Thin Layer

Falcon 1 is lost.......

2006-03-24T14:44:00.000-08:00

The countdown was very exciting. When the vehicle lifted off, I jumped around the house like a maniac. The initial on-baord video was great.

And then the on-board cam started skipping frames.
And then the frame froze at what looked like a few hundred feet, looking down on Omelek. I could just about make out the shore outline, a warehouse structure, and a road surrounding the launchpad.

And then it came back again. But now you could see the vehicle was rolling and pitching.

I quickly lost ground reference.

And then the signal was lost.

SpaceflightNow is reporting that according to Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX vice president of business development, the vehicle was lost. No detailes as of yet.

I'm so sorry.

Whatever happened, I hope the SpaceX Team can fix it and fly again as soon as possible.

SpaceX test firing today

2006-03-18T13:51:00.000-08:00

Rand has an item on Transterrestrial about SpaceX successfully testfiring engine.

While I very much hope that he's 100% right, it looks like he's pointing to Kimbal's blog from 2/10/06 as a source. The date on the entry makes me suspicious that there is some confusion going on. Add to that that in the past SpaceX have done their events mostly starting around 2-3 pm EST, and Rand's entry was posted just before 1 pm (EST, I presume).

I sure hope he's right, though....

MRO Success!

2006-03-10T15:55:00.000-08:00

CNN is reporting that MRO was able to successfully enter Martian circular orbit. Congrats, NASA!

NASA's Enceladus News (updated)

2006-03-09T08:45:00.000-08:00

Keith Cowing at NASA Watch has the running coomentary on the news NASA is slated to announce at 2 Pm EST. But Matt Drudge seems to have scooped everyone!

OK, presume for a second that he has the content of the announcement right. What are the consequences? Here are soem thoughts:

- Astrobilogy funding efforts get an immidiate shot in the arm. If they succeed, where does the money come from?

- Can Cassini help in getting mroe data?

- Can other missions be re-drected to help out in the short term?

- Is there an approach for a "fast response" mission that would be of value?

Inquiring minds want to know :-)

Update @ 1:30pm: Now Space.com has a story with more details.

It also answers the second question above: "... Cassini’s instruments could help pin down Enceladus’ liquid water sources in future passes, researchers added..."

But also "... But the spacecraft, Kargel wrote, will not be able to determine whether subsurface water pockets could offer a habitat suitable for living organisms..."

And now for something completely different

2006-03-06T11:51:00.000-08:00

Without further comment, for I am left speechless, please join me in spreading the word

Blackstar

2006-03-05T19:21:00.000-08:00

Here's a bomb-shell:

RLV and Space Transport News » Blackstar - secret 2-stage spaceplane system
RLV and Space Transport News » More Blackstar info...
RLV and Space Transport News » Blackstar discussion...

OK. I have enough respect for AvLeak, having read them religiously through the 80' and 90's, that I'm going to take them at their word, pending strong refutation from an equally reliable source (note to self: what does Jane's have to say about it?)

So assuming the the story is true overall, here are some bits & pieces that appear to support it:
- As mentioned by AvLeak, SR-71 cancellation makes a great deal more sense now
- Given the timeline, it also makes sense that the SR-71 was brought back into service for Gulf War 1 (Blackstar is already on the horizon, but not yet in service)
- Aurora is probably related too (unless it's the red herring referred to by one of Clark's commenters) - AvLeak has done some major stories on it in the past, I'm surprised it's not mentioned in the article - did I miss it in my rush to read?

What are the consequences?

1. The A-12 is dead - USN is without a carrier based, stealthy, mid-size penetration bomber - the F/A-18 is not even in the same league as far as payload/range and survivability goes - this could cost us very seriously if we ever had to go after Iran or DPRK. Arguably, it would have died anyway, but at this point, we no longer know for sure.

2. The NASP is dead - again, it might have died anyway, but the opportunity cost of both the budget and the management focus is stunning. I don't even know how to begin taking stock of it:
- The money is gone - probably 10's of $B, w/o any tangible results
- Think of what Rutan, Truax, Henson could have done with that money. Yeah, I know, they wouldn't have seen that money anyway, but still....
- The RLV concept was sullied for a decade
- STS is still flying, and will continue for the foreseeable future. God help us if the we have a falling out with the Russians
- The STS replacement is still a half dozen years away, realistically more, quite possibly for ever
- Damage to NASA's credibility is enormous

3. After all that sacrifice and damage, to even think of canceling the program beggars the imagination. Therefore, I have to think that we're not seeing all there is to see. What's underneath this? The operational requirements haven't gone away. None of the other systems, either airborne or orbital, even come close to fulfilling them. So the argument for this being the result of budget cuts is not credible. I'm left with no alternative but to conclude that there's something better either in production or close enough as not to matter.

