Spaceflight Sandbox

Thoughts on NASA and the near future of space exploration

2010-02-17T11:07:00.004-06:00

I posted the following reply in the NASA discussion group on LinkedIn. The original post was soliciting thoughts on the changes in priorities for NASA in response to the president's budget request.

The Constellation program was canceled because this administration was unwilling to continue investing many billions of dollars a year to develop a whole new launch capability that would not be ready for 7 to 10 years. For this investment, we would get two new rockets that would never have a very high flight rate, and thus would be extremely expensive to operate. That high cost of development was literally starving many innovative science and engineering efforts currently underway, or planned for the near future. The high cost of operations would mean that this situation would continue into the indefinite future. This was a bargain that this administration was no longer willing to make... not when there appeared to be a viable alternative.

This alternative has just as much of a chance of success as the Constellation program, but also requires much less investment and has the potential to offer much greater capacity and redundancy to the US spaceflight capability. NASA is getting a net increase in budget, and the freedom to spend it on actual innovative research and development projects. Some of this research will vastly improve our ability to carry out long duration spaceflight missions, while other research would dramatically improve our understanding of the Earth, and our environment.

As for science on the ISS: The president's budget actually extends the life of the station until at least 2020 - further improving the chances of doing useful science on the station. The SpaceX Dragon capsule is being designed to provide a significant amount of down mass capability for the ISS. Although the Cygnus transport will not initially be able to support this capability, Orbital has made some encouraging remarks regarding their plans to upgrade the Cygnus craft to have reentry capabilities. The ESA has also made similar comments about their ATV modules.

I agree that our backs are up against the wall with regards to the ability of the US to independently access space. But perhaps this sense of urgency will prompt more commercial providers to finally step up to the plate and start investing their own resources in developing this domestic capability - with an appropriate amount of assistance and investment from NASA. However, at the same time, NASA has to back off a little bit and let them develop these systems to the best of their abilities.

No one is suggesting that we immediately start putting astronauts on these new vehicles. (Not like they did for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle, and what they were planning on doing for Orion.) From what I've heard, each new entrant and each new system will have to be proven out over a number of unmanned test flights and/or cargo flights before NASA will consider using them for human transport. This seems both fair and prudent.

Will it be dangerous? Yes. Will their be risk? Yes, of course. There always has been and their always will be. However, if it's an endeavor worth pursuing, then you do you best to mitigate the risk and to plan for all of the contingencies that you can imagine. In the end, though, you have to accept the whatever risks remain and just fly the vehicles that you have.

There will be failures, but we will learn from them. There will be deaths, but not by anyone who wasn't fully aware of the risks. They will choose to go, and when they fall, there will still be others lined up waiting to go. For them, it will be the chance to pursue a dream, and the opportunity to push back the boundaries of science and exploration. If you build it, they will most certainly come.

Google Calendar for The Space Show

2010-02-05T07:55:00.001-06:00

For those of you out there who happen to follow The Space Show, with Dr. David Livingston, I've set up a Google Calendar with names and dates taken directly from The Space Show newsletter. This link will take you to a navigable calendar interface. There is also a link in the lower right corner which should allow you to add the events on this calendar to your own Google Calendar view (if you have a Google Account). You can also add individual events by clicking on them and selecting 'add to my calendar'.

I'm going to try to keep up with this on a weekly basis. If anyone notices me slacking off, feel free to drop me a reminder.

The Space Show - John Powell

2010-01-29T12:10:00.001-06:00

I made a brief call in to The Space Show with Dr. David Livingston on Tuesday night. The show's guest was John Powell of JP Aerospace. I almost missed the show, but managed to catch the last half hour. I plan on going back and listening to the show in its entirety when I have a couple of hours to spare.

I have been following the progress of JP Aerospace for about ten years now, and I have to say they have come up with some very imaginative concepts that will be amazing technological feats if they ever come to pass. For example, their stratostation concept involves lofting a huge lighter-than-air platform to about 140 thousand feet. This station will serve as a near-Earth observation platform, as well as a possible communications link, an astronomical observatory, a scientific laboratory, and probably dozens of other uses which haven't even been thought of yet.

One proposed use for this station is a point of departure - a harbor if you will - for another one of their concepts, the airship-to-orbit. This is an enormous V-shaped lighter-than-aircraft which might be able to reach orbit by gradually accelerating to orbital speeds over several days. Using primarily buoyancy and aerodynamic lift to overcome gravity losses, this mode of reaching low Earth orbit could have a profound impact on how we think about getting off this planet - at least as much as the space elevator, and potentially much sooner.

My question had to do with the propulsion systems on the proposed airship-to-orbit concept. I've been thinking about this problem for a while. The concept is simple, but the physics are hard. Let me try to explain.

In order to accelerate from approximately rest with respect to the Earth's surface (and about 100 thousand feet up), the airship must accelerate to orbital velocities, which are on the order of 7-8 km/s, and orbital altitudes which are way above 330 thousand feet (~100 km) that marks the semi-official boundary of space.

There are several physical constraints which must be overcome when trying to reach orbit with an airship. First, it must have sufficient thrust to overcome atmospheric drag during the early part of its flight. If you can't overcome the drag, then you can't accelerate. The drag increases with velocity, linearly at first, but later exponentially. Once the thrust and drag are equal, you've reached a sort of terminal velocity. The only option is to fly higher where the density of the air is less, and therefore the atmospheric drag is less.

Second, until the airship reaches orbital velocity, there must be some way of providing lift to overcome the gravity losses. In other words, to keep the ship from losing altitude. During the early part of the flight, this is mostly accomplished with buoyancy and also any aerodynamic lift which might be generated by the airship (which looks like two huge wings stuck together in a V-shape). However, as the airship climbs higher - to get out of the denser air dragging on the ship - the effects of buoyancy and lift are diminished. Mr. Powell confirmed for me that above 300 thousand feet, buoyancy and lift effects are practically negligible.

Unfortunately, by the time the ship reaches 300 thousand feet, orbital velocity has not yet been obtained. Therefore, there must be some other means of supplying the lift required to overcome gravity until orbital velocity and altitude is reached. Thus my question to Mr. Powell was something like this: What kind of propulsion techniques are you considering which will have sufficient thrust to both overcome aerodynamic drag during the early part of the flight, and also provide lift during the later part of the flight, while still being efficient enough to accelerate for days on end without requiring enormous amounts of propellant? His response was that they are working on form of hybrid ion/chemical based engine with a theoretical ISP of around 900 seconds.

I'm still not completely convinced that this approach is viable with existing propulsion technologies. However, I think I now have enough information to do a slightly more detailed analysis of the airship-to-orbit concept. If I can find some time to actually crunch the number, I'll post my findings here.

Free at last... now what?

2009-08-10T06:30:00.001-05:00

Now that I am finally finished with the dissertation, I find myself with considerably more free time. As my wife has recently pointed out, I have a rare opportunity now to pick up a hobby before I allow myself to get bogged down with the next project or any of life's other pressing demands on my time. So, in addition to spending more time with my kids, and possibly doing little light blogging from time to time, what else could I be doing that I would enjoy and still fell like I'm making good use of my time.

One of the things you learn while getting a PhD is just how little you know out of all that is possible to know. I feel that I've learned a great deal during my studies, but there is a great deal more that I want to know... that I need to know. So, I find that it is time for me to leave the sheltered halls of academia and to try and make my way in the real world. I'm ready to put my hard earned education to work, but I am fully prepared to have to learn more in order to do so.

Power and propulsion are two topics that I love to ponder, but I don't think I'll have the resources to start tinkering with actual hardware for some time. If I'm extremely lucky, I might be able to land a job with one of the new space startups, where I'd be able to do that kinda thing as my day job. I'd jump at the chance to work with the likes of SpaceX, Blue Origin, XCOR, Masten Space Systems, Armadillo Aerospace, Ad Astra Rocket, or Scaled Composites.

I've also been wanting to get more seriously into robotics and astronomy for long time now. I have some brief experiences with both of these, but I'd like to be able to advance my skill set to the next level if possible. I often find myself thinking about better ways to interface to tele-operated devices. If Jeff Hawkins is correct about the hierarchical organization of the brain, then it should be possible to build a robotic system which can learn some basic, low-level behavior in response to commonly encountered stimuli, but still be able to pass on unexpected or novel information to a higher cognitive level (possibly a user). Specifically, I'm thinking about robotic telescopes which will be able to scan the sky autonomously, but be able to direct their attention to more novel phenomena based on their own past experiences.

One project that I've been putting off for a long time now (because I couldn't justify spending the time on it with the dissertation hanging over my head) is to look into doing more sophisticated mission prototyping using the spaceflight simulator Orbiter. Although the development of the main program seems to have stalled, there is still an active community of third party developers generating fresh and interesting add-ons for the simulator.

I have been contemplating a building rapid prototyping tool for designing rockets, RLV's, and other spacecraft. The program would be similar to NASA's Rapid Aircraft Modeler (RAM) that I worked on a few years ago. One simply selects from of list of standard components, then resizes and repositions them to rapidly assemble a desired configuration. Then, I would have the program output the necessary files to fly the model in Orbiter. By making use of some of the advanced modeling capabilities provided by the Orbiter API, it should be possible to get a fairly reasonable approximation of the vehicle's performance for a given class of mission.

And one final thing which looks like it will have to be a hobby since I can't seem to get my supervisor interested in letting me do it for work. I've recently managed to get CUDA installed and running on my laptop. I'd like to teach myself how to program the GPU. There is a lot of potential computing power tied up in those little chips, but not all computations scale equally well on the GPU. I think this is probably something that I will not truly be able to appreciate until I learn it through trial and error. Still, there's at least one instance of someone doing discontinuous Galerkin simulations on the GPU with encouraging results. I'd like to see if I can manage to get at least part of my DG solver running on the GPU.

And it's official..

2009-08-09T06:10:00.004-05:00

The day has finally come at long last. I am now officially Eric M. Collins, PhD.

It has been such a long and arduous process that I'm finding it difficult to accept that I'm actually done. From the perspective of fulfilling a life-long ambition, it was well worth it. Now we will see if it was worth the delay in getting a real job and postponing all of those other things that grown-ups with a decent income get to do.

While I've still got a lot of work to do and papers to write, I also need to focus on looking for a job. I have until the end of the year to find something. I would very much like to get on with one of the new-space companies (e.g. SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc.), but I will also be looking into NASA and some of the national labs. If there is anyone out there who wants to hire a computational engineer with an intense interest in enabling technologies for exploration and exploitation of the space environment, please feel free to contact me.

Turbo pump ASCII art

2009-07-19T08:59:00.002-05:00

In a comment to a post by John Hare (Told You So - Seleneian Boondocks), I tried to post an ASCII art depiction of a turbo-pump configuration which I thought would better illuminate the point I was trying to make. Unfortunately, the reply window only allows a subset of the HTML markup and decided to severely mangle my ASCII art instead. It really was a good rendering, so I'll post it here, just in case anyone else is curious.


||^                         ^||
||  __       _____       __  ||
||^|__|  V  |_____|  V  |__|^||
|| <  :=======| |=======:  > ||
||____|  V   _|^|_   V  |____||
|_____|     |_| |_|     |_____|
         V    |^|    V

What you are looking at is the bottom of a proposed thrust chamber analog. High pressure gas is being fed into the chamber and forced down and out ("V" in the diagram) through a turbine blade. The blades are hollow, which allow them to act as a pump (through centrifugal acceleration). Water is then pumped into the chamber through a diffuser along the paths marked by ("<", ">", and "^").

