VASIMR falls under the high-power electric propulsion system project in the Enabling Technology Development and Demonstration (ETDD) program announced last week. I believe the plan is to test and mature VASIMR under that program until its ready to be fully tested on a Flagship Technology Demonstration mission:
This success is due to Nasa's JPL or Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The successes they have had over the past decade are astounding. I see this as more proof that remote missions are more practical in the short term as opposed to manned missions. Just give JPL some more money and let them do their thing. These are the guys that will discover what we need to know, so as to make manned spaceflight practical.
It's also worth noting that JPL is NASA's only FederallyFunded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), a type of organization which is quite a bit more flexible and competitive than the typical NASA Center. The Aldridge Commission from 2004 suggested that NASA restructure and turn all of its centers into FFRDCs, but this proposal was quickly killed in Congress as it's much more difficult for pork to be guaranteed for FFRDCs:
(b) NASA Centers. A second cluster of organizational tasks is to ensure that NASA's ten Centers and their related field facilities are deployed appropriately in supporting the exploration vision. Properly engaged, these facilities and their workforce provide indispensable resources and talent. Centers are also powerful economic engines at the state and local level that should help meet mission objectives and help grow a robust space industry. As currently organized, NASA's Centers are not optimally configured to carry out the nation's space exploration vision. They have Apollo-era infrastructure that needs substantial modernization. They lack institutional incentives that continuously align performance with the vision's need. Personnel practices have too often ossified, placing insufficient priority on innovation, professional growth, and managerial mobility. In some instances, they support duplicative capabilities that unnecessarily raise NASA's cost to the taxpayers. The Centers, as with the rest of NASA, must also contend with the reality that a large portion of the workforce is now or will soon be eligible for retirement. In short, the Centers must be renewed, empowered, focused, and more effectively leveraged in support of future space exploration and scientific discovery. The Commission proposes a new model for the NASA Centers. We feel that NASA should transition its Centers through an open, competitive process, to become Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). FFRDCs provide a tested, proven management structure in which many of the federal government's most successful and innovative research, laboratory, technical support, and engineering institutions thrive. NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab is currently so configured, as are the Department of Energy's/QT
Right after I made the submission, it looks like NASA released info on Commercial Crew Transportation and the Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions. I probably won't make a separate submission (although someone else is more than welcome to), but the new docs are pretty interesting:
They couldn't have really developed all of this since the announcement of the cancellation of the Constellation program.
Seems more likely they just grabbed a bunch of already developed tech and slammed it together.
On the plus side, the fact that they're actually focusing on this tech which I heard they were developing years years ago, at least for the ion propulsion and inflatable structures, shows that NASA is finalyl getting off their feet and working on them.
Keep in mind all of these technologies have been on NASA's back-burner for a while (and most/all had their funding cut when Ares/Constellation started going over-budget). These "Flagship Technology Demonstrators" are also specifically targeted towards technologies which are already of mid-level maturity but have never been brought to the point that they could be tested in space before. There's a figure on page 2 of this document which does a pretty good job of explaining things:
You don't have to wait until November. Bennet already lost his party's nomination.
Quite true, and good riddance. However, given that this is Utah, whoever wins the GOP primary is pretty much guaranteed to win the Senate election. There are two remaining candidates in the GOP primary, Tim Bridgewater and Mike Le. Mike Lee doesn't have anything on his website about space, and Tim Bridgewater doesn't seem to comprehend that NASA is the civilian portion of the country's space program (the Air Force already has their own independent program):
Q: Would you support Obama's plan for the privatization of NASA? A: No. The same rockets that send a man to the moon could send a missile across the world to defend our nation. NASA plays a vital role in the security of our nation and the strength of our military. The government has the responsibility "to raise and support" and army. We must be involved in defense related R&D.
One of the best studies done on extraterrestrial cave habitation. Reports like this are one of the reasons why it was such a travesty that Griffin shut down NIAC, just to raid their budget for Constellation.
Not sure if you already knew this, but NASA is actually planning on restarting the NIAC under its new plans:
Responsive the NRC report, Fostering Visions for the Future: A Review of the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (2009), the NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts (NIAC) will be re-established as a project within the Early Stage Innovation Program. The project is formulated as a two-phase, low TRL activity, focused upon conceptual studies of visionary approaches addressing long-term NASA strategic goals. The first phase of NIAC will fund a competed set of conceptual studies and systems analyses that investigate how technology innovations will enable NASA's future missions and extend its goals. Second Phase NIAC proposals will further develop successful Phase I proposals and work to transition the key technical advances into projects within the Game Changing Technology Program.
NIAC will serve as an incubator for bringing new technologies into future aerospace endeavors. By supporting innovative and visionary concepts aimed a decade or more into the future, NIAC-funded research significantly impacts the Agency's future missions as well as its roadmaps for future science, discovery and exploration. As a low-TRL early phase activity, NIAC will serve as a visible and recognized entry point for innovators and researchers who will enable future NASA missions and goals....
Keep in mind that any near-term robotic lunar resource extraction is going to be much more analogous to surface mining, rather than the underground mining which is responsible for the deaths which we've been reading about in the news. Lunar resources like water ice are going to be on or close to the surface, so no complex tunneling will be involved.
The best way to expand and increase the cost effectiveness of NASA is convert it to a goal driven agency. Don't pay to research or study something. Instead setup prizes like the X-Prize or Google's Android challenges to motivate everyday Americans, small business startups, Universities, etc. to solve challenges. Send a rocket to the moon get X million. Put a Satellite in orbit of the moon get Y million, send a crew to circle the moon get Z million, etc. Then we the tax payers only pay for success and we only pay the winning scientists (or garage engineers).
You may want to read through NASA's new plans. From the Space Technology section of the new budget:
The Centennial Challenges program seeks innovative solutions to technical problems that can drive progress in aerospace technology of value to NASA's missions in space operations, science, exploration and aeronautics. Beginning in FY 2011, Centennial Challenge activities associated with the Innovative Partnerships Program are transferred to the Space Technology Program. Centennial Challenges encourage the participation of independent teams, individual inventors, student groups and private companies of all sizes in aerospace research and development, and seek to find the most innovative solutions to technical challenges through competition and cooperation. NASA's original seven prize challenges have been successful in encouraging broad participation by innovators across our nation and across generations. Many of these technical challenges also have direct relevance to national and global needs such as energy and transportation.
Prize programs encourage diverse participation and multiple solution paths. A measure of diversity is seen in the geographic distribution of participants (from Hawaii to Maine) that reaches far beyond the locales of the NASA Centers and major aerospace industries. The participating teams have included individual inventors, small startup companies, and university students and professors. An example of multiple solution paths was seen in the 2009 Regolith Excavation Challenge. NASA can typically afford one or two working prototypes in a development program but at this Challenge event, over twenty different working prototypes were demonstrated for the NASA technologists. All of these prototypes were developed at no cost to the government. For three years of competitions with dozens of teams investing tens of thousands of hours, NASA spent only $750,000 in prize money.
