SpaceX, which is actually false.
In fact, what will happen is that there will be multiple providers of space transport to orbit. And Boeing and Lockheed will in fact almost certainly be the largest recipients of that funding. They just won't make quite as much as they would have made under the old program. So hence their opposition.
I do think there's a good likelihood that SpaceX will be one of those providers. But we will be just one provider among many.
Not that this isn't a great tech demonstrator but why build a capsule that has a reusable heat shield? So you go through all of this trouble to build a beautiful reusable heat shield than slam it into an ocean or desert?
There's a few possibilities. One is to use retrorockets, which are fired immediately before hitting the ground to give it a gentler landing. Another possibility that Boeing's seriously considering for their crew capsule is mid-air recovery (like that used on a number of unmannned return missions), where the capsule is caught by a helicopter as it's parachuting downwards, and can then be gently returned to a landing pad.
> CEO/CTO Elon Musk made the intriguing remark that Dragon's heat shield is strong enough to enable a return not only from Earth orbit, but also lunar orbit or Mars velocities as well."
I wonder if, assuming all goes well with their orbital crewed flights, SpaceX would be able to perform a near-term circumlunar mission with Dragon (i.e. the sort of mission Apollo 8 performed). A few years ago a company sought to do something similar with the Russian Soyuz (whose launcher is similar in capability to the Falcon 9), where a Soyuz capsule at the ISS would dock with a separately-launched logistics/propulsion module to boost it on a circumlunar trip and then return to Earth.
The company's estimates for the circumlunar trip was on the order of a few hundred million dollars, and they apparently had at least one tentative customer (who I'm guessing they lost after the economic downturn). SpaceX could quite conceivably offer something similar, launching their Dragon to the ISS and then using another Falcon 9 to launch the Raptor hydrogen/oxygen upper stage they have under development, or perhaps the ULA's Centaur upper stage. I'm sure there's at least one wealthy space enthusiast out there who'd pay the needed amount to become the first person to go around the Moon since the Apollo missions.
Ok folks, we get it -- almost every single comment so far has been about the unit error in the article. You noticed how silly it is, and are therefore smart. Can we get past that now and talk about how ridiculously awesome it is that the first-ever solar sail has been successful, and is propelling through the inner solar system by riding photons from the Sun?
Isn't the hot air around the returning vehicle a plasma? If it is, can you repel it with proper use of electromagnetism?
Jon Goff, an aerospace engineer whose blog you should probably read in general because it's awesome and chock full of great aerospace analysis/ideas, had a rather intriguing discussion a few months ago about doing pretty much what you describe, applying magnetohydrodynamics to the problem of thermal protection during atmospheric reentry:
Actually, if you take a look at their basic development strategy (near the bottom of the page), it looks like there's a few different directions they're interested in potentially taking this: a suborbital microgravity platform, a suborbital point-to-point transportation, and orbital transportation. In the case of microgravity research you want to be able to launch often, so returning to a landing strip makes that easier and more economical. Same for point-to-point transportation: if you're delivering cargo or people on a hypersonic delivery craft, you don't want to have to spend time to recover it from the ocean. Finally, for orbital transportation there's convincing arguments both ways, although one benefit of a glider-based reentry is that it tends to have lower G values.
Yes, but the article you cited says it's now based on the HL-20. So, I would like to know how much of this actually came from either federal program. It sounds like the body shape, and that's it.
Oh shoot, you're right, I'd forgotten about the switch to the HL-20 from the X-38 body shape for the Dream Chaser. The reuse of the body shape is actually a fairly big deal, though, as it means that it can take advantage of all the aerodynamic analysis and wind tunnel testing done with the earlier shape.
Well, X-37B and X-38 seem to share a lot other than size, and the program's been in development all of that time.
SpaceDev's (now Sierra Nevada's) Dream Chaser is an upgraded version of the X-38 and planned to launch on an Atlas V, and is one of the top contenders for commercial access to LEO under the White House's plans for NASA:
No, we are about to rely on a private company, Space X, to ferry astronauts to the ISS.
Actually, even SpaceX's Elon Musk has stated that SpaceX will probably be a smaller provider, with the United Launch Alliance's Atlas rockets getting more of the commercial crew funding. For those unfamiliar with them, the ULA has had 40 consecutive successful launches in 40 months, often carrying multi-billion dollar DOD payloads critical to national security, so it's pretty indisputable that they have proven rockets. This produces a competitive market in commercial spaceflight, which is of the utmost importance to avoid all the problems inherent with monopolies.