4. The last time a similar thing happened (when SR-71 was being terminated), a number of analysts postulated that it's being retired because there's something better. They were right. All those who disparaged this idea at the time turned out to be wrong. Even if I'm wrong, this is a good working assumption.

5. So what could it be?
- Well, it could be something evolutionary. Instead of XB-70 based carrier, a purpose designed and built first stage of some as yet unknown configuration (DH-1? :-). The second stage would be highly dependent on the first stage design. This would be good in the long term. Short term, alt.space will have to pitch in (NASA won't). As with all black programs, eventually, this one will come out too. I may not live long enough, but my kids might.
- Or, it could be something revolutionary – let you imagination run wild: anti-grav, star gate, teleport, what have you. That could be A LOT of fun. No, I don't really think this is what's going on. Just reading a lot of SF lately :-)

Bottom line:
The costs, real and consequential, of fielding it in the first place are huge
Offered reasons for cancellation are not credible
This is either incredibly, astoundingly stupid, or the silver lining is so good we will laugh at the costs in a few years.

Jeez, I hope so.

Greg Olsen, Citizen Astronaut

2006-03-05T12:47:00.000-08:00

The New jersey Technology Council, NJTC, of which I am a proud member of many years standing, is an organization of about 1,000 technology companies in New Jersey. One of the cool things about this organization is that makes a point of recognizing special contributions of NJ citizens in the technology industry.

On January 17, 2006, t NJTC held a very special event. Greg Olsen, a scientist, an engineer, a very successful technology entrepreneur and our very own citizen astronaut, was the guest of honor at the Edison Innovators dinner.

With Greg's permission, I recorded his presentation at the event. Greg is a pretty cool speaker. He has a great sense of humor and is very down-to-earth. In this talk he shared his experiences both before and during his flight, and answered a bunch of questions from the audience.

So without further ado, here is the raw un-edited recording:

MP3 – 56Kbps – Mono – 24.7 Mb
Ogg – 56Kbps – Mono – 16 Mb
Wav – 14.2Mb

Enjoy the show!

PS. Greg is also scheduled to speak at this year's ISDC in LA. See you all there.

Space Adventures makes news

2006-02-17T05:29:00.000-08:00

This news item via Space Today: MosNews is reporting from Russia that Space Adventures is partnering with Pradea (Ansari family's - yes, that Ansari - Texas-based VC firm) and Roskosmos (the Russian Federal Space Agency) to design a build a sub-orbital passenger system. Myasishchev Design Bureau will design and build the vehicles. Here's SA's own press relesase

Frankly, I don't get it. So here are some wild speculations:

1. Was this the plan all along? Start with operating tours until you have enough credibility to fund vehicle development, and then switch from a service to a product strategy?

2. The Russian technology vendors aren't as cheap as they were just a few years ago anymore. They're likely to be more expensive then the Armadillo, Masten, and Rocktplane vehicles (just a guess, I don't have real data). So SA probably thinks that they've built enough of a brand name that they can charge a premium over these latter companies and get away with it, or that those others will never fly at all.....

3. Is this an end-run around ITAR? If so, the shipbuilders in this country should be screaming bloody murder to their elective representatives - that a US VC fund and a US operator should be investing in Russian companies instead of supporting the homegrown builders that are struggling for funding is a disgrace and a strategic blunder by the US Government.

4. By explicitly stating that none of the "consortium members" will actually operte the ships but sell them to other operators, is SA tacitly admitting the difficulty of the former business model? Or are they not "consortium members" in that sense?

Additional reporting by MSNBC, via Space.com and Clark Lindsey @ Space Transportation News, which lists even more reporting by CBS and CNet

SpaceX hold-down engine firing

2006-02-10T17:49:00.000-08:00

Appears to be a success, according to Kimbal Musk

Congratulations, folks! Way to go!

A Strawman Architecture

2006-02-10T12:57:00.000-08:00

A while ago, I wrote about my overall approach to space settlement. Here's the next step, a strawman architecture for the a paper I'm submitting to ISDC 2006 (entitled "Value Network models for the Cislunar Economy"):

I'm looking at the architecture from the business point of view: Development Costs, Cash Flow, Balance Sheet, Investment Risk, ROI.