The return on investment with prizes is exceptionally high as NASA expends no funds unless the accomplishment is demonstrated. NASA provides only the prize money and the administration of the competitions is done at no cost to NASA by non-profit allied organizations. For the Lunar Lander Challenge, twelve private teams spent nearly 70,000 hours and the equivalent of $12 million trying to win $2 million in prize money. Prizes also focus public attention on NASA programs and generate interest in science and engineering. Live webcasts of Centennial Challenge competitions attract thousands of viewers across the nation and around the world. The 2009 Power Beaming completion resulted in over 100 news articles and web features. Prizes also create new businesses and new partners for NASA. The winner of the 2007 Astronaut Glove Challenge started a new business to manufacture pressure suit gloves. Armadillo Aerospace began a partnership with NASA related to the reusable rocket engine that they developed for the Lunar Lander Challenge, and they also sell the engine commercially.
In selecting topics for prize competitions, NASA consults widely within and outside of the Federal Government. The $10 million per year FY 2011 request for Centennial Challenges will allow NASA to pursue new and more ambitious prize competitions. Topics for future challenges that are under consideration include revolutionary energy
According to the RFI at http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34056 nuclear propulsion is excluded unless it is used solely for heat generation or as a power source for electric propulsion. Thus, some of the most promising nuclear technologies for rocket propulsion such as micro pellet inertial confinement compression-induced fission are excluded.
Keep in mind that the ETDD program (the one mentioned in the summary) is specifically intended for tech which has already attained a mid-level TRL (Technology Readiness Level) and needs to be developed/tested to a higher-level TRL so it can be used in missions. Things like "micro pellet inertial confinement compression-induced fission," while they have a great potential benefit, are of a relatively low TRL and hence fall under the scope of the newly-announced Space Technology Program, particularly the Early-Stage Innovation and Game Changing Technology sub-programs.
NASA don't fly these missions at all unless you count unmanned sounding rockets.
And curiously enough, those unmanned suborbital rockets generally cost $1 million or so per launch. Reusable suborbital rockets like Armadillo's, which charge only a small fraction of the typical price and can launch pretty much as often as a scientist wants, are totally going to change the way suborbital, microgravity, and atmospheric sampling science is done.
Also, I disagree with the summary/gizmodo's claim that Armadillo has a "real" rocket while SpaceShipTwo isn't a real rocket. Armadillo has a VTVL (vertical take-off, vertical landing) while Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo is an air-launched HTVL (horizontal take-off, vertical landing). Both are "real" rockets.
Finally, NASA recently put out a request for proposals for a testbed for lunar lander demonstrations, which I think will be right up Armadillo's alley. They'll probably be competing with companies like Blue Origin, Masten Space Systems (Lunar Lander Challenge winner, currently working on their "Xogdor the Meltinator" vehicle), and Unreasonable Rocket:
ETDD is for smaller technology development and demonstration projects. Expected subjects for ETDD include in situ resource utilization, autonomous precision landing, advanced in-space propulsion, closed-loop life support systems, advanced EVA, radiation shielding, human-robotic interfaces, efficient space power systems, EDL (entry, descent, and landing) technologies, high-performance materials and structures, and participatory exploration.
The new ETDD RFI is for several technology demonstrations. The subjects of these demonstrations include: * In-Situ Resource Utilization: This is to demonstrate a prototype ISRU system in a vacuum chamber that can simulate lunar temperatures and that can contain lunar simulant. Later, there would be a flight demonstration at the lunar surface on a robotic precursor mission. Of course this plan brings to mind several lunar space prizes: the Regolith Excavation Challenge, the MoonROx Challenge, and the Google Lunar X PRIZE. * High-Power Electric Propulsion System for human spaceflight * Human Exploration Telerobotics: This involves ISS-to-ground telerobotics, ground-to-ISS telerobotics, and large-scale participatory exploration * Fission Power Systems Technology * Autonomous Precision Landing: This involves demonstrations on Earth of autonomous landing and hazard avoidance technologies. The long-range plan is to use the technology on a robotic lander on the Moon or other large body. The technology "Must be capable of flying on a variety of lunar lander precursor missions". The two major parts of this demonstration are the Terrestrial Free Flyer Test Bed and the Hazard Detection System.
The Terrestrial Free Flyer Test Bed deserves special attention. This test bed needs to be able to carry 100 kg of sensor/electronics payload as well as supporting mass for other subsystems, fly up to 1 km, translate horizontally, land at various angles ending in the last 30-50 meters with vertical landing, and fly for at least 210 seconds with the payload. I didn't see anything in the RFI about propulsion, but I imagine rocket-powered vehicles would have a bit of an edge.
I think the difficulty is having an automated system capable of doing everything you described, that can produce sufficient propellant to be worth the initial investment of launching everything to the asteroid, powered only by solar cells or an RTG. I suspect the problem of harvesting the regolith without accidentally sending your harvester flying from the asteroid is also pretty tricky.
> I mean hell, the morons in Washington can't even decide if we should build any kind of space ship.
I'm not aware of any substantial argument over whether we should build a "space ship" period, but the current spaceship argument divides up into three parts with multiple options each: crew launcher, crew spacecraft/capsule, and super-heavy cargo launcher:
crew launcher * Ares I: the plan since 2008, set to be ready by 2017-2019 at a cost of $15-$45 billion (depending whose estimate you use). It's a liquid stage sitting on top of a Shuttle solid rocket booster. Has some safety issues due to the giant solid rocket stage it's sitting on, such as vibration/oscillation and inability of a crew capsule to escape a solid propellant explosion without its parachute melt. * commercial crew providers: rockets like the Delta IV and Atlas V (40 successful launches in a row so far), plus newer rockets like the Falcon 9. Expected cost of a $0.5-$2 billion per provider with goal of multiple competitors, with expected crew capability from the first providers in 2014-2015. * DIRECT/inline Shuttle-Derived: several billion dollars development cost (not sure of exact number off-hand) plus cost of maintaining shuttle infrastructure, with predicted crew capability 2013-2015
Crew spacecraft/capsules * Orion: Has been under development since 2008, originally designed to be lifted on Ares I which is taking forever, but if another launcher were available could supposedly launch crew by 2013-2014; development cost $10B or so (don't have numbers handy). Somewhat oversized with a high per-launch cost, current plan is to re-adapt it as an ISS rescue vehicle (with option for future adaptation into beyond-Earth spacecraft) and use commercial crew instead * commercial crew: multiple capsules with various designs, such as Boeing/Bigelow Orion Lite, Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser (winged craft), SpaceX Dragon, and Blue Origin capsule. Development cost of $1B-$2B each, with initial crew capability by 2014-2015.
super-heavy cargo vehicle (what's often described as a heavy-lift vehicle/HLV): * Ares V: Currently scheduled to start development in 2017 with initial launch in late 2020s, at a cost of many billions of dollars. * DIRECT Jupiter variants: less expensive than Ares V * EELV-derived heavy-lift: based on existing EELV rockets, development cost of a few billion and low fixed annual costs (since you already have EELV rockets launching), although it's more difficult to get this up to the payloads offered by Atlas V and DIRECT * no HLV or minimal EELV-based HLV: Bringing this back onto the topic, if you make use of in-space refueling (supplied either by terrestrial launches or asteroids, as mentioned in submission article) and in-space assembly, you can eliminate the need for a big HLV. This also ensures a high launch rate, allowing for economies of scale. Refueling orbital depots also provides a market for unproven launchers, encouraging more experimentation with new types of launchers.