Well, today NASA to a great extent relies on Caltech to do the pure science programs for them. Mars Science Lab, etc. Why not cut out the middleman?
JPL is a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) operated by Caltech, the only one NASA has. Other government agencies use the FFRDC approach to a greater extent, e.g. the DOE's national labs, and they tend to operate much more efficiently than government-operated centers. One of the really great recommendations of the 2004 Aldridge Commission was to evolve the existing NASA Centers into the FFRDCs, although Congress put this idea in the grave pretty quickly as it tends to make pork much more difficult.
Let me try, using your timeline as a base (feel free to modify/copy/reuse):
2003: Space Shuttle Columbia accident
2004: Bush announces Vision for Space Exploration for sustainable human presence on the Moon starting in 2020 as testbed for Mars exploration and expansion into the solar system, calls for shuttle retirement in 2010 and replacement crew capability in operation by 2014, calls for commercial cargo/crew to ISS and no new launch vehicles developed unless absolutely necessary, NASA solicits plans from industry for best ways to achieve these goals
2005: Sean O'Keefe resigns as NASA administrator, Bush appoints Michael Griffin and gives him free reign with NASA, Michael Griffin throws out industry studies and NASA releases ESAS study which has NASA design two rockets in-house instead of utilizing commercial rockets (The Ares I and V, coincidentally based on old designs Michael Griffin came up with), ostensibly because they're "safe, simple, and soon" compared to alternatives
2005-present: Ares I development slips in schedule a year for every year that it exists, costs balloon from a few billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars, 2020 lunar date becomes increasingly unachievable
2009: NASA and White House appoint Augustine Committee, consisting of best and brightest from aerospace and astronaut community, to evaluate Constellation's progress and come up with options for future of human spaceflight at NASA; they release a report presenting a number of viable options for NASA's beyond-Earth exploration plans
February 2010: White House calls for boost to NASA's budget (but not as large as Augustine Committee presented) releases plan similar to Augustine Report's option 5B, calling for investments in commercial crew and long-neglected space technology and cancellation of Ares I, delays building of heavy-lift launcher until 2015 since it won't be needed until then; a lot of congressmen in space states freak out
March-July 2010: lots of back and forth discussion and congressional hearings, Armstrong and Cernan come out against White House Plans, Buzz Aldrin comes out in favor; NASA scales back Ares/Constellation program without congressional approval, ostensibly to comply with termination liability laws
June-July 2010: NASA announces a bunch of new space technology initiatives (contingent on White House funding plans coming through), including new Centennial Challenge prize competitions (Nanosatellite launch, night rover, and sample return robot challenge) , revived NIAC to research experimental concepts, in-space technology demonstrations/missions utilizing in-space refueling, inflatable modules, electric propulsion, and inflatable reentry shields, all launched on existing commercial rockets
Today (July 15): Senate comes out with compromise bill, adding 1+ shuttle flight using existing equipment (no backup rescue shuttle if there's a problem, though); immediate development of 75mt shuttle-derived rocket quite similar to the one proposed by the DIRECT project, more commercial crew, robotic precursor mission, and space technology funding than 2010 but much less than Obama requested (over three years $1.6B vs. $3.3B for commercial crew, $244M vs. $1.33B exploration robotic precursor missions, $2.1B vs. $8B space technology development/missions); White House and Congress potentially both support the compromise, though
Well, if there's a time gap between when the shuttle retires and when its replacement arrives, you will want to keep some spare parts laying around. What if someone spots an big-ass asteroid hurtling our way? We will need something that can fly Bruce Willis up there and save the day.
I know you're joking, but FYI the US already has quite a few commercial launchers available which could send up Bruce Willis and Steve Buscemi to the incoming asteroid:
On a related note, there's a bill in the Senate which will be voted on tomorrow (Thursday) morning which threatens to reduce the proposed funding for robotic missions (like the one described in the summary), commercial crew, and space technology in favor of building a government-designed heavy-lift rocket instead. The Planetary Society has an update describing the situation and is urging people who care about space exploration to call their Senators immediately:
For the curious, Bill Nye the Science Guy (the new director of the Planetary Society) and Louis Friedman are hosting a webcast/discussion at 5pm ET today about the future direction of NASA:
The Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge: to place a small satellite into Earth orbit, twice in one week. The prize purse is $2 million.