As I mentioned in the comments to the other post, the key to making this design work is minimizing the amount of drive gas which gets leaked into the pump chamber around the ends of the turbine blades. Just as the water within the blades is going to want to be thrown outward, so will the gasses escaping through the blades themselves.

Anyway, before I reveal just how much I don't know about turbopump design, I better just quit now. Feel free to comment on this here or at the original post.

We industrialize!

2009-03-14T23:30:00.001-05:00

Now this is the kind of space advocacy that might actually have a chance of appealing to ordinary folks.

There are none of the supposed "justifications" for the space program that NASA contrived a couple of years ago. There's simply a catchy tune, some simple graphics, and a message. That message is that space offers a tremendous opportunity for us to put our ingenuity and productivity to work towards creating a new and innovative economic niche. This niche is one that has yet to be exploited, has tremendous potential for future growth, and one that we appear to be in a rather unique position to take of advantage of at this very moment.

What will we do with this opportunity? Will we continue to throw good money after bad at sectors of the economy which have failed to generate enough wealth to sustain their own activities? Or do we take bold new steps to generate new industries and new services that will form the basis for the next century of economic growth?

The ISS as fuel depot testbed

2009-03-14T23:00:00.001-05:00

I've been wondering for some time if the ISS could be used to advance the technology required to perfect propellant depot technology. It seems that nearly all of the required hardware is already on board the station. The current ECLSS on the ISS electrolyze waste water and condensate to generate breathable oxygen, with the excess hydrogen being vented to space. If the hydrogen stream could be diverted into a Sabatier reactor, then CO₂ could be scrubbed from the atmosphere and turned into methane fuel.

I've also been wondering for if a propellant depot infrastructure should be resupplied with pure water rather than the cryogenic fluids. The favorable density and handling properties of water as opposed to LO2/LH2 would appear to make it the better choice for transporting aboard a very simple tanker over potentially long time periods. When shipped as water, the "fuel" can be transported in a non-cryogenic, inert state, and then once delivered to the depot, it can be cracked into O2/H2, liquefied, and stored until it is needed.

Of course, this assumes that your depot has sufficient power and/or time to split water and keep the fuel properly chilled. I found this page which describes the Russian Elektron unit. This article cites a passage from a NASA training manual:

NASA TRAINING MANUAL ON ‘ELEKTRON’

From the “NASA Familiarization Manual on Russian Segment Crew Systems”, Published in 1997.

3.1. Oxygen Supply System
...
The decomposition of 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of water yields 25 L (0.88 ft3) of oxygen per hour at a pressure of 760 mmHg, which is enough to support one crew member for one day. To provide the daily amount of oxygen for 3 - 4 crew members, 3 - 4 kg (6.6 - 8.8 lbs) of water must be decomposed. Power consumption of the process is ~ 1 kW.

A kilogram per hour at one kW, seems like a very reasonable rate, at that's just for one Elektron unit (if I'm reading this correctly). If necessary, this can scaled up with additional units if sufficient power is available. It may be possible to build even more power efficient electrolysis system if the work of Dr. Nocera at MIT can be turned into a practical device that will operate in zero-G conditions.

If the depot is also crewed, then a steady supply of water would be required any way. The crewed depot could also generate methane as an additional propellant option if the ECLSS included a Sabatier reactor as well as an electrolysis unit. With the exception of the Sabatier reactor and some cryogenic storage tanks, the ISS already possesses all of the hardware. The existing U.S. electrolysis units even have hardware available for connecting to a Sabatier reactor.

So, what would be the point of having the ISS generate and store propellant? Well, first of all, it is currently our only manned research outpost in zero-G. It would therefore be expedient to take advantage of these facilities to work out the basics of cryogenic fluid transfer in micro-gravity. The data obtained from ISS experiments could go along way towards reducing the techological risks associated with propellant depot development.

The ISS also needs fuel for station-keeping. Having the ability to generate it's own propellant would be a nice capability to have. This would also simplify the ISS resupply requirements. Rather than having to deliver water and propellant, each in the individual compartments, only water would be required. The water tanks could be made larger, and therefore more mass efficient. Since propellants would no longer need to be transported (I think hypergolics are currently used), the handling of the payload for resupply missions would be much less hazardous.

Finally, with the ability to produce fuel, the ISS could support a small array of space tugs and transfer vehicles which would service the station and other objects in nearby orbits. For example, imagine that SpaceX puts up a couple of Dragon lab modules in orbits which are coplanar with the ISS. Now imagine that the ISS has a slightly modified ATV docked to it. It might then be possible for an ISS astronaut to use the ATV to rendezvous with the Dragon module and perform any necessary maintenance or repairs.

I have some additional thoughts on how to convert the ATV into a crewed orbital transfer vehicle, but I think I'll save those for another post.

A Biological Imperative

2009-03-08T13:30:00.001-05:00

Every few months, the debate over humans in space seems to flare up again. The motivations for human spaceflight are usually touched on briefly while reflecting on the loss of the astronauts of the Apollo I, Challenger, and Columbia spacecraft. Sometimes the discussion is sparked by the humans vs. robots debate. Other times it shows up while attempting to justify the human spaceflight budget. Depending on the context and the participants, the discussion can be anywhere from cordial to an outright flame war.

Jeff Foust recently posted a fairly innocuous summary of reactions to the new administration's budget request (Reacting to the budget proposal - Space Politics) which has somehow managed to stir up a fair amount of discussion in its comments. Unfortunately, by the time I got around to reading through it, some of the comments had already began devolving into pointless bickering.

Of course, I felt compelled to post some of my own thoughts. I am reposting them here for my own benefit, and in case anyone would like to discuss them away from the flames of the other post.

Human space exploration is not about science, or even exploration for that matter. These things are a consequence - a side effect - of having humans in space. In fact, science and exploration are a consequence of humans being just about anywhere, including the bottom of the ocean or in caves dozens of kilometers below the surface. Humans will make observations (either directly or through remote probes), form hypotheses, test them, and then find a way to exploit the results somehow. That's what humans do.

The question on everyone's mind is "Why?" Why do we go to all of these extreme places (in person and with probes)? The answer is quite simple: niche exploitation and expansion. It's a biological imperative. We do what biological organisms have always done: expand to fill an available niche, exploit resources where possible, and then search for new niches to fill. In every biological population, there are individuals or groups which make it their purpose to accomplish each of these tasks. Humans are particularly adept at this and are doing so at an unprecedented rate.

What makes humans so special is that they are the first species capable of expanding the biosphere beyond the surface of the Earth. Humans alone are capable of taking this simple biological imperative out into the universe; exploiting the resources found there, remaking the environment to sustain themselves, and always pressing forward. It is for this purpose that the robotic probes are made and sent out in advance; and that robotic machines are being created to assist humans in hostile environments. It is also for this reason that we cannot send robotic probes alone.

In a way these thoughts are complementary to those I have posted previously (Why Space? and Not Just Science). I find that my thoughts have evolved somewhat since then. I have been trying to come to a better understanding of what it is that space advocates are trying to articulate when they give the 'basic human need to explore' argument. Although most space advocates feel this in their bones, they usually fail to give an adequate explanation of this feeling to those who do not necessarily share their passion for space. I'm not saying that my comments above will go much further at bringing this point home to the average Joe. However, I do feel that if we can get past our own personal motivations and cast human spaceflight in a broader context, we may eventually be able to convince others that it is well worth the expense.

Dragon as the new CRV?

2009-01-20T02:33:00.005-06:00

In my previous post (A more gentle transition) I tossed out an idea that perhaps a Dragon capsule, launched to the station in support of ISS logistics, could be modified to serve as a crew lifeboat while it is docked to the station. I was quite surprised, then, to stumble across this post (The new X-38/CRV: SpaceX's Dragon?) by Rob Coppinger yesterday, which references this article (Race to the International Space Station begins in earnest) by John Croft over at Flight Global.

I had no idea if such a thing was possible; only that it would make sense to try and use the Dragon for ISS crew-return if dealing with the Russians proved to be problematic in the future. Using the Dragon this way would also remove one of the frequently cited reasons why the Shuttle should not be used to service the ISS beyond 2010; namely that it could not remain docked to the ISS for extended periods of time, and thus could not be used as an ISS lifeboat. But if this story is correct, then there are already studies underway to validate this concept.

The primary difference between this report and my hypothetical scenario is that they appear to be studying the prospect of delivering the Dragon capsule in the payload bay of the Space Shuttle. I guess I assumed that the Falcon 9 would have successfully flown by the time this would be needed. I cannot think of any other reason why they would rather use the Shuttle. If Falcon 9 has been successfully flown by 2010, then it would certainly be cheaper to launch the capsule to the station using a Falcon 9; not to mention the fact that the Dragon is designed to be launched by a Falcon 9.

My other assumption regarding how it might be easy to temporarily convert a cargo Dragon into a CRV while it is docked to the station, may have also been a little too optimistic. There are probably alot of sub-systems that would be present in a crewed Dragon (even a minimal reentry version), that would probably not be found on an unmanned cargo Dragon. If absolutely necessary, a crew could probably ride down like cargo; however, they would most likely want a more robust life-support capacity and manual flight controls available in an actual CRV Dragon.

I have just one more idea, that I'd like to throw out there. I've been thinking for some time now that NASA should get a Sundancer class module from Bigelow and launch it into an orbit near the Hubble space telescope. That way, if anything goes wrong with the STS-125 mission, they would at least have the opportunity to use the module as a safe haven until a rescue mission can be mounted.

Now, there may be another way to add crew rescue capability to STS-125. If they are actually studying the feasibility of launching the Dragon on the Shuttle, then perhaps it would be possible to tuck one away in the back of the payload bay for the Hubble repair mission. Would there be room? Would the Dragon be ready in time? My guess is: probably not, but it's an interesting idea none-the-less.

A more gentle transition

2008-11-26T09:25:00.001-06:00

There has been much gnashing of teeth concerning the imminent, and all but inevitable, gap in American manned spaceflight capability after the Shuttles are mothballed in 2010. I've been thinking about this problem, off and on, for some time now. Given the current state of NASA and the commercial space transportation industry, there are really only a couple of realistic options for dealing with "the Gap".

The first option is for NASA to continue flying the shuttle a couple of times a year beyond 2010 until a suitable replacement is available. I have never really had a problem with flying the Shuttle past 2010. It will be just as dangerous to fly it then as it is now (and yes, I would jump at the chance to fly in it if it were offered to me). Many have dismissed the possibility of extending the Shuttle service on the grounds that: a) it's too expensive and would consume resources that NASA would rather be devoting to Ares I/Orion, and b) it wouldn't solve the underlying problem of how to get our own astronauts to and from the space station without having to rely on the Soyuz capsules as lifeboats.

In my own opinion, I think that using the Shuttle strictly for crew-rotation and logistics deliveries is a terrible waste of the Shuttle's unique capabilities. Instead, I'd like to see NASA take advantage of these extra flight opportunities to continue expanding the ISS beyond the minimal 'US core complete' configuration. Many additional modules have been, or are nearly, completed. The Shuttle was conceived, designed and built to support the construction of a Space Station. So long as the Shuttle is still active, it should be doing what it does best.