The status quo for the past several years is Ares I + Orion. The new plan announced by NASA and the President is commercial launchers, commercial crew spacecraft, and a decision on an HLV in 2015. I personally favor commercial launchers, commercial crew, and no HLV with an emphasis instead of in-space refueling.
No. Reusable has been shown to be a money pit and failed too much. It was expensive for the US, it was expensive for the Soviets.
Um, you can't make statements like that based on 2 data points utilizing technology from 30 years ago. The X-37B's requirements are quite a bit simpler (e.g. don't have to carry 50,000 pounds to orbit, don't need extreme crossrange capability, don't need to carry humans, etc.) than the Shuttle or Soviet Buran, and technology has progressed quite a bit since the 1970s. Heck, I'll just paste from Boeing's fact-sheet:
The X-37B is one of the world's newest and most advanced re-entry spacecraft. Designed to operate in low-earth orbit, 110 to 500 miles above the Earth at a nominal speed of about 17,500 miles per hour, the vehicle is the first since the Space Shuttle with the ability to return experiments to Earth for further inspection and analysis.
Because the X-37B can be returned to Earth, reused, and is designed to be highly flexible and maneuverable, its contributions to space exploration will result in making space access more routine, affordable and responsive.
The X-37B features many elements that mark a first in space use. The X-37B is one-fourth the size of the Space Shuttle, and relies upon the same family of lifting body design. It also features a similar landing profile. The vehicle was built using lighter composite structures, rather than traditional aluminum. A new generation of high-temperature wing leading-edge tiles will also debut on the X-37B. These toughened uni-piece fibrous refractory oxidation-resistant ceramic (TUFROC) tiles replace the carbon carbon wing leading edge segments on the Space Shuttle. The X-37B will also use toughened uni-piece fibrous insulation (TUFI) impregnated silica tiles, which are significantly more durable than the first generation tiles used by the Space Shuttle. Advanced conformal reusable insulation (CRI) blankets are used for the first time on the X-37B.
All avionics on the X-37B are designed to automate all de-orbit and landing functions. Additionally, there are no hydraulics onboard the X-37B; flight controls and brakes use electromechanical actuation.
The on-orbit duration of the X-37B will vary based upon mission requirements, but has the ability to perform missions lasting up to 270 days.
The objectives of the first flight are to demonstrate that the X-37B is able to conduct long-duration operations, and to enable scientists to understand the long-term effects on system components, such as the structure and future payloads. The successful first flight will include achieving orbit, de-orbiting, and safely landing at the primary return location, Vandenberg Air Force Base, or Edwards Air Force Base, if necessary.
First off, while the article is a good one, it was actually written before launch. After the launch, there have been some intriguing details, particularly the fact that NOBODY outside of the classified world has been able to actually locate it in the sky. Normally amateur skywatchers are pretty good at locating satellites after they've launched, but apparently not in this case. Here's two possible explanations for this:
* the X-37B is testing low-visibility features, possibly either a stealthy payload shroud, low-visibility solar panels, or some other sort of camouflage/stealth system * One possibility posited by Jim Oberg (the article author) elsewhere is that this may be the first test ever of an atmospheric orbital plane change, a technique desired since the 90s or earlier, where a spaceplane uses its wings to dip into the atmosphere while travelling at hypersonic speeds to alter its trajectory. The X-37B apparently doesn't have a high enough L/D ratio to perform an extreme plane change (e.g. near-equatorial to polar), but it may be able to alter its trajectory enough to make it damn hard to track from the ground.
Now, some people have been asking why a reusable spaceplane would be useful to the US Air Force. Some possibilities: * The atmospheric plane change capability mentioned above, which would allow the Air Force to deploy satellites into trajectories unknown by those observed. One major problem with satellites is that other countries typically know when they'll be overhead, so they just make sure that anything they're trying to hide doesn't occur during those hours. * If you add a retrieval arm or some other docking interface, you can potentially use the craft to alter the trajectory of existing satellites * Although the X-37B was launched on an expendable Atlas V rocket, the Air Force recently put out a solicitation for proposals for a first-stage Reusable Booster System utilizing a technique known as boost-back. With boost-back, after the booster boosts the payload and/or 2nd stage, it then does a 180 and boosts/glides back to a landing strip so that it can be easily reused. Lockheed Martin tested a secretive prototype of such a system (which they dubbed "Revolver") a couple years ago. If you combine such Reusable Boosters with a beefier successor to the X-37B, you have a rapid-launch reusable "surge" capability long desired by the Air Force. Such a surge capability could be useful when you need to quickly launch many satellites, such as when you need to deploy many satellites over a particular region in wartime or many of your satellites are knocked out by anti-satellite weapons or solar storms. Currently the Air Force has to wait for several weeks or months per satellite.
For anybody interested in watching video of the launch (a rather beautiful launch of the Atlas V rocket), you can find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdCpuv9RCwE
Also, for those who are interested in finding out more, there's a lot of good discussion with plenty of current and former space professionals (including some posts by Jim Oberg, the author of the submission article) over at this NASASpaceFlight.com thread on the X-37B: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21122.285
There's actually an interesting story, retold in a recent NY Times article, about Elon Musk's desire to launch a greenhouse to Mars in the early 2000s. When he realized that launch costs would dominate, he decided to create SpaceX instead to bring down those costs. I wonder if Elon Musk still hopes to carry out his original plan, though:
Mr. Musk said he did not set out to be a rocket manufacturer. Rather, with some of the millions of dollars he reaped from the sale of PayPal to eBay, he wanted to send a small greenhouse to Mars -- a private science experiment to see if Earth plants could grow in Martian soil. Beyond the science, he said he thought the sight of a green plant on Mars would capture people's imagination and reinvigorate interest in space.
"I could get all that down to several million dollars," he said. But a rocket to get Mars Oasis off the ground was expensive. At the time, in 2001, a Delta II rocket would have cost $65 million, Mr. Musk said. He made three trips to Moscow to look at a refurbished Russian intercontinental ballistic missile. But even that would have required the development of a third stage to get into space.