From this presentation on the new Centennial Challenges, the Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge will require only a very small satellite, >1kg mass and >10cm cubic size. I'm guessing the folks in the best position to win this prize will be VTVL launchers like Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space System, who could put a smaller orbital secondary stage (either liquid or solid) on top of their reusable suborbital. I believe Virgin Galactic has also mentioned their interest in launching small orbital satellites this way, with a small orbital launcher mounted on their suborbital manned vehicle.
It's too bad Centennial Challenges is so underfunded, though, particularly when you consider that the Ares I-X suborbital rocket cost NASA ~$500M. Winning any one of these new $1.5M-$2M Challenges will probably do more to advance space exploration than what that accomplished, at a couple orders of magnitude less cost.
Since when does NASA have any money? I thought all their budgets had been hacked and slashed by the gov't and other bureaucracies.
The White House actually proposed a budget increase for NASA this year, making it one of the only non-defense discretionary spending agencies to have such an increase proposed for it. The White House wants to use the increase for space technology (including Centennial Challenges), precursor robotic missions, and commercial crew transportation, although a number of folks in Congress want to just use to money to build a multi-billion dollar mega-rocket favoring particular congressional districts instead. Be sure to call up your congresspeople and let them know which you prefer.
Oh bummer, I actually just submitted a story on this a few minutes ago, oops.;) The linked article above has a decent summary, but for the curious the summary below has some links to the original NASA sources:
NASA has announced three new 'Centennial Challenge' technology prizes totaling $5M, awarded via competitions to achieve technological goals important to NASA: The $2M Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge for launching small satellites (at least 1kg) into orbit twice in one week, the $1.5M Night Rover Challenge for demonstrating a rover capable of storing and using solar energy over day/night cycles, and the $1.5M Sample Return Robot Challenge for a robot capable of locating and retrieving identifiable geologic samples in varied terrain without human control or GPS. This is in addition to the ongoing Strong Tether, Power Beaming, and Green Flight Challenges. The White House is currently seeking to boost funding for Centennial Challenges and other NASA technology programs, although many in Congress have other plans.
The NASA Chief Technologist Robert Braun is currently hosting an industry day, and you can view the webcast live (they're currently on lunch break) and read the presentation PDFs here:
You can also submit questions relative to whatever the current presentation is via their official twitter account, which has been updated regularly throughout the day:
Per the official design [launchcomplexmodels.com] from the Direct team (sorry for the pdf, that's what they have), it's 77,835kg to 30nmx100nm orbit for the regular NASA GR&A's. It's only down to 70mt if you arbitrarily factor in an additional 10% margin. Which doesn't account for their own internal 15% margin that isn't documented. I like engineers who give themselves leeway.
Short answer, yes, the 1.5 stage J-130 does 77mT to orbit per NASA rules.
Actually, the DIRECT team's recommended near-term launcher, the J-130, would only do 70mt and wouldn't be able to meet the Senators' 75mt requirement. Either a second stage or other augmentations would be needed in order to meet the requirement.
While saying it was not the committee's place to design rockets, Nelson said the giant launcher -- capable of lifting at least 75 metric tons -- should be largely derived from shuttle systems and likely would use solid rocket boosters, like the Constellation program's Ares I and Ares V rockets.
The "mT" thing is technically deprecated if I understand correctly, but for whatever reason is still quite common in aerospace circles:
T and mT and mt (especially in the combination mmt for million metric tons compare to Mt for megatonne) are also occasionally used, but all of these are deprecated since they conflict with internationally agreed SI symbols.
I can see why DoD would want to keep the solid rocket companies in business, because those same companies also build and replace ICBMs. But surely DoD can figure out a way to pay to keep those companies in business without forcing NASA to go with solid rocket boosters.
I agree. I think it's quite bizarre that much of the hubbub in Congress has been about how NASA would no longer subsidizing ICBM motor production under the new plans, and that NASA using commercial liquid-based rockets instead would be disastrous for our strategic deterrence capability. I'd argue that it should be the DOD's responsibility to maintain ICBM production capability, not NASA's. A quote from an article providing some context from those unfamiliar with the situation:
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., insisted again March 17 that the cost of solid rocket motors that the U.S. military needs for its intercontinental ballistic missiles will double if President Barack Obama gets his way.
Vitter blames Obama's space strategy, as spelled out in the 2011 budget, which would cancel NASA's Constellation program....
While others praise Obama's plan to invest in commercial space companies, Vitter worries that one of the real losers in all this will be the U.S. military.