Another possibility for reducing 'the Gap' is for NASA to provide additional resources to companies like SpaceX to assist with the rapid development of launch vehicles suitable for manned spaceflight. For a very small fraction of the resources currently being poured into the Ares/Orion development, SpaceX could potentially have the Falcon 9 rocket and the Dragon capsule ready two to three years before the first Orion capsules would be available.

There may other options which have some chance of mitigating the consequences of retiring the Shuttle before its successor comes online, but for now, I'd like to explore a third option that lies somewhere in between the two options mentioned above.

Let's assume that SpaceX will be able to demonstrate reliable cargo delivery to the station and safe return to the Earth with the Dragon capsule by the end of 2010 or early 2011. At that point, the main thing preventing crew rotation using the Dragon is the development and demonstration of safe and reliable crew launch on the Falcon 9. Elon Musk has stated that SpaceX could have crewed Dragon ready within three years if they were to be funded under the COTS-D program (perhaps a couple more years if no COTS-D funding were provided). That's most likely an optimistic estimate, but even still, that means no crew launch capability until at least the 2012-2013 time frame.

Let's imagine then that NASA is persuaded by Congress to continue flying the space shuttle to the station twice a year until a suitable replacement vehicle is ready. By that time the Dragon will likely have demonstrated the ability to stay on orbit at the station for months at a time and then execute a safe and controlled reentry. With probably very few modifications, it should be possible to convert the Dragon capsule into a crew life boat once it has delivered its cargo to the station. That's a lifeboat that can seat seven (i.e. the entire ISS crew complement with room to spare).

So long as no problems arise, the crews can be rotated in and out on the shuttle. The Dragon could continue to be used to de-orbit important cargo, but in the event of a emergency situation, it could also be used to return all or just part of the crew. Assuming the Russians still have at least one Soyuz docked to the station, the redundant life-boat capability would mean that the station would not necessarily have to be abandoned if only one or two of the crew needed to be immediately returned to Earth.

So, rather than saying either Dragon or the Shuttle, why not say both. We can make the most out of the Shuttles' extension to really finish building out the ISS. At the same time, the Dragon can be fulfilling a useful role as a lifeboat for the expanded crew without having to rely on the availability of additional Soyuz capsules. When the Falcon 9 / Dragon capsule has been qualified for manned launches, then crew rotations can be transitioned from the Shuttle to the Dragon, and the Shuttles can finally be retired for good.

Dragon, you are up.

2008-08-13T17:15:00.003-05:00

Most of you reading this probably already have heard about the remarks made by Senator Bill Nelson to the Orlando Sentinel (link) concerning the recent actions taken by Russia in South Ossetia and how it will negatively impact the current negotiations for purchasing Soyuz flights beyond 2011. From what I've read in the mainstream media, they have pretty much taken the Senator's statement to mean that we will be effectively cut off from the ISS after the shuttle is retired until Ares/Orion is ready to fly. However, there is an alternative that they seem to be overlooking.

For over a year now, NASA (and Congress) have been avoiding making a decision on whether or not to provide funding for the COTS-D option. With these latest developments, it seems as though Plan A (continue purchasing Soyuz flights ad nauseum) may no longer be politically feasible. That means that Plan B (development of the crewed SpaceX Dragon capsule) may now start getting some serious support, and resources, thrown its way.

There have been some in the mainstream media who have not looked favorably upon SpaceX after its recent third failure to launch the Falcon I rocket. Some doubt that SpaceX will be able to meet its existing COTS commitments, let alone be able to provide crewed launch capability. As one person commented, "If they can't launch the little one, how do they expect to launch the big one?"

The primary purpose of the "little one" is for rigorously testing, debugging, and characterizing the performance of the very same systems that will eventually fly on the "big one". This is a very sound strategy, and once the Falcon I has successfully shaken out all of the bugs in its systems, I would be very surprised if any of the first flights of the Falcon IX vehicle fail to make it into orbit. The design of the Falcon IX vehicle is more robust than that of the Falcon I, and as such it is much more likely to be able to compensate for any remaining small glitches which may crop up and still succeed in its mission.

Elon Musk has stated on several occasions that SpaceX can close the gap in US access to the ISS. Well, now may be the perfect opportunity for him to get the support he needs to complete work on the crewed Dragon and have it on the pad by 2011. Although I suspect that work on the Dragon capsule has been progressing towards crewed capability regardless of whether or not NASA comes through with the COTS-D funds, additional political and financial support would certainly help things along.

The Ares I/Orion was never going to be able to close the gap in US access to the ISS. NASA has been willing to rely on the "devil they know" with access via Russia's Soyuz capsules, but that may no longer be possible. It now seems like the Dragon capsule may be our best hope (our only hope) for uninterrupted access to the ISS.

Dragon, you're up. Let's see what you can do.

2007 Blackburn Academic Symposium (Part 1)

2007-08-26T15:39:00.001-05:00

So, here I was thinking that I'd be the only space blogger within a hundred miles of Tuscaloosa, AL that could get to Burt Rutan's talk at the Inaugural Gloria and John L. Blackburn Academic Symposium at the University of Alabama. Upon arriving however, I find none other than Jeff Foust sitting two rows in front of me. Oh well, so much for the scoop.

Ostensibly, the Blackburn Academic symposium was created as a forum to bring together academic, industrial, and political leaders to discuss issues facing the state of Alabama and the nation. The focus of this inaugural symposium was "Responsibility for the Future Exploration and Development of Space", and the list of invited guests reflected this theme. During the morning, there were two keynote speakers: Burt Rutan, and Dr. David King, director of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The afternoon was taken up by two panels. The first discussed the roles of industry, government, and academia in the future of space exploration. The second featured three astronauts: Col. Jim "Vegas" Kelly, Dr. Jan Davis, and Col. Jim Voss; all of whom are alumni of Alabama universities. The event was free and open to the public.

Certainly, the highlight of the day, for me at least, was the talk by Burt Rutan. The topics brought up in his keynote address seemed to reverberate throughout the rest of the day. Mr. Rutan spoke of the interplay between inspiration and innovation in the field of aerospace, though his comments could certainly have broader application to just about any field of human achievement. The key thesis of his presentation was that nearly everyone who strives to do something difficult and meaningful in their adult lives were inspired by some seminal event or events at a crucial time in their childhood between the ages of 3 and 14. This observation was borne out again and again throughout the day as almost every other speaker at the symposium related their own personal story of childhood inspiration which lead to their desire to work in the area of spaceflight.

Mr. Rutan's own experience was playing with a model airplane in his back yard when a formation of B-52 bombers flew directly overhead. From that point on, he knew that he would work in the world of aviation. Even when he went to college in the mid-60's, during the height of the space race, he steered away from space-related engineering disciplines and focused on general aviation. From there his professional experience lead him down a path which would allow him to be both creative in aircraft design as well as attempt a number of significant aeronautical and aerospace milestones. Among these accomplishments were the Voyager aircraft which circled the globe non-stop back in the 80's, and of course, Space Ship One. He said, "It is important for an entrepreneur to attempt these milestone challenges if it is at all possible."

There was one other significant point brought up by Mr. Rutan, that would reemerge briefly later in the day. One of the main reasons why innovation in aerospace has been stagnating recently is not so much due to a deficiency in our educational system, but because no one has asked for any thing truly remarkable in recent memory. No one has dared to ask for the impossible since President Kennedy challenged America to send a man to the moon. The very best among us are compelled to seek out the most difficult challenges, and they will almost always rise to the occasion when presented with a daunting task. For the past 20 years, most of the innovators have been drawn to the challenges in computing, the internet, and more recently, in biotechnology. There simply have been no compelling challenges put forth in aerospace since the days of the development of the Concorde and the Space Shuttle. I was left to wonder if this deficiency came from a lack of vision or a sudden rise in risk aversion on the part of our nation's leaders.

Dr. David King gave his keynote address immediately following Burt Rutan, but the difference in presentation of the two speakers was striking. While Dr. King spoke of the Vision for Space Exploration and of the need to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers, there was really nothing in his talk which reached in and grabbed me. I felt no emotional attachment to the kind of inspiration he was describing. In contrast, Burt Rutan made the connection almost personal. Rutan spoke to some basic truths in the human spirit and in the imagination which made one feel compelled to do something to fulfill those childhood dreams. Dr. King's talk felt more like taking a pill. Something external to me, which I may or may not be directly responsible for bringing about, is going to somehow make everything better.

The difference in these presentation underscores, at least for me, the perceived difference in approaches to space exploration being undertaken by NASA and the new space industry. NASA seems to be indicating that they will lead by example, and merely by the act of doing these wonderful things, they will inspire young people to become future leaders in science and technology. While this may be true in some sense, I think that the new space approach feels much more personal. The main distinction is of course in the underlying sense that NASA is going to be doing these great things, and oh, the rest of us might get to watch, while many in the new space community seem to be interested in opening up the space frontier for everyone to participate.

Those are my initial impressions of the morning session. I think I have at least one more post in me wherein I will describe the afternoon session and then try to go into more detail about what I perceived to be the recurring themes of the day.

Next up... Sundancer

2007-08-15T05:49:00.001-05:00

This is another article that's been sitting in my edit queue for months. I'm trying to push a few of these ancient articles out of the queue, so I apologize if they are no longer as relevant as when I started working on them. Anyway, I'll leave the original dates on the posts for the record.

Robert Bigelow has recently announced that he and his team at Bigelow Aerospace have decided to skip the launching of the Galaxy class testbed module in favor of expediting the development and deployment of the Sundancer class module. Many reports have expressed surprise at this sudden change in plans; however, Mr. Bigelow had previously given some hints that they would be willing to forgo the launch of the Galaxy/Guardian class module. From an interview with Alan Boyle in September of last year:

For now, Bigelow has back-burnered the idea of sending up an intermediate-sized test vehicle that would not be human-rated - the type of inflatable known as the Galaxy or Guardian class.

Of course, this was contingent upon the successful launch, deployment, and operation of Genesis II, which has come to pass. From that same article:

If everything goes smoothly, "we have decided to try to cut some of the time" from the initially planned development cycle and go directly from Genesis 2 to a "human-occupiable" module, he said.

The most recent announcement cites rising launch costs as an additional factor in their decision. In the end, the expense of preparing and launching the Galaxy module would be far greater than the return they could expect from the vehicle, especially when considering that many of the Galaxy's systems could be validated just as well on the ground. It seems then, that the primary drawback to not orbiting the Galaxy module is that they will not gain any experience operating its more complex systems from the ground under actual on-orbit conditions. But with two modules already operating successfully on-orbit, perhaps they thought at least some of this experience could be gained from their existing assets.

So, there does not seem to be so much new in the recent announcement. Even the expected launch date for the Sundancer module has not changed substantially. From last September's article:

Bigelow told me that the latest timetable calls for the Sundancer to go into orbit in late 2009 or early 2010.

This launch was slated to be aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket. There is no word yet as to whether or not these plans have been changed. I think it's probably safe to say, for the moment that the Sundancer will probably be one of the first payloads to fly on the Falcon 9 when it becomes available.

ISDC 2007 - Day One

2007-05-26T05:11:00.000-05:00

Well, I figure I should report my impressions of day one at the International Space Development Conference before I read any one else's , and while it's still somewhat fresh in my mind.