He wondered whether it would make more sense to build his own rockets, and he started talking to people in the rocket business, including Dr. Diamandis. "I was actually trying to talk him out of it," Dr. Diamandis recalled, "because I said, 'You know, it's going to take two or three times as long as you think it is, and it's going to cost you two or three times as much.' The reality is it has taken him longer, and it has cost him more than he expected, but I'm extraordinarily thankful he didn't take my advice."
"Bagel" was also the whimsical name suggested by pioneering rocket fuel scientist Mary Sherman Morgan, who engineered the Hydyne-LOX (Liquid OXygen) fuel combination used by North American Aviation in their early U.S. rocket designs of the incipient space race. Sherman suggested calling her new fuel invention Bagel since the Redstone propellant combination would then be called 'LOX and Bagel.' [4][5][6] Her suggested name for the new fuel was not accepted, and 'Hydyne' was chosen instead by the U.S. Army. The standard Redstone was fueled with a 75% ethyl alcohol solution, but the Jupiter-C first stage had used Hydyne fuel, a blend of 60% unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) and 40% diethylenetriamine (DETA).[7] This was a more powerful fuel than ethyl alcohol, but it was also more toxic.[8]
The fuel was used with the Rocketdyne Redstone rocket only once -to launch America's first satellite Explorer I, after which it was discontinued in favor of higher performing fuels.
> Except we've been waiting for this 'Rocket Racing League' to [i]take off[/i], pun or not, for the last [b]six years[/b]. It is the Duke Nukem Forever of motor^H^H^H^Hsports.
Yup, the financial crash sucked for a lot of things, especially high-risk ventures like the Rocket Racing League seeking cash from investors. It looks like they've managed to get enough funding to design and build the first two race vehicles though, so hopefully the odds are now quite good of seeing races in the near future.
> What is the purpose of the contract for the hovering rockets? Is NASA planning landers that will have to hover somewhere - like Mars - or something?
There's a few markets for VTVL hovering rockets, being pursued by companies like Armadillo Aerospace (mentioned in the summary), Masten Space Systems, and Blue Origin:
* suborbital atmospheric science payloads: relatively little is known about the upper atmosphere, and this allows much cheaper and more frequent atmospheric sampling compared to current methods (weather balloons, million-dollar sounding rockets, etc.) * microgravity flights: you can get a 3-4 minutes of microgravity, which is useful for biology experiments, physics experiments, and testing space systems * space observing: you can fly instruments above the atmosphere to take some quick photos and other measurements of stellar bodies, as a lower-cost alternative to orbital space telescopes * pop-up rockets: using the hovering rocket as a reusable booster for a second-stage which goes into orbit * manned flights: for tourism and astronaut training * in the future, lunar/Mars landers, for either unmanned or manned missions * testing systems to be used on landers. Armadillo has mentioned recently that NASA is using their lander as a testbed for some systems which may be used on the "Project M" mission to land a humanoid robot on the Moon within 1000 days.
I haven't seen anybody else mention it in this thread, but there was a really interesting pre-launch teleconference with Air Force Deputy Under Secretary for Space Programs (and former astronaut) Gary Payton. Payton gave quite a few details about the program I hadn't seen elsewhere, giving additional insight into the program's purpose and future plans. I've pasted a few highlights below:
Question: Mark Matthews with the Orlando Sentinel. Two quick questions. If the tests are successful is the Air Force looking to be able to build more of these planes? And what do you say to concerns about how this could lead to the increased weaponization of space? Mr. Payton: We do have a second tail number on contract. Currently we're looking at a 2011 launch for that second tail number. That assumes everything goes properly as predicted on this first flight. And truthfully, I don't know how this could be called wedaponizatino of space. It's just an updated version of the space shuttle kind of activities in space. We, the Air Force, have a suite of military missions in space and this new vehicle could potentially help us do those missions better. Question: Gordon Lubold, Christian Science Monitor. I guess I would just wonder if you could explain a little bit more about what the flight will test and clarify one thing. Is there not going to be a specific payload on it this time, or is there going to be and you can't tell us what it's going to be? Can you give us some sense of it? There seems to be a lot of mystery around the flight and I'm not sure if that's intended or not. Mr. Payton: Like in many of our space launches, not all of them but many of them, the actual on-orbit activities we do classify. So we're doing that in this case for the actual experimental payloads that are on orbit with the X37. But again, our top priority is demonstrating the vehicle itself with its autonomous flight control systems, new generation of silica tile, and a wealth of other new technologies that are sort of one generation beyond the shuttle.... Question: It could capture a spacecraft that's already on orbit and bring it down for servicing or what have you? Mr. Payton: Not on this flight. Again, this flight's intend is the experiments themselves, both during ascent, during entry, and on orbit. But there's no arm on this one....
Question: A quick follow-up on in-orbit capability. Do you have, what kind of props on this thing? I know you can get up to like 500 nautical miles, something like that. Is there any expectation to do some orbit maneuvering of this vehicle to different altitudes? Mr. Payton: Just the way we handle satellites in general. We would, and like we handle low earth orbit satellites. We move them a little bit with their own on-board propulsion system. You're starting to touch on the notion of using a winged vehicle to really change the inclination of the orbit by sort of dipping into the top of the atmosphere and turning and then bouncing back up off the top of the atmosphere. You need a very very good, very very high. Again, hypersonic lift over drag, in order for that to be beneficial. This bird does not have that high hypersonic lift over drag ratio that you would need to do that kind of maneuver. Sorry, I didn't intend to give a lecture on Aero 562....
Question: Air Force Magazine. You talked before about how this could handle a small sized satellite. In more lay person's terms, what does that mean? Is the payload large enough to hold like a Volkswagen Beetle or an SUV? Can you give us some idea there? Mr. Payton: You know our ORS program, Operation Responsive Space? Question: Yes. Mr. Payton: Maybe a couple of satellites that are a few hu
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and where's the love for VASIMR and aerospike engines?
I believe aerospike engines (and things like Thrust Augmented Nozzles) fall under the new Foundational Propulsion Research program:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34019
VASIMR falls under the high-power electric propulsion system project in the Enabling Technology Development and Demonstration (ETDD) program announced last week. I believe the plan is to test and mature VASIMR under that program until its ready to be fully tested on a Flagship Technology Demonstration mission:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34056
This success is due to Nasa's JPL or Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The successes they have had over the past decade are astounding. I see this as more proof that remote missions are more practical in the short term as opposed to manned missions. Just give JPL some more money and let them do their thing. These are the guys that will discover what we need to know, so as to make manned spaceflight practical.
It's also worth noting that JPL is NASA's only FederallyFunded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), a type of organization which is quite a bit more flexible and competitive than the typical NASA Center. The Aldridge Commission from 2004 suggested that NASA restructure and turn all of its centers into FFRDCs, but this proposal was quickly killed in Congress as it's much more difficult for pork to be guaranteed for FFRDCs:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/moontomars/docs/M2MReportScreenFinal.pdf
(b) NASA Centers. A second cluster of organizational tasks is to ensure that NASA's ten Centers
and their related field facilities are deployed appropriately in supporting the exploration vision.