His logic: NASA is the nation's biggest customer for solid rocket motors, so if NASA drops out of the market, prices for everyone else will double. The military needs solid rocket motors for Minuteman ballistic missiles, submarine-based Trident ballistic missiles, missile interceptors and all sorts of tactical missiles.
The Navy, which has studied the matter, says prices will probably rise, but they won't double.
During a Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing, Rear Adm. Stephen Johnson, said he expects solid rocket motor prices to rise 10 to 20 percent. He assured Vitter that 100 percent price growth is not likely. Johnson heads Navy strategic systems programs.
Vitter, who has been sounding this alarm since the 2011 budget was unveiled Feb. 1, seemed unconvinced.
NASA provides 70 percent of the business that sustains the solid rocket motor industry, he said. If that vanishes, costs for other customers must increase more than 20 percent.
Not so, said Johnson. NASA's requirements are so different from the military's - think size and weight - that eliminating NASA's demand will not cause military rocket costs to double.
"It's a valid concern," Johnson told Vitter. And costs may rise, possibly 20 percent. But they won't double.
Slashdot Mirror
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/08/political-comme.html
Political Commentary Disguised as a Video Game Review
Keith's note: I got an email from an editor at Popular Mechanics asking me to consider posting a link to this article on NASA Watch. I read the article and responded that I thought that the author had used the excuse of reviewing a video game as an opportunity to just dump on NASA, Obama's space policy, etc. Indeed, the bulk of the article seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the video game it purports to review. Rather it goes on at length about how bad NASA has been. The editor tried again and again to convince me that I was wrong, but in re-reading the article I am now firmly of the opinion I originally voiced.
To be honest I have not played the game since it is not functional on Macs without running windows. So I have no idea if it is as "excruciatingly boring" as the reviewer claims it to be. That said, NASA aimed this game at an audience: students. This review makes no mention as to whether the reviewer is a student or if any students were asked to review the game and provide feedback for inclusion in this "review". So if there is a mismatch between reviewer and intended audience one would expect that the review is inherently flawed, yes?
If Popular Mechanics wants to dump on NASA, by all means, have at it. But trying to cloak political commentary under the guise of a game review is rather misleading to prospective readers.
I'll predict that we'll instead see most of Wave's functionality/technology incorporated into gmail, either as a separate panel like Buzz or integrated pop-ups like Google Talk is. It really didn't make sense to have it be a dedicated site, since it made it harder to integrate with one's other activities. I imagine that within a few months Gmail will probably introduce functionality to convert an existing email and/or chat thread into a wave.
Nobody seems to have mentioned this yet, but it looks like at least part of the reason for the delay are "unforeseen requirements" that weren't in the initial arrangement with the city that Google's had to deal with. For example:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/26/google-city-of-los-angeles-apps-delay-is-overblown/
As for the delay, Google says that they are working with with the City of LA to "address requirements that were not included in the original contract." One example of these possible requirements that came up is that the LAPD wants to conduct background checks on all Google employees that have access to Google Apps data in the cloud. Doing these checks of course add more time to the adminstrative clock.
LAPD background checks on Google employees may very well be a reasonable request, but things like this add time to the schedule and weren't part of the original contract.
It would seem that the $18 million was to draw the picture & maybe a mockup or two.
Actually, there's a fair bit more of that Boeing will have to accomplish if they want the full milestone-based payments, if you look at the Space Act agreement they signed with NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444144main_NNJ10TA03S_boeing_saa.pdf
Boeing/Bigelow ($18M): trade study and down-select between pusher-type and tractor-style LAS, system definition review, Abort System Hardware Demonstration Test, Base Heat Shield Fabrication Demonstration, Avionics Systems Integration Facility demonstration, CM Pressure Shell Fabrication Demonstration, Landing System Demonstration (drop test and water uprighting test), Life Support Air Revitalization demonstration, AR&D hardware/software demonstration, Crew Module Mockup demonstration. It also explicitly mentions that the capsule is designed for Atlas, Delta, and Falcon 9 launch vehicles
Although the crew capsule has been receiving most of the attention, if anything the escape system is the more difficult and costlier part to develop. Although the Russians have extensive experience with them, nobody in the US has built a capsule-based escape system since the 60s or 70s. SpaceX, Boeing, and Blue Origin are also working on developing novel "push-based" (rather than the typical tractor-based) escape systems, and I'm curious if they'll end up consolidating their efforts if Congress doesn't come through with sufficient commercial crew development funding.