First of all, I have a little gripe. The traffic in and around Dallas is a nightmare. I don't know how it stacks up against other major metropolitan areas, but I've been stuck in Dallas traffic for a total of five hours now, and I've only been here two days. From what I'm beginning to learn from some locals is that the conference location at the Hotel Intercontinental could not be in a worse location as far as commuting goes. Hopefully the weekend traffic will be more merciful, although I'm skeptical since it is Memorial Day weekend.

I did get to see Shannon Lucid and Don Pettit give their presentation in the morning. During and after the lunch break I spent some time talking with folks in the halls and at the displays. This is the first ISDC I have attended, and really my first space related conference. So, it was fun talking to other people who are as passionate about space as I am.

The presentation by Drs. Lucid and Pettit was mostly about the mindset of living and working on the frontier. As both of them have been on long duration missions (six months on Mir for Dr. Lucid, and six months on ISS for Dr. Pettit), they have a unique perspective on life on the new frontier. Dr. Pettit has also recently taken part in a trek across Antarctica looking for meteorites; a journey which he paralleled with his stay on the ISS.

The pair discussed many different aspects of frontier life, but the one I was most interested in was the science of opportunity discussed by Dr. Pettit. He described the ISS and Antarctica as non-intuitive environments: places where everyday can bring new and unexpected experiences. In these environments, discoveries are just waiting to be made.

I wish he would have spent more time talking about those moments of discovery. In my opinion, this is one of the most important reasons why we are sending people into space. Most of the low-hanging fruit, in terms of scientific discovery, have been picked. To make new discoveries, someone has to study new phenomena, or possibly even well known phenomena in new environments. On Earth, this requires spending increasing large amounts to create these new environments in particle accelerators. However, their are many things about the universe that we take for granted just simply because we experience them every day. These things become part of our intuition and typically get pushed to the back of minds. By experiencing the non-intuitive environments, as Dr. Pettit describes, "...we can become children again, and experience the world with a child's curiosity". (quote paraphrased)

After lunch, I got to spend some time talking with James Bauer of Armadillo Aerospace. It is truly amazing what this small group has been able to accomplish. I can't help but think of Steve Wozniack hacking together the first Apple computers in his garage and the effect that effort had on the world of computing. I think that John Carmack and his team are poised to do the same thing for the world of rocketry.

Yes, Pixel was on display, and I got to tell you that this is an impressive machine. It's impressive mostly because it looks so simple. I've been to several Air & Space museums and have seen some of the rocket engines developed by and for NASA. Those things are a maze of wires and tubes and components. I think you really have to know what you are looking at to truly appreciate their design. However, Pixel is the very model of simplicity. I'm not trying to trivialize their work. I think the simplicity of their design is brilliant. Less parts means less things that could fail, which means (or could mean) greater reliability. It also means that they are cheaper and easier to build than your typical rocket engine; a feature the they intend to capitalize on as they move towards building their modular rocket design.

I also had the opportunity to talk with Tom Ligon of Energy Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC²). I've got to say that the system he is describing seems almost too good to be true. He claims that the power output of the fusor reactor scales with the seventh power of reactor radius. I asked him if there were any upper limits to this scaling. He replied that Dr. Bussard has thus far only considered reactor designs up to 6 meters in diameter. That is an enormous amount of energy. We're talking about 6 GW out of a roughly 6 meter diameter reactor (if I'm remembering correctly), and the output goes straight to DC; no more heat water turn turbine.

When someone makes that kind of prediction and only has preliminary experimental data to back it up, I can understand why it would meet with some skepticism. Still, if they are successful, this technology could literally change the world. Given that potential, I don't see why they would have any difficulty raising a couple of hundred million dollars they need to definitively establish its viability. But that's just it. I get the sense that the effort is strapped for cash. I have seen bigger grants awarded to academic institutions to conduct basic research. So, I can't help but think that there may be other factors at work behind the scenes.

Anyway, that's all for now. I try to post more in the next couple of days as I have time.

Second Carnival of Space

2007-05-11T17:35:00.000-05:00

The second Carnival of Space is up and I actually have a submission in it. Hopefully, these carnivals will give me more incentive to write a post somewhat more frequently than once in a blue moon.

I do have a few ideas that I've been mulling over. However, the desire to complete my dissertation research has been trumping my desire to blog for a while now, and it will most likely continue to do so for the next few months. Still, I will try to make an effort to post a couple of times a month just to keep the Ol' blog from getting dusty.

Ad Astra Per Aspera.

Bigelow Technology

2007-05-09T20:47:00.000-05:00

Wow, this post has been sitting in my edit queue since last September. I think it's about time it saw the light of day. Jon Goff at Selenian Boondocks is once again on a roll with his Random Thoughts posts, and one of them actually hits pretty close to an idea that I've been considering for a while now. I hope to take some inspiration from Jon and try to post my half-baked ideas more often.

For some time now I've been contemplating alternative uses for Bigelow's habitats, as has Jon Goff (here and here). Jon mentions that there are many potential uses for the half-scale version, particularly when considering habitable structures that you want to move somewhere besides LEO. If I'm interpreting Jon correctly, he's advocating something similar to what I've come to think of as the Conestoga wagon of spacecraft. For the foreseeable future, this is probably going to be the easiest way to assemble a spacecraft off-Earth and I sincerely hope that Mr. Bigelow considers offering the Sundancer, or similarly sized module for such applications.

So, let's review what we know about Bigelow's plans. We'll start with some of the obvious applications for the habitat modules, for which Mr. Bigelow has provided some hints. In addition to the self-contained habitation modules (Sundancer and BA330) for use in LEO, he has also talked about assembling a lunar base at the L1 point, and then landing the whole thing at once on the lunar surface. Habitat modules for a base on Mars (or Phobos) would also not be that much of a stretch to imagine. The original Transhab, upon which the current modules are based, were designed to serve as crew habitats for a Mars-bound space craft. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the BA330, or a derivative thereof, eventually becomes the core of a reusable spacecraft for facilitating inner solar system exploration. A cislunar or cismartian cycler would be a useful application. However, in the near term, we would probably be more likely to see these modules being used as disposable service modules for extended manned missions beyond LEO (Moon, Mars, asteroids, etc.)

Mr. Bigelow has also recently stated that he intends to start trying to attract commercial interests as well as foreign governments as potential clients for leasing space aboard his habitats. The quoted lease rates seem very reasonable and could significantly lower the barrier to entry for parties wishing to conduct commercial activities in space. If he is successful, then this will mark a major turning point in the history of space exploration and development. This is the kind of reimagining of the future that we need to see more often.

As for myself, I find that the applications I tend to imagine generally fall into one of two categories: what can you do with prefabricated modules (or slightly modified variations), and what could you do with the materials and assembly techniques that are currently being developed to manufacture these modules.

Some time ago, I remember reading the patent granted to Bigelow Aerospace for the inflatable satellite bus and I began thinking about the types of payloads that one might integrate with a Bigelow habitat that would (a) benefit from the presence of a human crew, and (b) make the most use out of having access to both a shirt-sleeve environment and ready access to a perfect vacuum and/or microgravity environment. I came up with several possibilities, but the one I found most interesting was for an advanced propulsion laboratory.

Consider, if you will, installing a VASIMR engine inside of a Sundancer or BA-330. These modules would provide an ideal laboratory environment in which to develop and test the rocket design. If you've ever seen pictures of the VASIMR experimental setup, you realize that most of that structure is the vacuum chamber. The actual rocket is quite small by comparison. The entire structure could be made to fit inside of a Sundancer module with room to spare. Such propulsion modules could even eventually be used as components of larger spacecraft. Imagine being able to work on a spacecraft's engines without having to perform a risky EVA.

Any number of experimental testbed platforms could be constructed in a similar manner. (Hmmm... a crewed Hubble Space Telescope...). Even if the platform is not crewed full time, the ability to make repairs and upgrades in a shirt sleeve environment sounds very appealing to me.

It also occurs to me that the materials and technologies being developed at Bigelow Aerospace may have even more far reaching applications. For example, consider a future in which the material used to construct the various layers of the outer hull of the Bigelow habitats is delivered to orbit in bulk where it can then be assembled into a hull for a spacecraft or spacestation in essentially any arbitrary configuration. These materials and the hull designs would represent an amazing leap forward in our ability to build structures in space. Spacecraft and spacestation designs need no longer be confined to TinkerToy-like structures. We would no longer restricted to thinking in terms of aluminum canisters which are restricted in size and shape by the geometry of the payload fairing of their launchers.

Granted, there will need to be alot of research into how to actually do construction of this nature on-orbit, but I'm sure this is something we should be able to figure out within the next ten years. I would hope, though, that once Bigelow has a revenue stream being generated from his first few orbital stations, that he reserve at least one for his own use as an R&D shop.

These techniques will eventually have to be developed if we are ever going to establish a significant off-world presence. Up until now, the dual technical hurdles of delivering suitable construction materials to orbit and assembling them on a large scale have seemed almost insurmountable. Now, for the first time, I can finally begin to see how both of these difficulties may be overcome.

Bigelow's Galaxy Module

2007-04-20T07:31:00.000-05:00

There are a couple of new items up on the Bigelow Aerospace website. Here is a page showing a size comparison of the four modules that are currently being developed, and here is a page giving more details describing their next module, the Galaxy.

The article mentions that the Galaxy will have 45% more usable volume than the Genesis modules, but you sure couldn't tell that by looking at it in the size comparison graphic. However, if you do some simple calculations from the specs provided you can see that the outer volume is also increasing by about 50%. Galaxy is shorter by about half a meter, but it makes up for it by being about three-quarters of a meter wider.

The new module will also try out a number of new power, guidance, communication, and life support capabilities. Whereas the Genesis modules were designed to test out the technologies and techniques related to the flexible, inflatable structure, it appears that the Galaxy module will begin testing the more advanced systems which will eventually be needed by the habitable Sundancer and BA330 modules.

The first Galaxy module is currently schedule for a Fall 2008 launch. With the way things have been going in the launch industry that could easily slip into 2009. It's interesting to note that with the guidance updates and the addition of an access hatch, it might be possible to use the Galaxy module as a test platform to practice rendezvous, proximity and maybe even docking operations. This may be useful if, for any reason, the Sundancer module is delayed significantly beyond its 2009-2010 launch date.

Mars Rovers on the Futures Channel

2007-03-13T15:06:00.000-05:00

Just got an email update from the Futures Channel. They have a new short film up on the Mars Rovers.

http://www.thefutureschannel.com/dockets/hands-on_math/reliable_robots/index.php

Two of the engineers who work on designing robotic rovers discuss what it takes to make a robotic system which is reliable and robust enough to send to the most remote destinations. If any one part of it fails, the rest of the systems should still be able to carry on in some fashion to complete the mission.

While it's true that if something goes wrong there's nobody around to fix it, I can't help but wonder if it would be all that difficult to build an independent micro-repair-bot that would piggy-back on the rover. (Think R2-D2 from Star Wars, or DRD's from Farscape, but smaller.) Then if something should fail on the rover, the ground controllers would have a means for getting a detailed report on the status of the robot. It could do some basic maintenance (like clearing dust off of the solar arrays, or removing a rock jammed in the wheels), or possibly more sophisticated (like replacing or bypassing a failed electronic component).