Properly engaged, these facilities and their workforce provide indispensable resources and talent.
Centers are also powerful economic engines at the state and local level that should help meet mission
objectives and help grow a robust space industry.
As currently organized, NASA's Centers are not optimally configured to carry out the nation's space
exploration vision. They have Apollo-era infrastructure that needs substantial modernization. They
lack institutional incentives that continuously align performance with the vision's need. Personnel
practices have too often ossified, placing insufficient priority on innovation, professional growth,
and managerial mobility. In some instances, they support duplicative capabilities that unnecessarily
raise NASA's cost to the taxpayers. The Centers, as with the rest of NASA, must also contend
with the reality that a large portion of the workforce is now or will soon be eligible for retirement.
In short, the Centers must be renewed, empowered, focused, and more effectively leveraged in support
of future space exploration and scientific discovery.
The Commission proposes a new model for the NASA Centers. We feel that NASA should transition
its Centers through an open, competitive process, to become Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers (FFRDCs).
FFRDCs provide a tested, proven management structure in which many of the federal government's
most successful and innovative research, laboratory, technical support, and engineering institutions
thrive. NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab is currently so configured, as are the Department of Energy's/QT
Right after I made the submission, it looks like NASA released info on Commercial Crew Transportation and the Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions. I probably won't make a separate submission (although someone else is more than welcome to), but the new docs are pretty interesting:
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/solicitations.do?method=init&stack=push
They couldn't have really developed all of this since the announcement of the cancellation of the Constellation program.
Seems more likely they just grabbed a bunch of already developed tech and slammed it together.
On the plus side, the fact that they're actually focusing on this tech which I heard they were developing years years ago, at least for the ion propulsion and inflatable structures, shows that NASA is finalyl getting off their feet and working on them.
Keep in mind all of these technologies have been on NASA's back-burner for a while (and most/all had their funding cut when Ares/Constellation started going over-budget). These "Flagship Technology Demonstrators" are also specifically targeted towards technologies which are already of mid-level maturity but have never been brought to the point that they could be tested in space before. There's a figure on page 2 of this document which does a pretty good job of explaining things:
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=230964/Section1.pdf
Did anyone else read "flagship technology" and picture a ship with solar sails? Well, if you did, you'll be disappointed.
You mean like the one that Japan launched yesterday?
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002503/
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=12588
You don't have to wait until November. Bennet already lost his party's nomination.
Quite true, and good riddance. However, given that this is Utah, whoever wins the GOP primary is pretty much guaranteed to win the Senate election. There are two remaining candidates in the GOP primary, Tim Bridgewater and Mike Le. Mike Lee doesn't have anything on his website about space, and Tim Bridgewater doesn't seem to comprehend that NASA is the civilian portion of the country's space program (the Air Force already has their own independent program):
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/09/with-bennett-out-what-does-his-successor-think-about-nasa/
http://timbridgewater.com/issues-2/faqs/
Q: Would you support Obama's plan for the privatization of NASA?
A: No. The same rockets that send a man to the moon could send a missile across the world to defend our nation. NASA plays a vital role in the security of our nation and the strength of our military. The government has the responsibility "to raise and support" and army. We must be involved in defense related R&D.
One of the best studies done on extraterrestrial cave habitation. Reports like this are one of the reasons why it was such a travesty that Griffin shut down NIAC, just to raid their budget for Constellation.
Not sure if you already knew this, but NASA is actually planning on restarting the NIAC under its new plans:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428439main_Space_technology.pdf
Responsive the NRC report, Fostering Visions for the Future: A Review of the NASA Institute for
Advanced Concepts (2009), the NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts (NIAC) will be re-established
as a project within the Early Stage Innovation Program. The project is formulated as a two-phase,
low TRL activity, focused upon conceptual studies of visionary approaches addressing long-term
NASA strategic goals. The first phase of NIAC will fund a competed set of conceptual studies and
systems analyses that investigate how technology innovations will enable NASA's future missions
and extend its goals. Second Phase NIAC proposals will further develop successful Phase I
proposals and work to transition the key technical advances into projects within the Game Changing
Technology Program.
NIAC will serve as an incubator for bringing new technologies into future aerospace endeavors. By ...
supporting innovative and visionary concepts aimed a decade or more into the future, NIAC-funded
research significantly impacts the Agency's future missions as well as its roadmaps for future
science, discovery and exploration. As a low-TRL early phase activity, NIAC will serve as a visible
and recognized entry point for innovators and researchers who will enable future NASA missions and
goals.
Also, I did a bit of searching, and it turns out that basic robots already exist for underground mining:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12637032
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/robot-00g.html
Keep in mind that any near-term robotic lunar resource extraction is going to be much more analogous to surface mining, rather than the underground mining which is responsible for the deaths which we've been reading about in the news. Lunar resources like water ice are going to be on or close to the surface, so no complex tunneling will be involved.
The best way to expand and increase the cost effectiveness of NASA is convert it to a goal driven agency. Don't pay to research or study something. Instead setup prizes like the X-Prize or Google's Android challenges to motivate everyday Americans, small business startups, Universities, etc. to solve challenges. Send a rocket to the moon get X million. Put a Satellite in orbit of the moon get Y million, send a crew to circle the moon get Z million, etc. Then we the tax payers only pay for success and we only pay the winning scientists (or garage engineers).
You may want to read through NASA's new plans. From the Space Technology section of the new budget:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428439main_Space_technology.pdf
The Centennial Challenges program seeks innovative solutions to technical problems that can drive progress in aerospace technology of value to NASA's missions in space operations, science, exploration and aeronautics. Beginning in FY 2011, Centennial Challenge activities associated with the Innovative Partnerships Program are transferred to the Space Technology Program. Centennial Challenges encourage the participation of independent teams, individual inventors, student groups and private companies of all sizes in aerospace research and development, and seek to find the most innovative solutions to technical challenges through competition and cooperation. NASA's original seven prize challenges have been successful in encouraging broad participation by innovators across our nation and across generations. Many of these technical challenges also have direct relevance to national and global needs such as energy and transportation.
Prize programs encourage diverse participation and multiple solution paths. A measure of diversity is seen in the geographic distribution of participants (from Hawaii to Maine) that reaches far beyond the locales of the NASA Centers and major aerospace industries. The participating teams have included individual inventors, small startup companies, and university students and professors. An example of multiple solution paths was seen in the 2009 Regolith Excavation Challenge. NASA can typically afford one or two working prototypes in a development program but at this Challenge event, over twenty different working prototypes were demonstrated for the NASA technologists. All of these prototypes were developed at no cost to the government. For three years of competitions with dozens of teams investing tens of thousands of hours, NASA spent only $750,000 in prize money.
