Rocket Science for the Rest of Us

Time to give a different company some space on the blog. (Pun intended, of course.)

Unlike SpaceX, Orbital (also known as Orbital Sciences Corporation) has been around for a long time, and has done some pretty innovative stuff.  Space geeks of my generation will remember how cool the Pegasus launch system was--the rocket actually launches from an airplane.

Now they've accomplished 40 or more missions.  Pegasus is taken up to around 40,000 feet on the Stargazer aircraft, then dropped. Five seconds later, the rockets fire and it continues into orbit.  By using plane power, it cuts cost of breaking the biggest pull of gravity.  This handy little rocket can carry payloads up to 1000 pounds into orbit in about 10 minutes.  Read More on Orbital's Website.

Orbital has mostly been concentrating on the small-to-medium satellites.  Thier larger missiles are a combination of Pegasus boosters and old ICBM missiles--the Minuteman II and Peacekeeper.  (See? the government CAN recycle!)

More than a memorial lawn ornament to the Cold War Era. (Actually, they just use the engines.)

With the commercialization of manned space, they are getting into the act as well.  Their Minotaur V, a 5-stage rocket using 3 Peacekeeper missile engines and two commercial rocket engines, is cheap and uses proven technology, which is a bonus in this business where big booms are bad.  Its brochure says it's build for "to provide an extremely cost-effective capability to launch US government sponsored small spacecraft into high energy trajectories, including Geosynchronous Transfer Orbits (GTO) as well as translunar and beyond," while another rocket, the Taurus II will carry the Cygnus resupply craft to the ISS.

It looks like a big trash can, doesn't it?  Reminds me of "These Three," a Rescue Sisters story with a beaten-down ship called Le Poubelle (French for trash can.).  You can read that in ISIG I, BTW.  It's more impressive in motion...at least until it disintegrates upon reaching the atmosphere.  I'm hoping that's supposed to happen!

It's patterned after the existing multi-purpose Logistics Modules used on the space station.  (Orbital seems big on using existing technologies approved by the government.  Not a bad angle if you're looking for government contracts.)  They have a COTS contract with NASA for resupply operations between 2012 and 2015 and the Cygnus is supposed to be crew capable.  (They didn't say on their website directly, but reading between the lines, they'll use a launch abort system similar to the one they designed for the Lockheed-Martin Orion capsule.)

Orbital is a small but strong company with 3700 employees, 1800+ or which are engineers. They're located in Arizona (manufacturing), California (launch) and the DC beltway (admin.)  Their website is http://www.orbital.com.

So, what do you think?  How do they compare to SpaceX, in your opinion?  What else would you like to know about them?  Let's start a discussion!

Big congrats to SpaceX for getting NASA approval on its launch abort system for the Dragon manned capsule!

The launch abort system gives the astronauts an "abandon spaceship" option should there be a problem during launch.  The Apollo capsules had one; the shuttles did not.  NASA is requiring that all manned capsules in its COTS program have such a system, and with good reason.

First off, I want to welcome all my new followers--we went from nine to 64 in a day!  (This is what happens when you ask.)  Please make use of the comments section to let me know what you want to know more about, what questions you have, etc.  This is a blog about the commercial space industry, written by and for interested amateurs like myself, so I want to know what interests you!

Also, many thanks to Walt Staples, Fred Warren and others who keep sending articles my way.  Holy cow!  There's no way I can keep up!  After some consideration, I've decided to shy away from current events and try to concentrate on 

Today, I'm following the space junk/emerging industry thread I've kind of had going by talking about a new kid in town--ultra small smallsats.  Smallsats themselves are anything under 1100 pounds, but lately, they are coming to include really tiny satellites--like postage stamp tiny!

Created by Cornell University, not the USPS, and its going up to the ISS for testing.  the little blue squares are solar cells.

Here's the popular CubeSat.  This photo is from Weber State Universitiy in Utah, which is just down the road from us.  Who knew Utah was so big in space?

Obviously, the big advantage of minisats is that they are small and cheap. That makes launching  them cheaper and replacing them easier--whether they fail after launch or after time on mission.   thansk to miniaturization craze that has brought us everything from the cell phone to the ipod, there's a lot these little powerhouses can do.