Finally, I don't think anybody's yet posted the video of the CST-100 (it's somewhat rudimentary, but does the job of depicting the basic architecture):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn_gXEK5XmQ
It's still a stretch to call it "showing off" when you haven't even got a mock up.
A mock-up of an earlier version with model crew inside was shown off last year, back before Bigelow had announced Boeing as its partner (I believe they actually were partnered back then, just hadn't officially announced):
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090814-orion-lite.html
If I were SpaceX founder Elon Musk, I'd be hopping mad right now. After developing Falcon9 and Dragon on the basis of a truly competitive commercial space program, the porkbarrel senators for aerospace/defense contractor states wrote a new NASA budget to basically hand money over to Boeing and the rest of the usual cast of trough-feeders to continue but with changes and more delays the Ares/Orion program.
I think you're conflating two separate things, here, which is understandable, because it's kind of convoluted. The thing is, Boeing is involved in -both- the commercial crew capsule, and is also involved with the Ares program (they're contractors on the upper stage, but LM is the contractor for the Orion capsule). If the current push in Congress for a government-designed launch vehicle goes through, Boeing will also probably be one of the main contractors.
I personally think their cost-plus government-designed launch vehicle work is rather unfortunate, but their fixed-price commercial crew work is pretty awesome. It's important for them to be a competitor in the commercial crew arena, and Elon Musk actually agrees:
(This is from a May interview, and Boeing's changed their tone a fair bit since then. I could've sworn I saw a more recent interview with Musk where he stated that he foresees SpaceX being a cheaper provider alongside Boeing/ULA, but I can't find it)
http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/analyst-wire/mi_8077/is_20100415/elon-musk-ceo-space-exploration/ai_n53180745/
BRENNAN: But when you look at your business, it's a really interesting venture here. But it is relatively untested. We heard from NASA's chief himself who said he might be more comfortable working with a Boeing, with a Northrop Grumman. Why would a start-up like yours really be able to compete in this space? Relatively untested.
MUSK: Yes, and I agree with that assessment. And I agree with the administrator. In fact, the opponents of Constellation cancellation have tried to strong arm the argument by claiming that Constellation will be cancelled and handed over just to SpaceX, which is actually false.
In fact, what will happen is that there will be multiple providers of space transport to orbit. And Boeing and Lockheed will in fact almost certainly be the largest recipients of that funding. They just won't make quite as much as they would have made under the old program. So hence their opposition.
I do think there's a good likelihood that SpaceX will be one of those providers. But we will be just one provider among many.
Not that this isn't a great tech demonstrator but why build a capsule that has a reusable heat shield? So you go through all of this trouble to build a beautiful reusable heat shield than slam it into an ocean or desert?
There's a few possibilities. One is to use retrorockets, which are fired immediately before hitting the ground to give it a gentler landing. Another possibility that Boeing's seriously considering for their crew capsule is mid-air recovery (like that used on a number of unmannned return missions), where the capsule is caught by a helicopter as it's parachuting downwards, and can then be gently returned to a landing pad.
> CEO/CTO Elon Musk made the intriguing remark that Dragon's heat shield is strong enough to enable a return not only from Earth orbit, but also lunar orbit or Mars velocities as well."
I wonder if, assuming all goes well with their orbital crewed flights, SpaceX would be able to perform a near-term circumlunar mission with Dragon (i.e. the sort of mission Apollo 8 performed). A few years ago a company sought to do something similar with the Russian Soyuz (whose launcher is similar in capability to the Falcon 9), where a Soyuz capsule at the ISS would dock with a separately-launched logistics/propulsion module to boost it on a circumlunar trip and then return to Earth.
The company's estimates for the circumlunar trip was on the order of a few hundred million dollars, and they apparently had at least one tentative customer (who I'm guessing they lost after the economic downturn). SpaceX could quite conceivably offer something similar, launching their Dragon to the ISS and then using another Falcon 9 to launch the Raptor hydrogen/oxygen upper stage they have under development, or perhaps the ULA's Centaur upper stage. I'm sure there's at least one wealthy space enthusiast out there who'd pay the needed amount to become the first person to go around the Moon since the Apollo missions.
Ok folks, we get it -- almost every single comment so far has been about the unit error in the article. You noticed how silly it is, and are therefore smart. Can we get past that now and talk about how ridiculously awesome it is that the first-ever solar sail has been successful, and is propelling through the inner solar system by riding photons from the Sun?