The return on investment with prizes is exceptionally high as NASA expends no funds unless the accomplishment is demonstrated. NASA provides only the prize money and the administration of the competitions is done at no cost to NASA by non-profit allied organizations. For the Lunar Lander Challenge, twelve private teams spent nearly 70,000 hours and the equivalent of $12 million trying to win $2 million in prize money. Prizes also focus public attention on NASA programs and generate interest in science and engineering. Live webcasts of Centennial Challenge competitions attract thousands of viewers across the nation and around the world. The 2009 Power Beaming completion resulted in over 100 news articles and web features. Prizes also create new businesses and new partners for NASA. The winner of the 2007 Astronaut Glove Challenge started a new business to manufacture pressure suit gloves. Armadillo Aerospace began a partnership with NASA related to the reusable rocket engine that they developed for the Lunar Lander Challenge, and they also sell the engine commercially.
In selecting topics for prize competitions, NASA consults widely within and outside of the Federal Government. The $10 million per year FY 2011 request for Centennial Challenges will allow NASA to pursue new and more ambitious prize competitions. Topics for future challenges that are under consideration include revolutionary energy
According to the RFI at http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34056 nuclear propulsion is excluded unless it is used solely for heat generation or as a power source for electric propulsion. Thus, some of the most promising nuclear technologies for rocket propulsion such as micro pellet inertial confinement compression-induced fission are excluded.
Keep in mind that the ETDD program (the one mentioned in the summary) is specifically intended for tech which has already attained a mid-level TRL (Technology Readiness Level) and needs to be developed/tested to a higher-level TRL so it can be used in missions. Things like "micro pellet inertial confinement compression-induced fission," while they have a great potential benefit, are of a relatively low TRL and hence fall under the scope of the newly-announced Space Technology Program, particularly the Early-Stage Innovation and Game Changing Technology sub-programs.
NASA don't fly these missions at all unless you count unmanned sounding rockets.
And curiously enough, those unmanned suborbital rockets generally cost $1 million or so per launch. Reusable suborbital rockets like Armadillo's, which charge only a small fraction of the typical price and can launch pretty much as often as a scientist wants, are totally going to change the way suborbital, microgravity, and atmospheric sampling science is done.
I linked to this is a previous slashdot submission, but for the curious you can see video of some of Armadillo's launches in the past year here:
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/Gallery/Videos
Youtube version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsdpB6UmrAw
There was also a rather cool news update back in January describing in great detail what they've been up to for the prior 8+ months: http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=369
Also, I disagree with the summary/gizmodo's claim that Armadillo has a "real" rocket while SpaceShipTwo isn't a real rocket. Armadillo has a VTVL (vertical take-off, vertical landing) while Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo is an air-launched HTVL (horizontal take-off, vertical landing). Both are "real" rockets.
Finally, NASA recently put out a request for proposals for a testbed for lunar lander demonstrations, which I think will be right up Armadillo's alley. They'll probably be competing with companies like Blue Origin, Masten Space Systems (Lunar Lander Challenge winner, currently working on their "Xogdor the Meltinator" vehicle), and Unreasonable Rocket:
http://spaceprizes.blogspot.com/2010/05/shoulda-had-tfftb-prize.html
ETDD is for smaller technology development and demonstration projects. Expected subjects for ETDD include in situ resource utilization, autonomous precision landing, advanced in-space propulsion, closed-loop life support systems, advanced EVA, radiation shielding, human-robotic interfaces, efficient space power systems, EDL (entry, descent, and landing) technologies, high-performance materials and structures, and participatory exploration.
The new ETDD RFI is for several technology demonstrations. The subjects of these demonstrations include:
* In-Situ Resource Utilization: This is to demonstrate a prototype ISRU system in a vacuum chamber that can simulate lunar temperatures and that can contain lunar simulant. Later, there would be a flight demonstration at the lunar surface on a robotic precursor mission. Of course this plan brings to mind several lunar space prizes: the Regolith Excavation Challenge, the MoonROx Challenge, and the Google Lunar X PRIZE.
* High-Power Electric Propulsion System for human spaceflight
* Human Exploration Telerobotics: This involves ISS-to-ground telerobotics, ground-to-ISS telerobotics, and large-scale participatory exploration
* Fission Power Systems Technology
* Autonomous Precision Landing: This involves demonstrations on Earth of autonomous landing and hazard avoidance technologies. The long-range plan is to use the technology on a robotic lander on the Moon or other large body. The technology "Must be capable of flying on a variety of lunar lander precursor missions". The two major parts of this demonstration are the Terrestrial Free Flyer Test Bed and the Hazard Detection System.
The Terrestrial Free Flyer Test Bed deserves special attention. This test bed needs to be able to carry 100 kg of sensor/electronics payload as well as supporting mass for other subsystems, fly up to 1 km, translate horizontally, land at various angles ending in the last 30-50 meters with vertical landing, and fly for at least 210 seconds with the payload. I didn't see anything in the RFI about propulsion, but I imagine rocket-powered vehicles would have a bit of an edge.
> What am I missing?
I think the difficulty is having an automated system capable of doing everything you described, that can produce sufficient propellant to be worth the initial investment of launching everything to the asteroid, powered only by solar cells or an RTG. I suspect the problem of harvesting the regolith without accidentally sending your harvester flying from the asteroid is also pretty tricky.
The whole point is to have extracted fuel outside of the Earth's deep gravity well, so you don't have to waste launch mass putting it into space.
> I mean hell, the morons in Washington can't even decide if we should build any kind of space ship.
I'm not aware of any substantial argument over whether we should build a "space ship" period, but the current spaceship argument divides up into three parts with multiple options each: crew launcher, crew spacecraft/capsule, and super-heavy cargo launcher:
crew launcher
* Ares I: the plan since 2008, set to be ready by 2017-2019 at a cost of $15-$45 billion (depending whose estimate you use). It's a liquid stage sitting on top of a Shuttle solid rocket booster. Has some safety issues due to the giant solid rocket stage it's sitting on, such as vibration/oscillation and inability of a crew capsule to escape a solid propellant explosion without its parachute melt.
* commercial crew providers: rockets like the Delta IV and Atlas V (40 successful launches in a row so far), plus newer rockets like the Falcon 9. Expected cost of a $0.5-$2 billion per provider with goal of multiple competitors, with expected crew capability from the first providers in 2014-2015.
* DIRECT/inline Shuttle-Derived: several billion dollars development cost (not sure of exact number off-hand) plus cost of maintaining shuttle infrastructure, with predicted crew capability 2013-2015
Crew spacecraft/capsules
* Orion: Has been under development since 2008, originally designed to be lifted on Ares I which is taking forever, but if another launcher were available could supposedly launch crew by 2013-2014; development cost $10B or so (don't have numbers handy). Somewhat oversized with a high per-launch cost, current plan is to re-adapt it as an ISS rescue vehicle (with option for future adaptation into beyond-Earth spacecraft) and use commercial crew instead
* commercial crew: multiple capsules with various designs, such as Boeing/Bigelow Orion Lite, Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser (winged craft), SpaceX Dragon, and Blue Origin capsule. Development cost of $1B-$2B each, with initial crew capability by 2014-2015.
super-heavy cargo vehicle (what's often described as a heavy-lift vehicle/HLV):
* Ares V: Currently scheduled to start development in 2017 with initial launch in late 2020s, at a cost of many billions of dollars.