When we get to the point when the robots that we send out into the cosmos are adaptable, reconfigurable, and repairable without requiring human presence, then we may begin to see some interesting possibilities for what can be accomplished by robotic explorers. Until then, they will continue to be simple extensions of our own senses, mere tools with which we manipulate the universe.

Robotic Astronomy

2007-01-14T15:47:00.000-06:00

I knew it probably wouldn't take very long to find people writing about robots and robotics being used in space exploration. Take for example this recent article over at Universe Today. The first half of the article discusses the history of robotics, both in early sci-fi literature and more recently in everyday usage in industry and the home. The article ends with a description of the emergence of the robotic observatory. These observatories are further enhancing the already impressive capability of amateur astronomers to make significant contributions to the field.

This type of technology will almost certainly be deployed when NASA returns to the moon. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the first things they do upon their return is to set up a robotic observatory. Even a relatively modest setup could potentially rival some of the capabilities of the Hubble space telescope. Being located in close proximity to the proposed lunar outpost, the observatory could be upgraded and repaired on a fairly frequent basis (assuming the continuing presence of astronauts at the outpost and frequent resupply transports). With proper planning of upgrades, the capabilities of a lunar observatory could eventually be expanded far beyond that of the Hubble.

In other news, Google is pitching in to help with the data management aspects of a new astronomy collaboration which intends to capture the night sky in motion. Last month Google also announced that it would be teaming up with NASA at Ames Research Lab to help them handle the vast amounts of data that have been pouring in from the agency's robotic probes for the last fifty years.

For astronomers, data glut has always seemed to be a problem. It seems like every new instrument or observatory that comes online is capable of generating many times the amount of data than its operators can reasonably process. For a good example of how this data glut is benefiting one particular astronomer, take a look at this article by Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy regarding the Hubble parallel program. The good news is that much of this information is quickly released to the public. The bad news is that the information is not always easily accessible. Hopefully, Google will be able to help in that respect.

And finally (for this post anyway), Bruce Irving over at Music of the Spheres posts a brief observation about the proliferation of robotics in the home.

A new year, a new focus.

2007-01-03T22:22:00.000-06:00

Well, it happened. I have pretty much let this blog atrophy into irrelevance. (Not that it was ever relevant to anyone other than myself.) The thing is, I find myself at a decided disadvantage. There are so many excellent spaceflight related blogs out there, and they all seem to be run by much more qualified individuals than myself and who apparently have much more free time to blog than I do. These individuals do such an excellent job covering the latest "new space" news and speculating on possible future spaceflight architectures that I find I have very little additional insights to offer to the discussion.

I've also been thinking alot about what I'm going to be doing next with my life. I'm nearing the completion of my dissertation research in Computational Engineering, and am beginning to look forward to doing something useful in the area of spaceflight research and development. Since I started this degree program, so much has happened in the area of spaceflight and so many opportunities have opened up, that I can't wait to get out there and start contributing.

Of course, my personal goal all along has been to one day become an astronaut. However, I find that the particular set of research skills I have been developing over the past several years (developing computational simulation technology in support of NASA engineers designing and building the next generation of rocket engines) may not be directly applicable to the duties of an astronaut. At best, I am on track to become a rocket scientist, or propulsion engineer for NASA or any of the emerging companies focused on space launch and transport. In the near term, advanced propulsion technologies are fascinating to me and I would love to have the opportunity to work directly on the development of new rocket engines. However, in the longer term, I am concerned that this particular career path may not put me in demand when in comes to being selected for astronaut duty.

In light of all of this introspection, I've been reviewing my interests, talents, and experience to date, and I think I've found a field of expertise that may be much more relevant to astronauts in the very near future. The way I see it, when people finally start going into space to get some real work done, there will most likely be a great need for robotic assistants to accomplish many difficult and dangerous tasks. An astronaut trained to operate, repair, and modify these robotic helpers would be invaluable. I've always had an interest in robotics and a talent with computers and programming. I also have some limited experience designing and building a very primitive robot for my Masters thesis project (an automated data acquisition apparatus in which a PC ran the experiment, collected the data, and presented the results to the user).

So, with the new year upon us, I have decided to begin to look into the current state of the art, and near future possibilities, of robotics, with particular emphasis on space exploration applications. I will attempt to document my research on this blog. I do not yet know if there are others out there already blogging this particular angle on space exploration, but I hope I will be able to compile and distill some useful information that may be of interest to others.

Ad Astra, Per Aspera

Sundancer

2006-09-24T10:30:00.000-05:00

Alan Boyle has interviewed Robert Bigelow and has managed to confirm that the next module to fly after the Genesis II will be a man-rated module named Sundancer.

For now, Bigelow has back-burnered the idea of sending up an intermediate-sized test vehicle that would not be human-rated - the type of inflatable known as the Galaxy or Guardian class.

This is, of course, contingent on the next Genesis flight going well.

If everything goes smoothly, "we have decided to try to cut some of the time" from the initially planned development cycle and go directly from Genesis 2 to a "human-occupiable" module, he said.

So, my prediction wasn't that far off after all. The BA-330 module will not be ready until the 2011-2012 time frame, but the half-scale Sundancer module will be ready sometime in late 2009 or early 2010.

This is actually a very sound plan as it will allow them to establish a viable destination early. This will, hopefully, spark a demand for habitable volume on orbit which he will be able to expand upon fairly rapidly as the BA-330 comes online a couple of years later.

I do hope, though, that they continue to offer the Sundancer module as an alternative to the BA-330. There are probably alot of uses to which a module of that size could be put to use that wouldn't be practical for the BA-330. More on that later.

A thought about Bigelow's plans

2006-09-02T10:32:00.000-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, Robert Bigelow made a somewhat cryptic announcement.

Las Vegas, Nevada – August 11, 2006, 3 p.m. PDT
Due to a number of factors related to the outstanding performance of Genesis I, the hoped-for adequate performance of Genesis II and various additional factors — including, but not limited to, domestic and international issues forecast over the next four to five years bearing upon America’s transportation and launch deficits — we have made several bold decisions. An important announcement early in 2007 subsequent to the launch of Genesis II shall expose some of our plans.

The motivation for this announcement was not well understood at the time; however, there seemed to be plenty of speculation. Some of the more interesting theories were based on some rather sketchy information revealed in a patent filed in November of 2004 and granted in November of 2005.

Then, last week Robert Bigelow appeared as a guest on The Space Show with Dr. David Livingston for a two hour long interview. Based on some of his comments during the show, I'm willing to venture a guess that the bold decisions are related to an acceleration of their development and deployment schedule.

(From about 1:10 into the program)
Guardian was a certain sized spacecraft that we decided not to fly mainly because we did not have a lifting vehicle that fit that fit that particular weight class and that size.

As far as I know, there has not been any other mention in the media about this. Of course I could easily have missed something. I also have not heard of there being any other development stage between Genesis II and the BA330 besides the Guardian. So, my conclusion is that they may be planning to skip over their second generation design and go directly to the deployment of a full BA330 module.

Any one else care to venture another theory?

[Update: 09/15/2006] Well, never mind. I have apparently forgotten about the Galaxy class module which will be the next intermediate-sized module flying after the Genesis II. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Go up young man!

2006-09-02T10:19:00.000-05:00

I remember thinking a few years ago that space settlement would never become a practical reality until we had the equivalent of the Conestoga wagon. The wagon provided an economical means for transporting people and large amounts of cargo over difficult terrain. The fact that these vehicles were inexpensive to own and operate meant that a wide variety of people could use them for a wide variety of purposes. Commerce naturally ensued which, in turn, enabled rapid settlement to occur by providing a means to transport essential goods and supplies to those who chose to make a living on the frontier and would eventually call it home.

These thoughts returned to me recently while considering the successful launch and operation of the Genesis module by Bigelow Aerospace. It suddenly seemed obvious to me that the modules currently being designed and built by Bigelow Aerospace could very well be the predecessors of the modern equivalent to the Conestoga wagon. The only thing missing is a reliable propulsion module which can be maintained and refueled in space. Judging by some of the graphics depicted on the Bigelow Aerospace website, they may have had this sort of application in mind for future development.

I have more thoughts on other applications for Bigleow's inflatable structures as well as the use of flexible, yet very durable, building materials for construction of large scale structures in space. Hopefully I'll be able to get my thoughts organized before the servers at work come back up and I get sucked back into my research.

Comments welcomed

2006-09-02T04:46:00.000-05:00

My apologies to the half-dozen or so people who tried to leave comments on my earlier posts. Apparently, the comment moderation setting was turned on, but Blogger wasn't notifying me that I had any (at least not in any obvious way). Anyway, I turned off the moderation feature, so feel free to comment at your leisure. Of course, if I start getting comment spam I'll have to turn it back on again, but for now, the traffic to this blog is so low that I don't know why any one would bother spamming it.

So, what do you think about Pluto being demoted?

2006-09-01T10:03:00.000-05:00

This is the question I've been asked by no fewer than a half-dozen friends and family. Presumably, they think I must have an opinion on the subject since I'm probably the biggest space-nut they know. Well, it just so happens that I have been following the debate, and I have formed an opinion.

This issue has been hashed and rehashed for weeks in the media so I will not recount all of the arguments for or against retaining Pluto as a planet. My opinion on the matter is not very surprising or revolutionary, but it is ultimately pragmatic.

When asked how I feel about the IAU's decision to redefine the word planet, I turn the question around ask the person what they think a planet is. The responses vary only by a little, but it seems that everyone already has a sense of what a planet is. This speaks directly to the difficulty that the IAU will have in trying to get their new definition accepted. The word is already in common usage, and is already known by nearly everyone on the face of the Earth. While the new technical definition of planet may serve to resolve some issues amongst astronomers, everyone else will be left scratching their head.

"Ok, large body which orbits the Sun. Check."
"Um, does not orbit another larger nearby body. That would be a moon. Ok, check."
"Has managed to clear out its orbit? Huh? What the heck does that mean?"

And there is the problem. That last little criteria (which I'm sure was thrown in there to exclude Ceres, Vesta, 2003 UB313 (a.k.a. Xena) and other similar bodies) seems like an ad hoc kludge, or worse still an arbitrary requirement meant to exclude someone or something from an exclusive group. (By the way, does anyone really believe that Mercury cleared its orbit all by itself? Or for that matter, I think the orbits of Venus, Earth, and Mars are still quite littered with debris. Don't believe me? Have a look at this or this.)

So, we return to the heart of the matter. What is a planet? Well, since the word is already in common usage, I think it very unlikely that any effort to redefine it is going to be successful. The word has already accumulated too much cultural baggage and the family of planets around our sun has been established for more than a century now as consisting of: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Instead of trying to redefine this word and then having to go through all of the trouble of reeducating the public (which they will most likely resist), why not just let the word, and all of its current connotations, stand as is. Astronomers could then choose some new terminology which will allow them to converse without having to resort to using the non-technical term planet.

I personally like the idea put forth by Dr. deGrasse Tyson of the Hayden Planetarium. He advocates the usage of terms which describe the various families of bodies which inhabit the solar system. The gas giants would include Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune; the terrestrials would include Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars; the asteroids would, of course, include Ceres and Vesta; Kuiper belt objects would then encompass Pluto, Charon, 2003 UB313 (Xena), Sedna, and other similar bodies yet to be discovered; and finally Oort cloud bodies. Each of these families possess distinct traits which would, by association, establish some common knowledge about the basic properties of the bodies within each category.

