Rocket Science for the Rest of Us

NASA has removed ATK Liberty Launch from the shortlist of potential carriers of crew to the ISS because of concern over the technical matters.  According to William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, the problem was that they didn't provide enough details to reassure NASA of the safety of their planned vehicle.  ATK did not commetn to Space News about this, and there's nothing about it on their website that I could find.  I hope that they will be able to recover from this and re-propose their plans.  If not...that's one good thing about this kind of contract system--instead of the government being stuck helping fund a program to make it work, it can choose the ones that are effective.  Right now, SpaceX and Boeing are forging ahead.  read more here: http://spacenews.com/civil/120904-nasa-dropped-atk-comm-crew.html

Good news for Florida workers in teh space industry: XCOR plans to manufacture and launch its suborbital ships our of Kennedy Space Center.  They're taking over some of the old Space Shuttle facilities for its Lynx vehicle.  The Lynx willfly tourists, researchers adn payloads into suborbital space (about 100 kilometers, although they intend to later move on to orbital vehicles.  They'll be doing test flights of the Lynx Mark 1 in 2012, and plan to build and fly the Linx Mark 2 from Florida in 2014.  Right now, the company is stationed in the Mohave, CA, but are moving research to Texas and building and flight to Florida.  the comany said they might leave some operations and test flight activities in California.  Why the move?  Money--the other states provided better incentives and better business conditions.  Read more here:  http://www.universetoday.com/96987/xcor-to-move-operations-near-kennedy-space-center/

I know everyone's excited about the Mars Rover, but in the manned space arena, NASA has announced the selection of Boeing Space Exploration and SpaceX for final phase developing funding of the Commercial Crew Program.  Sierra Nevada received a smaller award, but it's still in the running.  ATK's Liberty Launch didn't get an award this time.

You can read all about it at Space News.  In the meantime, congrats to these three for completing one more step toward commercial manned space! 

Alas, right at liftoff, they had an abort from the computer systems and missed their ONE SECOND launch window.  Disappointing, but all they lost was some fuel.  They'll try again Tuesday.


I've mentioned on more than one occasion how excited I am about the SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon Capsule space launch, which is slated for May 19, with May 22 as a back-up.  I think I'm more excited about this launch than I was about the Space Shuttle launch, although it could be because I'm older and more interested in space operations now.  Nonetheless, I see this as a groundbreaking move, and not so much in the area of technology, but a cultural, political, and economic change in paradigm that is going to finally get humanity off the ground and into space on a truly significant basis.

It's a historical progression:  When the Americas were first colonized, governments did the initial work; however, things really took off when commercial interests came into play.  In the time of kingdoms, these were sometimes one and the same, but not so now.  This is a much needed step forward.

But more than that, we need to government to start taking the support role in space, helping to build industries while still allowing them to rise and fall according to their own ability to create a functioning and desired product without making itself the only client of said product.  In other words, it should help industries create space assets that it can use, and not limit itself to one company making one product for the one customer--NASA..

In an age when people want the government to do it all for them, we can see very clearly the effect of a government monopoly on manned space.  The dream of John F. Kennedy was reduced to a contest against Russia, with only two subsequent programs--the space station (an international endeavor) and the Space Shuttle, now a museum piece.  Even more ironic, it's the Russians who now give us a ride to our own station.  So who won that race, again?  Attempts to progress in our quest for space are riddled with politics, at the whim of the current party in power, and fraught with cost overruns as the lowest bidder gets the contract then realizes it cannot keep its promises without further funding.  Plus, there's not a lot of economic sense in building something only you can use, and (for that matter) only sort-of use for reasons of national pride or scientific study.  Good reasons, perhaps, but when balanced against the fiscal realities of a nation trying to do too much with too little.

We need private companies to carry us forward.  They can set a vision and run with it without worrying what the voters think.  They do have to worry about their customers, but that's a whole different dynamic; a commercial program might fail because there's no customer base.  A government program might fail because a president wants to put his own stamp on things, or Congress wants to look tough on spending, or someone decides teaching kids about space has more voter appeal than building equipment to study or occupy space.

Commercial industries also have to keep an eye on the bottom line.  They need to make a program that will sustain itself through customers (like tourists or scientists who rent space on the flight) or products like in asteroid mining.  The government cannot start its own industry, and thus, space exploration will forever be at the whim of the taxpayers and their elected officials.

Commercial industries foster competition, new ideas, chance-taking and a different "Will-Do" attitude that the government cannot.

Now having said, that, I don't think the government should step out of space completely.  We do have national interests and international obligations in space.  I just think that instead of hiring one company to handle all of that (or attempt to as the whims of Capitol Hills change their operating instructions), they should encourage multiple companies to develop the industry.  The COTS program, which awards prizes to industries able to create certain products, like the Dragon space capsule, fits that need exactly.


On May 19 (or 22), we will see the fruits of that program in SpaceX, but SpaceX is not the only company in the running.  Orbital Sciences is slated to begin its own crew resupply program in the next year or so.  Other industries have sprouted in hopes of receiving the award, too.  The best part of these, however, is that they see NASA as  a stepping stone rather than an end goal.