Isn't the hot air around the returning vehicle a plasma? If it is, can you repel it with proper use of electromagnetism?
Jon Goff, an aerospace engineer whose blog you should probably read in general because it's awesome and chock full of great aerospace analysis/ideas, had a rather intriguing discussion a few months ago about doing pretty much what you describe, applying magnetohydrodynamics to the problem of thermal protection during atmospheric reentry:
http://selenianboondocks.com/category/mhd-aerobraking-and-tps/
(Jon Goff's an engineer with Masten Space Systems, the company that won the most recent Lunar Lander Challenge)
Actually, if you take a look at their basic development strategy (near the bottom of the page), it looks like there's a few different directions they're interested in potentially taking this: a suborbital microgravity platform, a suborbital point-to-point transportation, and orbital transportation. In the case of microgravity research you want to be able to launch often, so returning to a landing strip makes that easier and more economical. Same for point-to-point transportation: if you're delivering cargo or people on a hypersonic delivery craft, you don't want to have to spend time to recover it from the ocean. Finally, for orbital transportation there's convincing arguments both ways, although one benefit of a glider-based reentry is that it tends to have lower G values.
Yes, but the article you cited says it's now based on the HL-20. So, I would like to know how much of this actually came from either federal program. It sounds like the body shape, and that's it.
Oh shoot, you're right, I'd forgotten about the switch to the HL-20 from the X-38 body shape for the Dream Chaser. The reuse of the body shape is actually a fairly big deal, though, as it means that it can take advantage of all the aerodynamic analysis and wind tunnel testing done with the earlier shape.
Well, X-37B and X-38 seem to share a lot other than size, and the program's been in development all of that time.
SpaceDev's (now Sierra Nevada's) Dream Chaser is an upgraded version of the X-38 and planned to launch on an Atlas V, and is one of the top contenders for commercial access to LEO under the White House's plans for NASA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceDev_Dream_Chaser
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2010/02/22/AW_02_22_2010_p53-204735.xml&headline=Sierra%20Nevada%20Building%20On%20NASA%20Design
No, we are about to rely on a private company, Space X, to ferry astronauts to the ISS.
Actually, even SpaceX's Elon Musk has stated that SpaceX will probably be a smaller provider, with the United Launch Alliance's Atlas rockets getting more of the commercial crew funding. For those unfamiliar with them, the ULA has had 40 consecutive successful launches in 40 months, often carrying multi-billion dollar DOD payloads critical to national security, so it's pretty indisputable that they have proven rockets. This produces a competitive market in commercial spaceflight, which is of the utmost importance to avoid all the problems inherent with monopolies.
Well, today NASA to a great extent relies on Caltech to do the pure science programs for them. Mars Science Lab, etc. Why not cut out the middleman?
JPL is a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) operated by Caltech, the only one NASA has. Other government agencies use the FFRDC approach to a greater extent, e.g. the DOE's national labs, and they tend to operate much more efficiently than government-operated centers. One of the really great recommendations of the 2004 Aldridge Commission was to evolve the existing NASA Centers into the FFRDCs, although Congress put this idea in the grave pretty quickly as it tends to make pork much more difficult.