I think this kind of taxonomy is more likely to be widely accepted than the attempt to redefine planets based on the new IAU criteria. Humans are good at categorization if they can be shown how the categories are different. The more distinct the categories are, the easier it is to keep them straight. Ultimately, that is why the new definition of planet will not stick. As far as most people are concerned, the distinction of planet from not planet under the new definition is pretty slim, especially when considering that the accepted planets are not all that similar to begin with.

More on capturing asteroids

2006-08-12T07:19:00.000-05:00

It seems like I read something about this in the news a couple of weeks ago, but I can't find the reference now. Anyway, Centauri Dreams has a post reviewing a paper by Didier Massonnet and Benoit Meyssignac. A Novel Strategy for Asteroid Deflection

Essentially, we capture a near Earth asteroid and park it at L1 or L2. If the Earth is ever threatened by a cometary or asteroidal impact, then the captured asteroid can be maneuvered into the path of the oncoming object to either deflect it or break it up. This is one of those ideas that make perfect sense once you hear them, but it sometimes takes a rather insightful person to come up with it in the first place. It gives new meaning to the old expression "Fight fire with fire."

There are two potential drawbacks to this plan that I can see right away. The first is the propulsive requirements to first capture the shielding asteroid, and then to move it again into the path of the approaching object. Of course these requirements would likely depend on the mass and orbital elements of the shielding asteroid, but I'm sure some kind of lower bound could be computed to give us some idea of the magnitude of effort that would be involved in such a plan.

Assuming, however, that the asteroid can be suitably maneuvered, there is always the chance that introducing a second body of significant mass would just make matters worse. There is always a little bit of margin for error in orbital calculations, and that error gets more significant when massive bodies come in close contact. I'm sure that such a plan would not be put into effect unless it were clear that the intervention were necessary and the outcome, whatever it may be, preferable to doing nothing.

Anyway, the Centauri Dreams post goes on to talk about some alternative uses for a captured asteroid, namely fuel production. As long as you have a massive chunk of raw materials nearby, you might as well make some good use of it.

Personally, I think there are probably a great number of benefits that could be realized from having one or more asteroids in close proximity to the Earth, most of which we haven't even thought of yet. It will be very difficult to establish any kind of significant off-world human presence without having a large amount of material resources readily available. That is why the moon is such an important destination for the near-term future of manned space exploration. There are abundant natural resources available on the moon, the explotation of which will open up vast new possibilities for human activity off-Earth.

Building a better rocket

2006-08-10T09:00:00.000-05:00

Just thought I'd comment a little bit more on this bit of news that I found through a post over at RLV news. Some interesting excerpts from the article.

The NASA-funded research at Purdue focuses on liquid-fueled rockets. Specifically, the work deals with understanding how fuel and oxidizer interact inside the rocket engine's fuel injectors to cause unstable combustion. The instability results in extreme bursts of heat and pressure fluctuations that could lead to accidents and hardware damage.

a.k.a. Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly

"Combustion instability is a complex phenomenon that has hindered rocket development since the beginning of the Space Age," said Nicholas Nugent, a doctoral student in Purdue's School of Aeronautics and Astronautics. "We have to learn more about instability before future engines can be developed and used for space flight. Predicting combustion instability is one of the most difficult aspects of developing a rocket engine."

"The main purpose of the work is to generate combustion and instability data so that other researchers can develop better computational models for designing rocket engines," Nugent said. "We are generating benchmark data that will improve the design analysis of all types of rocket engines."

This work is actually just one small part of a much larger research effort aimed at improving the design and analysis tools available to rocket designers. The research is being conducted by a large consortium of university researchers which is referred to as the Constellation University Institute Program. The specific collaboration that these researchers, as well as myself and my advisor, are a part of is the Thrust Chamber Assembly (TCA) Virtual Institute. The aim of the research is to improve the state of the art in design tools and predictive simulation technology for engineers designing rocket engines.

For many engineering disciplines there exist some fairly reliable computational design tools which are employed regularly by engineers to refine their designs before being required to build and test actual physical prototypes. However due to the extreme environments and the complexity of the many coupled physical processes inside a rocket engine (fluid dynamics, chemical reactions, thermodynamics, acoustics, structural mechanics), it has been nearly impossible to develop similar tools for rocket designers. Consequently, rocket development must rely heavily on emperical models that have been developed through trial and error over the past few decades.

The part of this problem that we, and a few others, are working on is the development of a computational fluid dynamics solver capable of accurately modeling the extreme flow environment inside of a rocket engine. We're talking everything from the injection of cryrogenic propellants to the combustion of the fuel and oxidizer to the accurate simulation of unsteady turbulent high Reynolds number flows. This flow simulation will also be coupled with acoustic, thermal, and structural simulations to create the first predictive simulation tool for rocket designers. However, before we can trust the simulation, our code must be validated against the experimental results being generated by several other research groups. The researchers at Purdue are one of these groups.

In the end, we would like to provide rocket designers with a tool which they can use to determine the optimal configuration of a given thrust chamber assembly. By simulating the performance of their designs before testing them, it should be possible to eliminate many redundant or excessively over-designed features which have heretofore been necessary to ensure the engine will not fail. This could potentially allow the development of a whole new generation of lighter and more efficient rocket engines.

Back in May, I attended a workshop in Huntsville where we discussed the current state of TCA research and near term directions. I still have my notes around here somewhere. If I can find them, and a little spare time, I will try to post some highlights from the meeting.

Capturing asteroids

2006-06-14T11:35:00.000-05:00

I've always wondered what it would take to capture an asteroid into a parking orbit somewhere out beyond GEO (geosynchronous orbit). Such a body would be handy to have nearby in that it would allow us to go out and practice a little prospecting without getting too far away from home. My thoughts on this are often stymied by the fact that it would require a lot more effort than we would be able to muster any time soon to redirect such an asteroid into a friendly co-orbit with the Earth.

Then I noticed this article which seems to indicate that we get visited fairly often by asteroids which drift close enough and just fast enough to get caught in our gravity well for a short time. They suggest that these space rocks may be let in, and eventually let out again, through transient gravitational gateways. These low energy paths are thought to arise out of the chaotic relationships between the various gravitational bodies in the solar system and has been dubbed the interplanetary superhighway.

Incidently, there is an asteroid which is currently sharing a somewhat stable orbit with the Earth. This is the so-called second moon, Cruithne. Unfortunately, it does not remain in the proximity of Earth for very long. It spends most of it's orbit out of phase with the Earth (i.e. lagging or leading the Earth in its orbit).

So anyway, this got me to thinking about capturing asteroids again and I was curious about what would be required to nudge one of these visiting bodies into a more stable orbit. Obviously a lot of this would be dependent upon the characteristics of the asteroid and its orbit. If a favorable candidate could be identified in time, and the B612 foundation has developed a suitable technique for alerting the path of an asteroid, then could we actually capture a whole asteroid and have it conveniently at our disposal?

This sounds like an excellent simulation to run in Orbiter (Hi, Bruce!).

In a Heartbeat

2006-05-20T22:02:00.000-05:00

Note: I've been real busy lately and haven't had time to post much. This particular post has been in my queue for a couple of months now.

Mike Griffin came to MSU (Mississippi State) a couple of months ago to give the inaugural lecture in the Giles Lecture series. The event was well attended and the question and answer session was at least as enlightening as the prepared speech. I actually got to ask the first and last questions of him after his speech. I will give my impressions of his speech and the Q&A below. Please note that I am posting from memory alone (stupid camcorder batteries) and will be paraphrasing the responses of Dr. Griffin. If anyone out there has a link to an official transcript or access to a recording of the event, I would be grateful for that information.

Update: I finally found the link to the transcript

The first half-hour of the speech was a lot of things that I had heard or read about before. (Part of the hazards of following just about every new development coming from NASA and the private spaceflight sector. Eventually you'll start hearing the same things over and over again.) He began by talking about the new motivation for the agency in the form of the Vision for Space Exploration, and how the students in the room might be able to take part in this new era of exploration and discovery. He mentioned that NASA would have needs for talented individuals in a wide variety of fields; not just science and engineering, but also business and management. He also spent a few minutes providing justification for the investment of our tax-dollars in the space program and the benefits that our society enjoys when we invest just a little bit of our resources on opening up new horizons, as opposed to turning in on ourselves and stagnating.

The last ten minutes or so, he talked about some of the new collaborations between NASA and MSU. He mentioned my advisor by name. (We're working on next generation CFD solvers for modeling rockets and rocket engines.) He also announced that our Geospatial Resource Institute would be working on a database system which would act as a clearing house for much of the Earth observation and remote sensing data that NASA handles.

Then Dr. Griffin took our questions. As I mentioned, I got the first and last questions in. My first question was really just to satisfy my own curiosity. After hearing about all of his advanced degrees, I just had to ask him: "So, how long were you in graduate school anyway?" His response was that the only time he was a full time student was the three years it took him to get his PhD. He said that whenever he would take a new job somewhere near a university, he would take some classes, and 30 or so credit hours later, he'd have another degree.

Someone else asked Dr. Griffin about his opinion of the new private spaceflight industry. He replied that he had put a lot of effort into getting the half-billion dollars allocated for the COTS program, and so obviously he was a strong supporter of their efforts. He wants to see them succeed.

I spent a few minutes preparing my next question; something I've been wondering about for some time now. And so for the final question I asked, "If these newer companies come through and provide commercial ISS resupply by 2010, would he then support allocating more funds for the inclusion of these companies into the lunar architecture. His reply was immediate, "In a heartbeat".

I then asked the obvious followup question: "So how would that effect the billions of dollars that are going to be poured into the major aerospace contractors over the next few years to begin developing elements of the lunar architecture?" The reply to this question was much longer, but the general gist was that he would not expect that these companies would be able to grow themselves into the size required to support the development of lunar exploration architecture and still be as small and nimble as they are now. If they can prove themselves capable of doing the "mundane tasks" of orbital delivery of crew and cargo, then they could take their place among the ranks of contractors who can credibly propose solutions to more difficult missions. He reiterated his view that NASA should not be doing the "easy things" (like LEO access), but should instead be focused on the "hard things" (like going places that commercial sector could not or would not be going to in the near term). Unfortunately, he did not indicate that he intended to extend the COTS like procurement strategy to these "hard problems".

Risk and Reward

2006-03-09T11:46:00.000-06:00

James Oberg has written an informative piece over at MSNBC. This article gives more details about the loss of the Mars Observer and Mars Climate Orbiter that I've ever heard before. I've been unsatisfied with the one-line excuses put forth by the media for the loss of these mission. These excuses have largely had the effect of making the engineers look incompetent when, if anything, it's been poor management practices which are ultimately to blame.

Mr. Oberg finishes the article by noting that the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter will benefit from lessons learned from these earlier missions. He also points out that these lessons should be more widely publicized so that other mission managers who may not have direct access to the mission failure reports will not have to learn them the lessons the hard way.

I am still somewhat ambivalent about these conclusions. On the one hand, I tend to think that all failures can be learned from and in these instances, certainly technical lessons were learned and put to good use on future missions. On the other hand, it's harder to see if the failure of project management has provided similar lessons and if those lessons have been taken to heart.