We have a model rocket of the SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon that we will launch when Rob gets back from training in honor of the launch of the actual spacecraft.  it will be streamed live on their website at http://spacex.com.

Hooray!  SpaceX has a launch date for the Dragon  Feb 7!  The NASA Press release is here, but here are the highlights:

*  The Dragon will first do a fly-by at about 2 miles away from the station in order to check its sensors and other systems needed for a safe docking.
*  When the Dragon docks, the ISS will use its robotic arm to assist.  (It doesn't say why that is so.  I had thought from the videos that it would dock on its own.)
*  SpaceX is, of course, the first commercial craft to dock with the International Space Station, so this is history in the making.
*  SpaceX has completed 36 of 40 of the milestones disctated to it under the COTS agreement, for which it will receive a total of 288 million dollars.  (To compare, the space shuttle Endeavor cost 1.7 billion dollars.)

Of course, the next step for the Dragon and SpaceX is to finish the modifications that make it manned-approved.  SpaceX has suggested that the Dragon is manned capable.  However, there are certain modifications, like an escape system, that NASA is requiring.  (Not a bad idea considering the Shuttle disasters.)

Forbes Magazine says that in light of the problems that the Russians have been having with their program lately, getting commercial flights going.  Considering the latest report on how they were working on Phobos-Grunt, including soldering it while full of highly explosive rocket fuel, I'm even more glad to see us making progress toward domestic services. I had been seeing reports that the Dragon's maiden flight might get pushed off as far as April.  I wonder, did the Phobos-Grunt failure (and subsequent revelations) perhaps nudge someone in the bureaucracy to accelerate the schedule? 

According to NASA, SpaceX has really put their nose to the grindstone to fix problems NASA pointed out:  "SpaceX has made incredible progress over the last several months preparing Dragon for its mission to the space station," said William Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. There's oddly nothing on SpaceX's website about this yet.  I wonder if their web guru is on vacation, or if the small company had just been putting its efforts elsewhere.  Whichever, congrats to SpaceX and Happy Flynig!

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.

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? 

So, I'm a little bit of a commercial space fangirl.

One of my first posts was about the possible abandoning of the International Space Station because the Russian resupply rocket failed.  In it, I suggested that they move SpaceX's schedule up and get the Dragon to send up the relief crew.  Good news is that the Russians have fixed the problem and will send a relief crew up Nov 12, so it'll be "business as usual" for the ISS.  "Bad news" is I might have been a little over-optimistic in my assessment of SpaceX's abilities.

So I thought I'd do a little research on SpaceX.

SpaceX was founded in 2002 by Elon Musk, who created PayPal and sold it to eBay for 1.5 billion dollars in stock.  He's using his wealth to develop launch vehicles and capsules to send humans as well as supplies into space.  (As opposed to just launching satellites, for example, although their rockets can do that, too.)  In addition to commercial funds, they have some NASA funding through the COTS program--which is Commercial Orbital Transportation Services.  Essentially NASA awarded some commercial companies money to develop technology.  SpaceX got $278 million dollars.  That seems a lot, but consider that the Space Shuttle cost $450/mission.  The Russians charge $47 million per seat on Soyuz (according to a SpaceX press release) and that's going up to $66.3 million per seat in 2014, according to NASA.  SpaceX intends to get this price to $20 million per seat.

Yeah, that's pretty ambitious, but if they even get close, wow!

So how do they plan on doing this?  First, they claim to cut costs by doing the entire manufacturing in-house.  In other words, they don't subcontract to other companies for their parts.  They say this not only keeps cost down but also allows gives them better quality control.  (Of course, one of the arguments against this is that they aren't benefiting from established companies that have decades of experience building rocket parts, and some people, such as Loren Thompson, a commentator for Forbes, believes they increase their risks for failure this way. They're also banking on being able to reuse most of their rockets, and (a big contributor!) cutting down on bureaucracy.  Since they aren't a government contractor, they are already way ahead on this!

So far, SpaceX has three rockets:

Falcon 1:  This is a liquid fueled rocket (using rocket-grade kerosene) and can carry 1000kg of payload into low earth orbit.  The price on their website for the service is $10 million. That's actually a small payload, BTW.    Get details here: http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php


Falcon 9:  This is their medium-lift spacecraft, with nine engines.  It can take payloads to LEO (Low Earth Orbit) or GTO (Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit).  This is the one that will service the International Space Station.  It can take 10,450 kg into LEO and 4,450 kg into GTO when launched from Cape Canaveral, with an estimated price per launch of $54 to $60 million.  http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

The Falcon Heavy is the biggest rocket in the world, as far as payload ability, and is able to carry 53,000 kg into LEO.  The estimated price is $80 to $125 million per launch.  http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

The Dragon:  This is SpaceX's capsule which will carry supplies and people to the International Space Station (or if anybody else builds a station, orbiting hotel, or (I surmise) for tourists wanting to go up, orbit and come down).  They are also designing it for carrying experiments. One thing I thought was smart in the design is that the unmanned and manned capsules are similar, so that they are easy to interchange and so that they could test manned capabilities while doing unmanned missions.  (From their website:  "To ensure a rapid transition from cargo to crew capability, the cargo and crew configurations of Dragon are almost identical, with the exception of the crew escape system, the life support system and onboard controls that allow the crew to take over control from the flight computer when needed.")