Right now, there seems to be a lot of interest in the minisatelite business among universities.  They are terrific, apparently, for atmospheric readings, imagery of the Earth's surface, tracking radiation over time (above the atmosphere), testing technologies in space, even tracking bird migrations.  Here's a really cool list of cubesat missions, which he stopped updating in 2009, alas, but it gives you a good idea of the versatility of the satellites.)  There are also business plans going out for cubesats to replace larger satellite missions, like mapping the earth.)  Naturally, they're a great idea for studying other planets, especially where durability isn't as much a concern as getting the data cheaply before the thing disintegrates in the atmosphere or whatever.  There's even speculation that someday, minisats will go the way of the computer, and everyone will have their own personal satellite to handle their communications, etc. 

Launch companies are going to have to think about what this means for them.  Not only could the market for larger launch vehicles decline, but there may be other ways of launching.  The ISS is looking into deploying these things out of the station, so much of the satellite launch market may lie in getting the little guys to the station, or building another station.  (Bigelow Aerospace may have a market outside of tourism and space experiments for its station!)

So we'll be having swarms of little satellites doing some of the jobs a single big one does.  Is this going to make trouble of the space junk variety?  Proponents say, "no," because they will be in a low orbit and in the case of the stamp-sized ones, will start deorbiting almost immediately.  However, as time and improving technology march on, we'll probably see more and better minisats filling the atmosphere.  I think it will become a consideration, but how big is the question.

Hey, readers--what do you want to know about these emerging industries?  I can give you the stuff I find interesting, but I'd like to hear from you!

Been some time since I started my mini look at commercial space industries, but there's so much going on in the news.  If I posted every day, I still could not keep up, but for those who are interested in more news than you get here, please check out some of the sites on my LINKS page.

In the meantime, let's talk a little more about SpaceX.

As I mentioned in my first blog about this company, it was founded in 2002 and in just nine years has created three successful rockets--Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 (so named because it has nine engines) and the Falcon Heavy and is working on a capsule, called the Dragon, that will provide material resupply and later manned missions to the ISS (and other stations as they may appear.)  Incidentally, due to the problems with the Soyuz this fall, they will not get to test fly the Dragon to the ISS until at least sometime in December (according to a schedule updated online on Oct 14), although some sources are saying it could be January.  They are also working on meeting NASA requirements to make the Dragon manned-approved; basically, they want an escape system for the astronauts in case they have to abort  after launch.

SpaceX isn't just depending on NASA for its income, of course,  They already have contracts with the Air Force and with other companies and nations to provide launch capability--mostly satellites, of course.  They are also looking for new ways to push the barrier.  the first is looking at reusable rockets, which I blogged about Oct 7.  Of course,t he founder, Elon Musk, says he has grander ideas than even that.  He wants to go to Mars--not just to explore and certainly not to plant flags, but to start a viable community--one he can retire to! 

Living the dream!  And get off my, er, lawn!  Photo from Mars Society, I believe--the article I got it from didn't say, but it does talk about plans to colonize Mars from a 2009.

OK. so that's going to take a lot more than a rocket, but getting there is half the battle.  (For the record, if Musk succeeds, Rob is going to be at me insufferably to retire to Mars, I can see it coming.  He's already got that gleam in his eyes that says, "Making history...living in SPACE...no yardwork... It's ALL GOOD!")

I really enjoyed the article about Musk's retirement plans (which constituted the headline but not the whole article) because it also gave some insight into the working environment.  Take a guess:  Knowing that SpaceX has created and launched three rockets, one to rival the Saturn Five, which took us to the moon, is farthest ahead in the "race" to send men to the ISS, and is thinking Mars missions...how many people work at this company?

A little over a thousand, mostly at their Hawthorne, CA factory.  I'm impressed that a thousand people did what some nations haven't been able to do!   Of course, with success, contracts and big dreams, they're growing--check out the jobs list if you want to dream.