Why does it seem like mitigating program related risks is most often accomplished by adding more management? From where I sit, it seems like adding more management may increase reliability marginally, but at a much higher cost to the mission budget. For example, a recent article at NASA Watch talks about the cost overruns for the James Webb Space Telescope. Of the specific costs mentioned, nearly all seem to be a management solution to reducing risk. (I'm not sure why it cost $520 million to delay a decision about which launch vehicle to use, but I'm sure such a decision probably had a trickle down affect on may other decisions all of which had their own cost.)

As a counter example, consider the recent accomplishments of TSpace and SpaceX. Both have put together relatively small teams of engineers to bend metal and reduce program risk through building and testing of actual hardware. Now neither company has done anything as complex as building and launching interplanetary probe, although SpaceX has come very close with it's Falcon launcher and it's prototype Dragon capsule. My point is that these new companies are managing their perceived risks by facing them head on and staring them down rather than hedging their bets and slapping on additional layers of red tape.

NASA to commercialize VASIMR

2006-01-24T08:07:00.000-06:00

I've been researching the VASIMR engine for the past couple of weeks so that I could post a review over its progress. Today I get a Google Alert that NASA is transferring the VASIMR development to Ad Astra Rocket Company. Agreement to Commercialize Advanced NASA Rocket Concept; Former Astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz to Lead Effort: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

Upon closer inspection, I found that Ad Astra Rocket, Co. was incorporated by Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz early last year specifically to commercialize the VASIMR engine and its associated technologies. A seven time shuttle astronaut and director of the Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory at Johnson Space Center, Dr. Chang-Diaz has been working on the VASIMR engine concept since 1979. He retired from NASA in July of last year to work on VASIMR for Ad Astra Rockets.

I'm almost done looking up information for my post about the VASIMR engine. Hopefully I'll have it posted sometime in the next week.

Bootstrapping the On-Orbit Fuel Depot

2006-01-04T18:28:00.000-06:00

Ok, so Griffin says he wants the private sector to set up an on-orbit fuel depot. He has even said that this could make some lucky entrepreneur very wealthy. Since most new space entrepreneurs are currently tied up with trying to reach orbit in a somewhat economical manner, it may be a while before anyone attempts to take him up on his challenge. This need not be the case.

My first thought was that the cost for developing the hardware and techniques for launching, storing, and transferring propellant on-orbit would be prohibitively expensive for any startup company to manage. For one thing, I'm pretty sure the Russians are the only ones who regularly do propellant transfer on orbit (from the Progress resupply vehicles to the Zvezda service module). As far as I'm aware, the US does not have very much experience with these kinds of operations, and so far NASA has not been able to find room in the budget to squeeze in this kind R&D into the ESAS.

But then it occured to me that we can use the ISS core complete as a testbed for developing the technology for an eventual stand-alone fuel depot. This can be accomplished using the existing (and soon to be flown) infrastructure on the station with the addition of maybe a couple of extra off-the-shelf components.

Currently, the ISS generates oxygen for the astronauts by electrolyzing water using the Russian Elektron unit. The hydrogen released from this process is vented into space as waste. In addition, carbon-dioxide must also be scrubbed from the air and vented. This always struck me as a rather wasteful way to handle life support.

Then, while looking for more information about life support on the ISS, I came across this article at the Science@NASA website. The article describes the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) that is to be integrated into Node 3. It mentions that the engineers left space on the ECLSS rack for a Sebatier reactor. This is a device which would combine the hydrogen from electrolysis with the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to produce methane and water. (4H₂ + CO₂ -> CH₄ + 2H₂O). The water could be cycled back into the electrolyzer to reclaim the oxygen that otherwise would have been vented as CO₂ and the methane is a perfectly good rocket fuel which can be safely stored for long periods of time.

So, just using these components, it should be easy for NASA (or some other company interested in providing a fuel depot) to begin getting experience handling fuel on-orbit. In my mind, this would be a very prudent course of action to follow. The potential to begin a real off world economy will begin with fuel and energy production. Just to get things started, imagine how much the presence of this fuel depot would improve the business case for developing reusable space tugs. At the end of each mission, they could return to the ISS and top off their tanks, thereby becoming the first fully reusable spacecraft.

Not Just Science

2005-12-20T06:29:00.000-06:00

geek.com put up a brief post about the latest news in the ongoing shuttle repairs. I posted a reply which I hope gets people thinking a little bit deeper about human spaceflight. I thought I'd repost my comment here just in case anyone would like to discuss it further.

Those who claim that Science is the primary driver for the human spaceflight program are either deluding themselves, or are just not aware of the full truth. Science has been used as a justification for our current space program because it is capable of so little else.

In the beginning, the human spaceflight program served as a rigorous arena for expanding the technological boundaries of engineering. These advancements would have occurred with, or without the Cold War, however, it's influence certainly increased the investment in many technologies. Our human spaceflight program was perhaps the most visible example of this progress.

By the time the Shuttle program came about, national priorities had changed, and NASA was left with a very expensive legacy. The shuttle was a rather poor engineering test bed. They could not afford to push it's envelope then throw it away when they had learned all they could from it. This left them with the problem of trying to justify its existence. If it was not to goint to be used to push the boundaries of human spaceflight engineering, then what purpose would it serve? This is when people began to believe that human spaceflight was about doing science. That was the excuse cooked up to justify the Shuttle's continued existence.

More recently, there have been many groups who have rediscovered the original goal of human spaceflight as technology driver. However, these companies have to close their business plan so you'll probably hear that the new motivation for sending people into space is to tap the adventure tourism market. This again is just an excuse to justify the expense necessary to develop the technologies required to advance human spaceflight capability.

So, why do we need to advance human spaceflight capability? What purpose does it serve to put humans into space? It serves the purpose of growth. Everything that mankind has ever done has been to support growth: social, economic, technological, and even territorial. It is our nature to expand beyond our current means. To fully explore every possible niche in the universe and to exploit all available resources as they are made accessible. The rest of the universe has an abundance of niches and resources of which we have only seen the smallest glimpse. We will use these resources to our advantage some day, but before we can do so, we must learn how to gain access to them and to properly exploit them.

In the end, there is just one reason why we need to invest in human spaceflight. It is our destiny to eventually leave this planet and spread out into the universe. To fail to do so would defy our human nature. - by PhysBrain

To CLV or not to CLV?

2005-11-25T06:55:00.000-06:00

So, if Griffin intends to involve the private sector to the extent he has stated, things could be looking much brighter for the sustainability of the Vision. Then, why do I still get this odd sensation in the pit of my stomach when I think about the ESAS?

Could it be that I'm a little uneasy about the massive amounts of money that NASA will be pouring into the CLV development at the expense of many other worthy projects? Perhaps I am subconciously wincing at the billions of dollars which will have been given to ATK et.al. to develop the shuttle derived CLV by the time that SpaceX, TSpace, or SpaceDev can bring their commercially developed crew launch capability to market sometime in the next five years.

Then I see an article like this, which warns of the looming fiscal challenges for NASA if it intends to complete the ISS with a shuttle retired by the end of 2010 while rushing the development of the CLV/CEV system so that it will be ready by the time the shuttle is retired. If it is indeed in the plan to purchase these services as soon as they become commercially available, then will all of the investment in the CLV have been wasted? Will the CLV system meet the same fate as the X-38 and every other NASA developed shuttle replacement for the past two decades? Or, if it gets close enough to completion, will they feel compelled to make use of it in order to justify the great expense that went into developing it? With all of the uncertainty which surrounds the next five years of manned spaceflight in the US, what are NASA's options at this point?

Let's assume for the moment that the private sector is just about as close to developing an orbital transport as NASA is to fielding a shuttle replacement. SpaceDev has stated that they could have an orbital version of the Dream Chaser, based on NASA's own HL-20 design, ready by 2010. TSpace says that their CXV could be making crewed flights by 2009. SpaceX will have the Falcon 5/9 boosters launching unmanned payloads by the 2007/2008 time frame. The Falcon boosters will be at least as capable as the proposed CLV at a fraction of the cost, and from what I've read, there appears to be a chance that Elon Musk may also be working on a crewed vehicle to go atop his booster, either on his own or in collaboration with other fellow space entrepeneurs, (like TSpace, SpaceDev, or perhaps even Blue Origin).

So, would it not be prudent for NASA to simply hold off on CLV for a couple of years? Of course, NASA should proceed with the CEV and HLV development as funds are available, since those are components which may not be available in the private sector for a few more years. But is it too much to ask for NASA to take a leap of faith and trust that the private sector will produce at least one viable crew launch system in the next five years? It may be a risky strategy, but I believe that this one could pay off huge dividends if successful.

Potential for commercial involvment in the ESAS

2005-11-23T16:45:00.000-06:00

Mike Griffin has finally stated his own thoughts on how he sees the commercial sector fitting into the new space exploration architecture. It would appear that the ESAS contains within it, although not obvious at first glance, the potential to allow private companies to competively supply services to the exploration missions as those services appear on the market and prove themselves reliable and cost effective. To my knowledge, this is the first time since Brant Spoonberg first announced NASA's Innovative Programs initiative that NASA has provided any insight into what kinds of commercial opportunities they are interested in pursuing.

The points outlined in his speech also reinforce my belief that the key to sustainability of human space exploration is infrastructure. He made specific references to the establishment of a fuel depot, perhaps started by NASA (i.e. by donating the first storage tank), but maintained by commercial interests. The presence of such a depot makes the dry launch scenario possible and allows NASA to put more useful (in his words: high-value) payload on the HLV. The fuel depot is a good first step as far as getting the needed infrastructure in place, but it is not in the critical path. For what it's worth, I agree with his reasoning about why it is not, but I do hope that they are able to provide a strong incentive for the private sector to establish one very soon.

Of course, the fuel depot is just one of many support services which could be supplied by the private sector. Crew launch could also be made commercially available if the personal spaceflight industry materializes in a timely manner. From Griffin's remarks, it seems that he wants the private sector to start looking at NASA as a potential customer rather than a competitor. I'll take his comments as an encouraging sign of things to come; however, I have one remaining objection which I will cover in my next post.

To HLV or not to HLV?`

2005-11-16T11:15:00.000-06:00

The alt.space community is split on several issues, but one that I keep seeing pop up is whether or not NASA should be developing the HLV. Recently there were two articles posted to space.com which attempted to argue each side of the debate. First up was John Strickland who wrote an article about the kinds of missions which could only be accomplished by launching very large payloads on HLV's. A few days later, Edward Wright wrote a response which described how much more expensive it would be to launch large payloads on one HLV than it would be to launch multiple smaller payloads on EELV's.

The primary argument in favor of the HLV is that there are some missions which just cannot be accomplished without launching very large integrated payloads. Mr. Strickland outlines some of these missions in his article (linked to above). Others, like Robert Zubrin, also see HLV as a means to avoid doing time consuming on-orbit assembly, and a way to avoid lengthy delays in missions if one or more components of a multiple launch architecture are delayed or destroyed.

The main argument against the HLV is that there is insufficient demand for it. NASA's expected flight rate will be far too low to see any practical return on the massive amount of R&D required to develop the booster. The fact that NASA would rather go with yet another proprietary booster than with existing EELV's is also regarded as anticompetive; depriving struggling launch providers of a significant number of NASA payloads. The new ESAS, as it is currently formulated, is seen as a waste of resources that could be better spent if NASA simply designed its architecture to be launched on EELV's.