Once a week, I plan on summarizing a current event article about space.  Since we were talking about the industry still being alive and well, I thought this article fit nicely:  "At Florida Spaceports, Commercial Operators Prepare To Move In," Space News, August 19, 2011.

Ground breaking ceremonies for SpaceX’s new Falcon 9 rocket launch facilities at Space Launch Complex 40, Cape Canaveral, Florida. (from left) Thad Altman, Florida State Representative; Jeff Kottkamp, Florida State Lt. Governor; Elon Musk, Founder and CEO, Space Exploration Technologies; Brigadier General Susan Helms, Commander, 45th Space Wing, United States Air Force; Lynda Weatherman, Brevard County Economic Development Commission CEO/President; Steve Koehler, President of Space Florida; Janet Petro, Deputy Director NASA Kennedy Space Center; Patricia Grace Smith, FAA Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation; Steve Cain, NASA Kennedy Space Center COTS project manager. Credit: Jim Campbell, Aero-News Network. Photo and names taken from SpaceX website.

Space X is setting up housekeeping at Cape Canaveral, upgrading an old Delta II processing hanger to launch thier Falcon Nines. They've renamed it Hangar X. (Got a theme going.) They'll also tune up a payload processing and integration facility for the Dragon capsule. They have a goal of launching 12 rockets a year by 2015. That's pretty ambitious, not just for the logistics but also finding the business. But how cool would that be?

There's also talk of Boeing taking up residence in some of the facilities to service their own Crew Space Transport capsule. (They need naming lessons from SpaceX.)

So while the Shuttle program has ended, new programs begin. The question is now: How soon, folks? How soon until Cape Canaveral is launching humans again?

What could be more representative of the American space program? Yet  it is so much more!

When I told one of my friends that I was creating a blog about the space industry, she asked, "Is there a space industry after Obama killed NASA?"


First, let's assume for this article, we're talking about manned space and exploration, rather than the thriving industry of putting satellites into orbit so we can get better cell phone reception.


She's referring to Obama's 2010 budget proposal that cancelled the Constellation program, which was supposed to replace the space shuttle and eventually get us to the moon (2020.)  Here's an article in Discovery about it.  And another in Scientific American.  This might indeed seem a death knell for space, or at least for manned space, but there are several things to consider.


First, the Constellation program was already overbudget and experiencing a lot of technical problems.  (Universe  Today reported in Feb 1, 2010, "Also, its estimate costs through 2015 have risen from $28 billion in 2006 to $44 billion today.")  There was also doubts about it being able to meet its deadlines of manned flight by 2015 and the moon by 2020.


What about the shuttle?  It was simply at the end of its life.  The technology was so old, that to repair the shuttle, NASA was having to search the Internet for spare parts.  President Bush actually canceled the shuttle program because we couldn't physically support the craft any longer.  


However, at the same time that President Obama called for the cancellation of the program, he recommended increasing NASA's budget for it to concentrate on other things--increasing the life of the ISS, promoting innovation and technologies, and exploring further on.   As columnist Phil Plait said, "NASA can concentrate on what it should: innovation, pushing the limits, paving the road. Once the road is laid, let others use it."


So, are there others to use the road?  Let's start with the fact that the ISS is International, and other nations have been servicing it, including the European Space Agency and the Russians, who are--or rather were--flying the astronauts to the station when the Shuttle wasn't.  (They recently had trouble with their Soyuz capsules, and now we're not sure we will keep astronauts on the station--weep!--but that's another story.)  So the space industry as a whole will continue, even if NASA died, which it isn't.


In addition, American commercial space is growing--and Obama has given it a nice void to fill.  There are already many companies striving to fulfill the dream of manned space:

• Armadillo Aerospace (suborbital focused)
• Bigelow 
• Blue Origin (suborbital focused)
• Boeing
• Orbital
• Sierra Nevada Corp
• Space X
• United Launch Alliance (serves the military; not sure they're looking at manned)
• Virgin Galactic (suborbital focused)

(Rob gave me this list.  If we missed any, let me know.)  There are also a lot of budding industries to build the craft, make the fuel, create the engines, etc.


Later this week, I'll share an article about how some of these companies are already moving into Cape Canaveral (or negotiating to).  But for now, the answer to my friend's question is, "Yes, Virginia, there still is a space industry."

The SpaceX Dragon spacecraft after its test mission.

* Since I have a follower named Virginia, I'd like to state for the record that she did not ask this, but I could not resist the play off the title.