I have found a few negatives about SpaceX in the news.  Some say it's riding on the force of Elon Musk's personality and fortune (lots of "Tony Stark" imagery there), and that they are biting off more than the company can financially chew--that they are developing technologies there isn't really a market for yet.  I have seen that argument applied to the space industry as a whole.  They look at the satellite boom-and-bust where in the 90s, it was thought that thousands of satellites would be going into orbit in the next decade in order to support cell phones, but when cell phone towers sprang up instead, many companies that were preparing for those assumed launches died.

I do believe that may happen, especially with some of the companies that depend solely on NASA to get their start or who are not contracting outside customers.  It will take more than a few tourists and the ISS to keep a company alive.  So far, SpaceX seems to have a good head on its shoulders.  While its launch manifest is heavy on NASA flights, it does have several other customers slated through 2017.

Here's one thing I like about SpaceX--and indeed, about commercial space as opposed to government-controlled space industry:  Even though SpaceX is looking at these new technologies and long-long term goals, they are not abandoning their current path, but working both simultaneously.  Frankly, they have to--they lack the "luxury" of governments to change their mind with every administration or change budgets, focus, etc.

OK.  What more do you want to know about SpaceX--or shall I move on to a new company? 

I'm recovering from the MuseOnline Conference this week--what a great time, and you have to give commercial space some credit for it, because we had people from around the world in the forums and chats, something not possible without satellites. So, for the third installment of this series, I thought I'd do something fun.

Eventually, we're going to have people in space, which means trash and trashmen. It could be that once we are out there on an everyday basis, it might be more efficient to have humans collect the space junk and either send it into a destructive deorbit, collect it, or fix it. Would you be a garbage man if it meant getting to go into space? It's an important job, but how much respect would you get?

That's the topic for the Japanese science fiction anime, Planates.

Rob got this on netflix late one night many years ago, and I have to admit, the first time, I wasn't interested. We gave it a second try a couple of months later and I was hooked. This is a very believable and entertaining show about a young woman who wants to be in space, but didn't do so well in her class, so she ends up on the trash detail. The characters are hilarious--there's no wonder they are the laugh of the station--yet they take their job very seriously--and show some surprising compassion and depth of character. (I'm thinking of the episode with the memorial plaque, specifically, but won't tell more because it would be a spoiler.) I liked it so much that I also got the manga (Japanese graphic novels) that carry the story in more depth.

You can buy it on amazon, or rent it on netflix.

Not that I should need to say this, but I bought this series and am reviewing it because I liked it. I was not paid nor given free stuff.

No putting a pumpkin face on this.  This is plutonium!

Interesting thing about space probes--they need power to go.

And that's why NASA is a leetle concerned about the Senate turning down the request for the Department of Energy to contribute $15 million dollars to the production of PU-238, which is reactor-grade plutonium and is used to power deep space probes like the Cassini probe or Mars rover-type missions.

Why nuclear power?  Solar power can only do so much.  As probes get farther out in the solar system, the sun's rays just aren't enough to keep them going.  In cases like the Mars probes, the sands of Mars damage or deteriorate the solar panels.  Nuclear power is sure and long term.

Interestingly, we stopped producing plutonium in the 1980s.  (I could not find a sure answer why, but would guess it was because we had a lot and budgets were being cut, etc.)  We've since run out of our domestic supply.  We've been getting some from Russia, but in 2009, they reneged on a commitment to supply the Energy department with material in 2010 and 2011.  According to Space news, Sept 26, 2011, Russia's Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corp. wants to renegotiate the contract. That's putting some space exploration projects in jeopardy.

Now here's the fun thing--we can't make our own anymore.  The infrastructure is gone, and according to Co-chair of the nuclear regulatory commission, "The people who know how to do it are retiring or dead."  So the first thing we have to do is--you guess it:  Study the issue!

Time to reinvent the wheel

So there's a few million dollars right there, maybe $7.5 to $10 million.  (Incidentally, Rob said that this number does not seem unreasonable considering the changes in technology and safety, plus all the security needed etc.  Since he's worked with high-level government stuff, I'll trust him, though I cringe at the cost of re-learning what we once knew.)