Let me try, using your timeline as a base (feel free to modify/copy/reuse):
2003: Space Shuttle Columbia accident
2004: Bush announces Vision for Space Exploration for sustainable human presence on the Moon starting in 2020 as testbed for Mars exploration and expansion into the solar system, calls for shuttle retirement in 2010 and replacement crew capability in operation by 2014, calls for commercial cargo/crew to ISS and no new launch vehicles developed unless absolutely necessary, NASA solicits plans from industry for best ways to achieve these goals
2005: Sean O'Keefe resigns as NASA administrator, Bush appoints Michael Griffin and gives him free reign with NASA, Michael Griffin throws out industry studies and NASA releases ESAS study which has NASA design two rockets in-house instead of utilizing commercial rockets (The Ares I and V, coincidentally based on old designs Michael Griffin came up with), ostensibly because they're "safe, simple, and soon" compared to alternatives
2005-present: Ares I development slips in schedule a year for every year that it exists, costs balloon from a few billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars, 2020 lunar date becomes increasingly unachievable
2009: NASA and White House appoint Augustine Committee, consisting of best and brightest from aerospace and astronaut community, to evaluate Constellation's progress and come up with options for future of
human spaceflight at NASA; they release a report presenting a number of viable options for NASA's beyond-Earth exploration plans
February 2010: White House calls for boost to NASA's budget (but not as large as Augustine Committee presented) releases plan similar to Augustine Report's option 5B, calling for investments in commercial crew and long-neglected space technology and cancellation of Ares I, delays building of heavy-lift launcher until 2015 since it won't be needed until then; a lot of congressmen in space states freak out
March-July 2010: lots of back and forth discussion and congressional hearings, Armstrong and Cernan come out against White House Plans, Buzz Aldrin comes out in favor; NASA scales back Ares/Constellation program without congressional approval, ostensibly to comply with termination liability laws
June-July 2010: NASA announces a bunch of new space technology initiatives (contingent on White House funding plans coming through), including new Centennial Challenge prize competitions (Nanosatellite launch, night rover, and sample return robot challenge) , revived NIAC to research experimental concepts, in-space technology demonstrations/missions utilizing in-space refueling, inflatable modules, electric propulsion, and inflatable reentry shields, all launched on existing commercial rockets
Today (July 15): Senate comes out with compromise bill, adding 1+ shuttle flight using existing equipment (no backup rescue shuttle if there's a problem, though); immediate development of 75mt shuttle-derived rocket quite similar to the one proposed by the DIRECT project, more commercial crew, robotic precursor mission, and space technology funding than 2010 but much less than Obama requested (over three years $1.6B vs. $3.3B for commercial crew, $244M vs. $1.33B exploration robotic precursor missions, $2.1B vs. $8B space technology development/missions); White House and Congress potentially both support the compromise, though
Well, if there's a time gap between when the shuttle retires and when its replacement arrives, you will want to keep some spare parts laying around. What if someone spots an big-ass asteroid hurtling our way? We will need something that can fly Bruce Willis up there and save the day.
I know you're joking, but FYI the US already has quite a few commercial launchers available which could send up Bruce Willis and Steve Buscemi to the incoming asteroid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_II
On a related note, there's a bill in the Senate which will be voted on tomorrow (Thursday) morning which threatens to reduce the proposed funding for robotic missions (like the one described in the summary), commercial crew, and space technology in favor of building a government-designed heavy-lift rocket instead. The Planetary Society has an update describing the situation and is urging people who care about space exploration to call their Senators immediately:
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002584/
More background info on the bill: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/07/14/a-quick-review-of-the-senate-nasa-authorization-bill/
For the curious, Bill Nye the Science Guy (the new director of the Planetary Society) and Louis Friedman are hosting a webcast/discussion at 5pm ET today about the future direction of NASA:
http://planetary.org/about/press/releases/2010/0712_Where_Should_We_Go_in_Space_Tell_Bill.html
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/innovation_incubator/centennial_challenges/index.html
The Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge: to place a small satellite into Earth orbit, twice in one week. The prize purse is $2 million.
From this presentation on the new Centennial Challenges, the Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge will require only a very small satellite, >1kg mass and >10cm cubic size. I'm guessing the folks in the best position to win this prize will be VTVL launchers like Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space System, who could put a smaller orbital secondary stage (either liquid or solid) on top of their reusable suborbital. I believe Virgin Galactic has also mentioned their interest in launching small orbital satellites this way, with a small orbital launcher mounted on their suborbital manned vehicle.
It's too bad Centennial Challenges is so underfunded, though, particularly when you consider that the Ares I-X suborbital rocket cost NASA ~$500M. Winning any one of these new $1.5M-$2M Challenges will probably do more to advance space exploration than what that accomplished, at a couple orders of magnitude less cost.
Since when does NASA have any money? I thought all their budgets had been hacked and slashed by the gov't and other bureaucracies.
The White House actually proposed a budget increase for NASA this year, making it one of the only non-defense discretionary spending agencies to have such an increase proposed for it. The White House wants to use the increase for space technology (including Centennial Challenges), precursor robotic missions, and commercial crew transportation, although a number of folks in Congress want to just use to money to build a multi-billion dollar mega-rocket favoring particular congressional districts instead. Be sure to call up your congresspeople and let them know which you prefer.