* DIRECT Jupiter variants: less expensive than Ares V
* EELV-derived heavy-lift: based on existing EELV rockets, development cost of a few billion and low fixed annual costs (since you already have EELV rockets launching), although it's more difficult to get this up to the payloads offered by Atlas V and DIRECT
* no HLV or minimal EELV-based HLV: Bringing this back onto the topic, if you make use of in-space refueling (supplied either by terrestrial launches or asteroids, as mentioned in submission article) and in-space assembly, you can eliminate the need for a big HLV. This also ensures a high launch rate, allowing for economies of scale. Refueling orbital depots also provides a market for unproven launchers, encouraging more experimentation with new types of launchers.
The status quo for the past several years is Ares I + Orion. The new plan announced by NASA and the President is commercial launchers, commercial crew spacecraft, and a decision on an HLV in 2015. I personally favor commercial launchers, commercial crew, and no HLV with an emphasis instead of in-space refueling.
> Old news. It launched two weeks ago and disappeared going Mach 20 (ish). The atmosphere apparently has a sweet tooth.
That was the HTV-2, not the X-37B. They launched in the same week, but are two entirely separate projects.
No. Reusable has been shown to be a money pit and failed too much. It was expensive for the US, it was expensive for the Soviets.
Um, you can't make statements like that based on 2 data points utilizing technology from 30 years ago. The X-37B's requirements are quite a bit simpler (e.g. don't have to carry 50,000 pounds to orbit, don't need extreme crossrange capability, don't need to carry humans, etc.) than the Shuttle or Soviet Buran, and technology has progressed quite a bit since the 1970s. Heck, I'll just paste from Boeing's fact-sheet:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/sis/x37b_otv/x37b_otv.html
The X-37B is one of the world's newest and most advanced re-entry spacecraft. Designed to operate in low-earth orbit, 110 to 500 miles above the Earth at a nominal speed of about 17,500 miles per hour, the vehicle is the first since the Space Shuttle with the ability to return experiments to Earth for further inspection and analysis.
Because the X-37B can be returned to Earth, reused, and is designed to be highly flexible and maneuverable, its contributions to space exploration will result in making space access more routine, affordable and responsive.
The X-37B features many elements that mark a first in space use. The X-37B is one-fourth the size of the Space Shuttle, and relies upon the same family of lifting body design. It also features a similar landing profile. The vehicle was built using lighter composite structures, rather than traditional aluminum. A new generation of high-temperature wing leading-edge tiles will also debut on the X-37B. These toughened uni-piece fibrous refractory oxidation-resistant ceramic (TUFROC) tiles replace the carbon carbon wing leading edge segments on the Space Shuttle. The X-37B will also use toughened uni-piece fibrous insulation (TUFI) impregnated silica tiles, which are significantly more durable than the first generation tiles used by the Space Shuttle. Advanced conformal reusable insulation (CRI) blankets are used for the first time on the X-37B.
All avionics on the X-37B are designed to automate all de-orbit and landing functions. Additionally, there are no hydraulics onboard the X-37B; flight controls and brakes use electromechanical actuation.
The on-orbit duration of the X-37B will vary based upon mission requirements, but has the ability to perform missions lasting up to 270 days.
The objectives of the first flight are to demonstrate that the X-37B is able to conduct long-duration operations, and to enable scientists to understand the long-term effects on system components, such as the structure and future payloads. The successful first flight will include achieving orbit, de-orbiting, and safely landing at the primary return location, Vandenberg Air Force Base, or Edwards Air Force Base, if necessary.
First off, while the article is a good one, it was actually written before launch. After the launch, there have been some intriguing details, particularly the fact that NOBODY outside of the classified world has been able to actually locate it in the sky. Normally amateur skywatchers are pretty good at locating satellites after they've launched, but apparently not in this case. Here's two possible explanations for this:
* the X-37B is testing low-visibility features, possibly either a stealthy payload shroud, low-visibility solar panels, or some other sort of camouflage/stealth system
* One possibility posited by Jim Oberg (the article author) elsewhere is that this may be the first test ever of an atmospheric orbital plane change, a technique desired since the 90s or earlier, where a spaceplane uses its wings to dip into the atmosphere while travelling at hypersonic speeds to alter its trajectory. The X-37B apparently doesn't have a high enough L/D ratio to perform an extreme plane change (e.g. near-equatorial to polar), but it may be able to alter its trajectory enough to make it damn hard to track from the ground.
Now, some people have been asking why a reusable spaceplane would be useful to the US Air Force. Some possibilities:
* The atmospheric plane change capability mentioned above, which would allow the Air Force to deploy satellites into trajectories unknown by those observed. One major problem with satellites is that other countries typically know when they'll be overhead, so they just make sure that anything they're trying to hide doesn't occur during those hours.
* If you add a retrieval arm or some other docking interface, you can potentially use the craft to alter the trajectory of existing satellites
* Although the X-37B was launched on an expendable Atlas V rocket, the Air Force recently put out a solicitation for proposals for a first-stage Reusable Booster System utilizing a technique known as boost-back. With boost-back, after the booster boosts the payload and/or 2nd stage, it then does a 180 and boosts/glides back to a landing strip so that it can be easily reused. Lockheed Martin tested a secretive prototype of such a system (which they dubbed "Revolver") a couple years ago. If you combine such Reusable Boosters with a beefier successor to the X-37B, you have a rapid-launch reusable "surge" capability long desired by the Air Force. Such a surge capability could be useful when you need to quickly launch many satellites, such as when you need to deploy many satellites over a particular region in wartime or many of your satellites are knocked out by anti-satellite weapons or solar storms. Currently the Air Force has to wait for several weeks or months per satellite.
For anybody interested in watching video of the launch (a rather beautiful launch of the Atlas V rocket), you can find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdCpuv9RCwE
Also, for those who are interested in finding out more, there's a lot of good discussion with plenty of current and former space professionals (including some posts by Jim Oberg, the author of the submission article) over at this NASASpaceFlight.com thread on the X-37B: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21122.285
There's actually an interesting story, retold in a recent NY Times article, about Elon Musk's desire to launch a greenhouse to Mars in the early 2000s. When he realized that launch costs would dominate, he decided to create SpaceX instead to bring down those costs. I wonder if Elon Musk still hopes to carry out his original plan, though:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16elon.html?pagewanted=2
Mr. Musk said he did not set out to be a rocket manufacturer. Rather, with some of the millions of dollars he reaped from the sale of PayPal to eBay, he wanted to send a small greenhouse to Mars -- a private science experiment to see if Earth plants could grow in Martian soil. Beyond the science, he said he thought the sight of a green plant on Mars would capture people's imagination and reinvigorate interest in space.