To make matters more fun, the Obama administration wanted to split the Pu-238 production project costs between NASA and the Department of Energy, but the DoE isn't interested in spending its budget for space instead of energy, and the Senate backs them up.

Now, I don't necessarily disagree, especially when I found this budget proposal (found in Space Politics.)  I think you can squeak out that $15 million.  Personally, I would take it out of the education section.  NASA does a lot of nifty programs that they offer schools and individuals, but these are only nifty and peripheral.  (I've seen and even used bits of them while homeschooling.) 

Account	PBR	HAC	SAC
Science	$5,016.80	$4,504.00	$5,100.00
Aeronautics	$569.40	$569.93	$501.00
Space Technology	$1,024.20	$375.00	$637.00
Exploration	$3,948.70	$3,649.00	$3,775.00
Space Operations	$4,346.90	$4,064.00	$4,285.00
Education	$138.40	$138.00	$138.40
Cross-Agency Support	$3,192.00	$3,050.00	$3,043.00
Construction	$450.40	$424.00	$422.00
Inspector General	$37.50	$36.30	$37.30
TOTAL	$18,724.30	$16,810.23	$17,938.70

So we've been talking about space junk and the cost of going into space (that the Chinese can do it more cheaply), so it's seems synergistic that at the same time that China was launching it's first space module, Space X announces it's newest development--a fully reusable launch system.



Why is this a big deal?  If it can be done, they will cut production costs.  According to SpaceX founder Elon Musk, a Falcon 9 costs $50 to $60 million, but only $200,000 is for fuel.  The rest is the rocket itself.  

Musk also said that although they are working on this system, they are continuing with the older system.  So, this new idea is not slowing down their progress.  Incidentally, their first launch to the ISS has been delayed until around January because of the Soyuz failure.  NASA wants to make sure the ISS is fully manned before sending the Dragon capsule up for the first time.  Also, NASA is insisting on an escape module in case the astronauts have to abandon the dragon in-flight. (The Shuttle had no such ability, but the Gemini capsules did.)  That's going to add a couple of years to their manned-flight ability, which is why most reports say manned by 2015 although SpaceX says it's ready to ferry now.

Here's a SpaceX press release about how it can beat China in a space race, BTW.  I doubt they'll be alone in this for long.  Several other companies are on the rise as well.  I promise I'll be looking into them, too.

Last week, China launched an unmanned module as the first step toward its own space station.  Called Heavenly -Palace 1, it's an unmanned lab about the size of a bus which they will use to practice docking and maneuvers in preparation for launching its own space station somewhere around 2020.  They still have a long way to go, but they also have 40 years of our mistakes to learn from.  The way will be much faster for them.

This may be the look of the future for non-Terran humans.

China has ambitious plans for its space program, and they have some advantages that we don't.  For one thing, they can make a long range plan and stick with it.  When's the last time that's happened in the American Government?  Remember how Obama canceled the program begun in the Bush administration to build a replacement for the shuttle, supposedly to put that job in the hands of commercial interests, only to turn around and start a new rocket program a year later?  At least we're doing both, but let's face it--government space programs are as much or more about creating or preserving jobs as getting Out There.  The Chinese just want to get there.

They say they can do it cheaper, and no argument there.  It isn't just about them being able to learn from us (their capsule is based on Russian technology, BTW), but also because they aren't dealing with the fat-cat economic system and behemoth-sized bureaucracy we gripe about but do nothing to fix.  (And if that makes you want to swear, check out these Chinese curses used on Firefly.  These were imagined in English, then translated into Mandarin, so that's good ol' American ingenuity there.  Some are the usual profanity, but I give explosive diarrhea of an elephant two thumbs up.)



Is American Space doomed?  Nah.  We're still in the lead and if we decide to take them up on a new Space Race, I believe the government would rise up to the challenge.  However, I don't think we'll need that.  I firmly believe that commercial space will get us there cheaper and faster than the government can.  And I think they'll have greater motivation, too.  We don't want the Chinese to take over the space market like they've taken over the curio/souvenir/mass produced drek market.

We'll do this for space, too, if you let us.  No problem,