Oh bummer, I actually just submitted a story on this a few minutes ago, oops. ;) The linked article above has a decent summary, but for the curious the summary below has some links to the original NASA sources:
NASA has announced three new 'Centennial Challenge' technology prizes totaling $5M, awarded via competitions to achieve technological goals important to NASA: The $2M Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge for launching small satellites (at least 1kg) into orbit twice in one week, the $1.5M Night Rover Challenge for demonstrating a rover capable of storing and using solar energy over day/night cycles, and the $1.5M Sample Return Robot Challenge for a robot capable of locating and retrieving identifiable geologic samples in varied terrain without human control or GPS. This is in addition to the ongoing Strong Tether, Power Beaming, and Green Flight Challenges. The White House is currently seeking to boost funding for Centennial Challenges and other NASA technology programs, although many in Congress have other plans.
The NASA Chief Technologist Robert Braun is currently hosting an industry day, and you can view the webcast live (they're currently on lunch break) and read the presentation PDFs here:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/industry_day_info.html
You can also submit questions relative to whatever the current presentation is via their official twitter account, which has been updated regularly throughout the day:
http://twitter.com/NASA_Technology
Per the official design [launchcomplexmodels.com] from the Direct team (sorry for the pdf, that's what they have), it's 77,835kg to 30nmx100nm orbit for the regular NASA GR&A's. It's only down to 70mt if you arbitrarily factor in an additional 10% margin. Which doesn't account for their own internal 15% margin that isn't documented. I like engineers who give themselves leeway.
Short answer, yes, the 1.5 stage J-130 does 77mT to orbit per NASA rules.
Thanks for the info.
Actually, the DIRECT team's recommended near-term launcher, the J-130, would only do 70mt and wouldn't be able to meet the Senators' 75mt requirement. Either a second stage or other augmentations would be needed in order to meet the requirement.
Yeah, but "75mT"?
Hmm, I just realized that article linked in the summary didn't include a reference on the 75mt/mT/whatever requirement. Here's one that does:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100710/NEWS02/7100318/1007/Funding+may+alter+NASA+s+spaceflight+direction
While saying it was not the committee's place to design rockets, Nelson said the giant launcher -- capable of lifting at least 75 metric tons -- should be largely derived from shuttle systems and likely would use solid rocket boosters, like the Constellation program's
Ares I and Ares V rockets.
The "mT" thing is technically deprecated if I understand correctly, but for whatever reason is still quite common in aerospace circles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne
T and mT and mt (especially in the combination mmt for million metric tons compare to Mt for megatonne) are also occasionally used, but all of these are deprecated since they conflict with internationally agreed SI symbols.
I can see why DoD would want to keep the solid rocket companies in business, because those same companies also build and replace ICBMs. But surely DoD can figure out a way to pay to keep those companies in business without forcing NASA to go with solid rocket boosters.
I agree. I think it's quite bizarre that much of the hubbub in Congress has been about how NASA would no longer subsidizing ICBM motor production under the new plans, and that NASA using commercial liquid-based rockets instead would be disastrous for our strategic deterrence capability. I'd argue that it should be the DOD's responsibility to maintain ICBM production capability, not NASA's. A quote from an article providing some context from those unfamiliar with the situation:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4543976&c=AME&s=SEA
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., insisted again March 17 that the cost of solid rocket motors that the U.S. military needs for its intercontinental ballistic missiles will double if President Barack Obama gets his way.
Vitter blames Obama's space strategy, as spelled out in the 2011 budget, which would cancel NASA's Constellation program. ...
While others praise Obama's plan to invest in commercial space companies, Vitter worries that one of the real losers in all this will be the U.S. military.
His logic: NASA is the nation's biggest customer for solid rocket motors, so if NASA drops out of the market, prices for everyone else will double. The military needs solid rocket motors for Minuteman ballistic missiles, submarine-based Trident ballistic missiles, missile interceptors and all sorts of tactical missiles.
The Navy, which has studied the matter, says prices will probably rise, but they won't double.
During a Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing, Rear Adm. Stephen Johnson, said he expects solid rocket motor prices to rise 10 to 20 percent. He assured Vitter that 100 percent price growth is not likely. Johnson heads Navy strategic systems programs.
Vitter, who has been sounding this alarm since the 2011 budget was unveiled Feb. 1, seemed unconvinced.
NASA provides 70 percent of the business that sustains the solid rocket motor industry, he said. If that vanishes, costs for other customers must increase more than 20 percent.
Not so, said Johnson. NASA's requirements are so different from the military's - think size and weight - that eliminating NASA's demand will not cause military rocket costs to double.
"It's a valid concern," Johnson told Vitter. And costs may rise, possibly 20 percent. But they won't double.