Each side raises valid points, but they each argue as if it's an all or nothing proposition. Either NASA designs its architecture so that all of the components are launched on HLV's or everything on EELV's. Manned flights beyond LEO are going to require lots of mass delivered to orbit and it's very possible that this mass could be delivered by both EELV's and HLV's. As far as the ESAS is concerned, I think that NASA would rather go with an HLV than multiple EELV's for their early missions because they have experience doing it that way, and they are fairly certain they can do it again. In the current risk adverse climate at NASA, practicality seems to be winning out over innovation.

Personally, I believe that both kinds of launchers are needed and ultimately the EELV's will end up seeing as much action as the HLV's. There are some components, such as the long duration lunar habitats, which will simply have to be launched as one large integrated payload. However, there are other components which can be launched independently of these large payloads. So, while we wait for the HLV, NASA could be delivering alot of support hardware and getting some preliminary lunar exploration out of the way by taking advantage of the smaller launch vehicles that are available now.

For example, within the next five or six years, NASA could begin sending small unmanned decent stages to the moon loaded with ISRU equipment, solar panels, telepresence robots, spare parts, etc. This would allow them to begin testing out and refining technology that the manned missions will eventually rely upon as well as checking out landing sites and setting up small amounts of infrastructure. I believe that there are already robotic landers (to be launched on EELV's) in the current ESAS. All that I am proposing is a slight expansion of this aspect of the architecture to support delivery of smaller components to the lunar surface independent of the large integrated structures. This is just one example of how NASA could take advantage of the availability of the EELV class of launch vehicles in their architecture. I'm sure that there are many others.

Orbiter

2005-11-15T16:11:00.000-06:00

I've been noticing a few posts recently about the spaceflight simulator Orbiter. I've been messing around with this very cool program for about a year and a half now, so I thought I would post my own observations.

First of all, this is definitely not a game, even though it plays like one at times and has some nice graphics to rival some commercial flight simulators. However, for the sake of comparison, let's treat it like one for a moment. I've always thought that the best video games I've ever played are ones that are very easy to begin playing, but the difficulty continues to rise to match the players ability. The addiction factor common to many of these games is: How do I get just a little bit further? How do I do just a little bit more?

Orbiter definitely has this addiction factor. Using the delta flyer one can quickly take off, fly around, and even attain orbit, all with comparitively little difficulty. Once on orbit, one of the first things you'll probably want to do is dock with the International Space Station. So, once basic control of the spacecraft has been mastered, one next turns one's attention to deciphering the control panels. Locating the ISS is not hard, but getting anywhere near it is quite a trick. It took me almost a week of trial and error before I was finally able to get within docking range and another day to actually dock. But you see, this is exactly what I was talking about. It's easy to get started, but to do anything more than simply flying around at random, you must begin to master new skills and gain more experience. And not just any useless computer gaming experience, this is experience with flying and navigating spacecraft under very realistic conditions. What could be better!?

Of course the delta flyer is an incredibly forgiving spacecraft. It's performance characteristics are purposefully exagerated to make it easier to get started. If you're ready for a challenge, then consider one of the other launch vehicles included with the program. The space shuttle Atlantis, for instance, has characteristics more closely modeled after the real thing. Trying to get the space shuttle into orbit is not an easy task. After failing to reach orbit on several occasions, I definitely have a greater appreciation for how precise they have to be to not only get them into orbit, but the exact orbit they need to be in to achieve their mission objectives.

Orbiter is much more than a flight simulation game. It's more like a flight simulation environment. With the SDK and API interface, one can modify nearly all aspects of the simulator. Not only can you add in custom built spacecraft and planetary bases, you can also modify the planets themselves. You can fly a spacecraft of your own design through a solar system of your own design if you so desired. It is this incredible flexability combined with its realistic modeling of the physics of spaceflight which makes Orbiter such a powerful program.

Now, I wouldn't apply for a job at JPL touting my proficiency at Orbiter. However, if I could hold my own in an interview talking about the intricate details required to navigate and pilot a spacecraft to any destination in the solar system, then their might be something to be said for using this program as a training tool.

More ESAS details

2005-10-14T05:22:00.000-05:00

Keith Cowing's review of a presentation of the new Exploration Architecture to the National Academy of Sciences provides alot of what has been sorely lacking from the main stream media (as well as many of alt.space blogs), and that is any information about how NASA arrived at this particular design and what they intend to do with their bright and shiny new Lunar Exploration Program (TM). In addition to giving more details about the architecture itself, NASA also provided it's justification for returning to the moon in the form of three generic objectives to be attained:

Basic lunar science
Resource extraction and utilization
Testbed for components of what may become the Mars exploration architecture

The article mentions a few times that they have not developed any specific plans for a Mars exploration architcture, yet by sizing the components as they have, they are designing in the capacity for the hardware to be scaled up for possible use in the Mars exploration architecture. While I applaud them for their forward thinking, the missions to Mars will not even be on the drawing board for another ten years and are not likely to be carried out for another ten years after that. I only hope that these future requirements do not impose too much additional expense and complexity in the near term on components being developed for the Lunar missions. For instance, how much sooner do you think we could return to the moon if we didn't have to wait for the shuttle-derived heavy lifter to come online? How much sooner could we field a replacement for the shuttle if we didn't have to wait for the stick to be developed and went instead with a capsule on an EELV?

I'm still not impressed with the lack of development of in-space infrastructure. As I noted in an earlier post, it seems like the initial lunar exploration (or Lunar Sorties as their calling them) will be rather wasteful in terms of the amount of hardware being thrown away on each mission. I did however see a faint glimmer of hope from the mention that they are considering leaving behind a large portion of the habitat as a functional unit.

Connolly noted that thought is also being given to leaving part of the crew compartment [of the lunar lander] behind as part of a cached resource that could later be used for a lunar base. Such an approach is currently referred to by NASA as an "Incremental Build Approach".

If an autonomous ISRU unit is incorporated into each of these modules, then oxygen could be cracked from the regolith and used to resupply the habitat with breathable air indefinitely (assuming carbon-dioxide removal can be maintained as well). The habitats could then be used on later missions as remote outposts or even emergency shelters should they be required. If these stations were located in sufficiently close proximity to one another, this would vastly increase the range over which subsequent crews would be able to roam. A similar strategy for Mars exploration was put forth by Zubrin in The Case for Mars.

Overall, I'm still not entirely sold on the new Lunar Exploration Architecture. I think there are other ways to accomplish the same goals that would have the added benefit of actually allowing entities other than NASA to begin exploring cislunar space on their own dime. These new details though give a much needed boost to some of the rationale behind the design decisions made by NASA. I'd just hate to see this Apollo 2.0 prematurely canceled as was its predecessor.

If you look back at some of the plans NASA had for advanced Apollo missions, you will see that similar thinking was followed back then. Alas, Apollo was ended just as it was about to pass the threshold between quick sorties and true lunar expeditions.

Why space?

2005-10-09T05:20:00.000-05:00

I suppose every person who begins voicing their opinions about space exploration in a public forum must inevitably answer the question of "Why space?" Sometimes this is more specifically phrased as, "Why spend money on space when there are so many other problems right here on Earth?"

The latter form of the question is a trap, and I recommend that most space advocates try to avoid answering it if possible. The basic premise of the question is that we are somehow actually sending money into space where it will never to be seen again. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every dollar spent on space exploration is being reinvested in our economy. As a result, jobs are created, goods and services are produced, revenue generated, and technological advancements made. I'd like to hear the social conservatives claim that, dollar for dollar, money poured into social causes contributes nearly as much back into the economy. Compared to the perverse amount of money spent on entertainment in this country, I don't think our modest investment in space exploration can be considered socially negligent.

So, I will focus on the more general form of the question, and that is "Why explore space at all?" The answers to this question will vary from one individual to another, but you will typically see one of two kinds of responses.

The first response I refer to as the party line. The party line is usually delivered as a standard reply to those who may not share an enthusiasm for space exploration but they would still like to know why it should be relevant to them. Some examples of the party line are: the human race must spread life into the galaxy or suffer the consequences (extinction, or worse... irrelevance), must explore the frontier, give humanity a fresh start, exploit the vast resources of the solar system, etc. Occasionally, the party line is presented in such a convincing manner that converts are made. Usually though, the person merely smiles and nods and goes back to living their Earth-bound existence without even bothering to look up at the sky and wonder.

The second repsonse is the personal anecdote, and these are most often shared between people who are already have a deep and abiding passion for space and space exploration. Often, this response is much more interesting than any party line because it gives some sense of what space really means to people as individuals rather than as humanity in general. Nearly all of these stories express a strong desire, by individuals, to travel in space or explore the unknown. It is that desire that motivates so many to tackle the hard problems, to risk everything, and to see their vision become a reality. That kind of commitment speaks to the truth that it is in certain humans' nature to push back the edge of knowledge, to seek out untapped resources, and to make a better life for themselves and their posterity wherever possible. (Notice that I did not generalize this statement to encompass all of humanity as one form of the party line would have.)

My personal anecdote is alot less interesting than some others that I have read. This is probably because I'm still in the process of discovering what my true motivation is. I've had a passion for astronomy and space exploration for as long as I can remember. I am incredibly curious about the universe around me, and I've spent my entire life learning about how it works. However, getting to the root of it all - to discover what drives me and what will one day push me to truly fulfill my potential - is a long introspective journey of which I am still in the midst. In the meantime, there is a life to be lived, a universe to be appreciated, and time enough for now.

Infrastructure

2005-10-08T15:45:00.000-05:00

In a recent article at the Space Daily website, John Strickland makes the case that there needs to be more reusability built into the in-space assests of the VSE. One of the most important points that he makes in the article is that if NASA proceeds with it's plans to throw away everything but the capsule after each and every mission, leaving no real assets in space, then the program can be canceled at any time in the future when the Congress decides that it no longer wants to fund the effort. However, if you design the in-space assests with reusability in mind, the equation changes dramatically. Rather than pouring money into the development and manufacture of expendable components, the same money becomes an investment in space-based infrastructure. And as we've seen with the shuttle and ISS, once you have a significant investment in infrastructure in place, it becomes much more difficult to kill the project and abandon that investment. Mr. Strickland also make the observation that the Apollo program ended up being based on a largely disposable architecture because that was the quickest way to get men on the moon with the technology available at the time. He points out that we really aren't in any hurry this time. So why not do it right?

The NASA's plan, as it currently stands, is probably in the best interest of NASA and it's contractors. This plan probably represents the best that they can afford to do if they are forced to do it all by themselves. Whether or not they can sustain this program over decades remains to be seen, but it seems pretty clear that if they continue in this manner they will not be able to expand the scope of the program to any significant extent. At the Return to the Moon conference in July, Chris Shank made it clear that NASA can not even afford to go to the moon unless they find a way to spend much less on the ISS. Unfortunately, NASA has not had much success with reducing its costs in the past. And so, we keep returning to the simple fact that as NASA's vangard heads out into space, they must bring the commercial sector along with them.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that any form of space exploration can be sustained without building up some kinda of in-space infrastructure. Exactly what kind of infrastructure is needed is a question which has been occupying my mind for the past few years. I've been contemplating what kinds of infrastructure would need to be put into place to accomplish various missions. I've found that there is alot of overlap in these missions, especially if you break each one up into smaller legs which can be accomplished with a common set of hardware. In future posts in this blog, I would like to begin to explore these smaller missions and the infrastructure that I think would permit them to become self-sustaining. I welcome any constructive comments or feedback anyone has to offer.