"I could get all that down to several million dollars," he said. But a rocket to get Mars Oasis off the ground was expensive. At the time, in 2001, a Delta II rocket would have cost $65 million, Mr. Musk said. He made three trips to Moscow to look at a refurbished Russian intercontinental ballistic missile. But even that would have required the development of a third stage to get into space.
He wondered whether it would make more sense to build his own rockets, and he started talking to people in the rocket business, including Dr. Diamandis. "I was actually trying to talk him out of it," Dr. Diamandis recalled, "because I said, 'You know, it's going to take two or three times as long as you think it is, and it's going to cost you two or three times as much.' The reality is it has taken him longer, and it has cost him more than he expected, but I'm extraordinarily thankful he didn't take my advice."
It's also worth noting that apparently the majority of Latinos in Arizona are actually in favor of the new immigration law:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/27/rasmussen-majority-of-latinos-in-arizona-support-letting-cops-check-for-immigration-status/
> "LOx & Bagels"!
There's actually an interesting bit of history about that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel_(disambiguation)
Rocket fuel name
"Bagel" was also the whimsical name suggested by pioneering rocket fuel scientist Mary Sherman Morgan, who engineered the Hydyne-LOX (Liquid OXygen) fuel combination used by North American Aviation in their early U.S. rocket designs of the incipient space race. Sherman suggested calling her new fuel invention Bagel since the Redstone propellant combination would then be called 'LOX and Bagel.' [4][5][6] Her suggested name for the new fuel was not accepted, and 'Hydyne' was chosen instead by the U.S. Army. The standard Redstone was fueled with a 75% ethyl alcohol solution, but the Jupiter-C first stage had used Hydyne fuel, a blend of 60% unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) and 40% diethylenetriamine (DETA).[7] This was a more powerful fuel than ethyl alcohol, but it was also more toxic.[8]
The fuel was used with the Rocketdyne Redstone rocket only once -to launch America's first satellite Explorer I, after which it was discontinued in favor of higher performing fuels.
> Except we've been waiting for this 'Rocket Racing League' to [i]take off[/i], pun or not, for the last [b]six years[/b]. It is the Duke Nukem Forever of motor^H^H^H^Hsports.
Yup, the financial crash sucked for a lot of things, especially high-risk ventures like the Rocket Racing League seeking cash from investors. It looks like they've managed to get enough funding to design and build the first two race vehicles though, so hopefully the odds are now quite good of seeing races in the near future.
> What is the purpose of the contract for the hovering rockets? Is NASA planning landers that will have to hover somewhere - like Mars - or something?
There's a few markets for VTVL hovering rockets, being pursued by companies like Armadillo Aerospace (mentioned in the summary), Masten Space Systems, and Blue Origin:
* suborbital atmospheric science payloads: relatively little is known about the upper atmosphere, and this allows much cheaper and more frequent atmospheric sampling compared to current methods (weather balloons, million-dollar sounding rockets, etc.)
* microgravity flights: you can get a 3-4 minutes of microgravity, which is useful for biology experiments, physics experiments, and testing space systems
* space observing: you can fly instruments above the atmosphere to take some quick photos and other measurements of stellar bodies, as a lower-cost alternative to orbital space telescopes
* pop-up rockets: using the hovering rocket as a reusable booster for a second-stage which goes into orbit
* manned flights: for tourism and astronaut training
* in the future, lunar/Mars landers, for either unmanned or manned missions
* testing systems to be used on landers. Armadillo has mentioned recently that NASA is using their lander as a testbed for some systems which may be used on the "Project M" mission to land a humanoid robot on the Moon within 1000 days.
I haven't seen anybody else mention it in this thread, but there was a really interesting pre-launch teleconference with Air Force Deputy Under Secretary for Space Programs (and former astronaut) Gary Payton. Payton gave quite a few details about the program I hadn't seen elsewhere, giving additional insight into the program's purpose and future plans. I've pasted a few highlights below:
http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/tag/gary-payton/
http://www.defense.gov/Blog_files/Blog_assets/PaytonX-37.pdf
Question: Mark Matthews with the Orlando Sentinel. ... ...
Two quick questions. If the tests are successful is the Air Force looking to be able to build more of these planes? And what do you say to concerns about how this could lead to the increased weaponization of space?
Mr. Payton: We do have a second tail number on contract. Currently we're looking at a 2011 launch for that second tail number. That assumes everything goes properly as predicted on this first flight. And truthfully, I don't know how this could be called wedaponizatino of space. It's just an updated version of the space shuttle kind of activities in space. We, the Air Force, have a suite of military missions in space and this new vehicle could potentially help us do those missions better.
Question: Gordon Lubold, Christian Science Monitor.
I guess I would just wonder if you could explain a little bit more about what the flight will test and clarify one thing. Is there not going to be a specific payload on it this time, or is there going to be and you can't tell us what it's going to be? Can you give us some sense of it? There seems to be a lot of mystery around the flight and I'm not sure if that's intended or not.
Mr. Payton: Like in many of our space launches, not all of them but many of them, the actual on-orbit activities we do classify. So we're doing that in this case for the actual experimental payloads that are on orbit with the X37. But again, our top priority is demonstrating the vehicle itself with its autonomous flight control systems, new generation of silica tile, and a wealth of other new technologies that are sort of one generation beyond the shuttle.
Question: It could capture a spacecraft that's already on orbit and bring it down for servicing or what have you?
Mr. Payton: Not on this flight. Again, this flight's intend is the experiments themselves, both during ascent, during entry, and on orbit. But there's no arm on this one.
Question: A quick follow-up on in-orbit capability. Do you have, what kind of props on this thing? I know you can get up to like 500 nautical miles, something like that. Is there any expectation to do some orbit maneuvering of this vehicle to different altitudes? ...
Mr. Payton: Just the way we handle satellites in general. We would, and like we handle low earth orbit satellites. We move them a little bit with their own on-board propulsion system.
You're starting to touch on the notion of using a winged vehicle to really change the inclination of the orbit by sort of dipping into the top of the atmosphere and turning and then bouncing back up off the top of the atmosphere. You need a very very good, very very high. Again, hypersonic lift over drag, in order for that to be beneficial. This bird does not have that high hypersonic lift over drag ratio that you would need to do that kind of maneuver.
Sorry, I didn't intend to give a lecture on Aero 562.
Question: Air Force Magazine.
You talked before about how this could handle a small sized satellite. In more lay person's terms, what does that mean? Is the payload large enough to hold like a Volkswagen Beetle or an SUV? Can you give us some idea there?
Mr. Payton: You know our ORS program, Operation Responsive Space?
Question: Yes.
Mr. Payton: Maybe a couple of satellites that are a few hu