I'm still only just a little bit into the modeling, but my starting point is a multi-modal architecture:

1. Surface-LEO: one or many of the current crop of alt.space launchers or their progeny

2. A Space Port @ LEO, containing:
....a. Tourist destination
....b. Crew & Passenger lay-over space
....c. Pressurized and un-pressurized cargo transhipment space
....d. Vehicle maintenance facility, including a spare parts inventory
....e. Fuel and other consumables depot

3. LEO-L1: via one of two TransLunar Vehicle types (one optimized for people, including a human crew, one optimized for cargo - remotely piloted)

4. A Space Port @ L1 similar to #2, but potentially different volumes of storage and maintenance capacities (remote vs. depot level maint.)

5. L1 - Surface: via a dedicated, single stage, reusable Lander

6. A Space Port on the Moon, similar to #2, growing down the line into an ISRU processing facility and storage depot, and whatever else people will pay for

7. Surface - L1: via the same vehicle as in #5

8. L1 - LEO: via the same vehicle as in #3, using partial aerobraking (I originally started with fully propulsive braking, but will switch to partial aerobraking, as Jonathan Goff suggested yesterday).

9. LEO - Surface: via one of the several vehicles as in #1

All of these constructed by vehicle integrator companies (one or more per segment) and operator companies (several per segment).

More later...

SpaceX test firing today

2006-02-09T19:29:00.000-08:00

Kimbal Musk at Kwaj & Rockets live-blogged today's several attempts to do a full hold-down test of Falcon 1.

Unfortunately, they are scrubbing for at least two weeks, maybe more. Elon just posted an Update

"...
Falcon 1 Maiden Flight Update: Posted February 9, 2006

After analyzing data from the static fire countdown, we decided to postpone the launch. The vehicle is being lowered for further investigation.

Once we have thoroughly checked out all systems, I will post an update on what was found and when the next countdown attempt will occur. Based on range availability and logistics constraints, a rough guess would be two to four weeks.

--- Elon
..."

Edge-of-the-seat type stuff...

Go SpaceX!

Best of luck, SpaceX

2006-02-07T17:34:00.000-08:00

They're trying to launch again on Firday (testing on Thursday)

Best wishes, Elon and Crew!!!

To quote Yuri Gagarin: "Poehali!"

Interesting...

2006-02-07T17:21:00.000-08:00

Nasa is looking for input on rules for a batch of possible new Centennial Challenges:

Part 1, Description (via SpaceRef)

Part 2, Rules (via SpaceRef)

Original (via FedBizOpps))

I'm seriously intrigued by Appendix 1.......

Going to ISDC 2006

2006-02-06T14:55:00.000-08:00

I'll be at the ISDC 2006 in LA, May 4 through May 7. I'm hoping to present a paper based on some of the ideas in this blog. I'll post an update, as soon as the paper is officially accepted by the conference.

SpaceX Scrub #2

2005-12-19T11:13:00.000-08:00

It looks like today's attempt to launch Falcon 1 out of Kwaj is scrubbed. Don't know for sure why, but the last comments from Kimbal Musk was that "winds are picking up", which was causing significant increase in LOX boil-off.

Bummer, if true. But a good decision. Let's hope three time's the charm.

Update: 3:00pm The initial reports are that there was a leak in the 1st stage fuel tank. By the sound of it, it was not a major problem. The tank will be fixed, re-tested, and They'll try again as soon as the missle range re-opens again, early in january. More details to follow later.

Update 2: OK, my original guesses were a little off, but at least somewhat related to what actually happened. More info is now availble from Kimbal

SpaceX engine failure

2005-09-14T14:37:00.000-07:00

Space.com has a generally benign news item on SpaceX's engine failure. It's pretty much confirmaion of Jonathan Goff's inquiry of a couple of day ago.

The more general media hasn't picked it up yet, but when they do I expect them to cast doubt on SpaceX in general and Elon in particular. The real establishment types will stretch it to cover all of alt.space. I'm just waiting for comparisons with the Soviet N1 and the early US failures. At least Space.com gave Elon a chance to speak. Most others won't, or will mis-quote him horribly. Color me cynical.

What can I do about it? Not much - just blog at it for a while, and hope like hell Elon is right and the Falcon launch is successful. God, I wish them luck!

And when they do fly - I'm going to have a PAARRTYYY!

Speaking of flying, does anyone know if SpaceX will do a webcast of the launch?

Breakpoints

2005-08-19T14:26:00.000-07:00

Context:

Jonathan Goff @ Selenial Boondocks wrote on 8/16/2005: Some Constructive Suggestions for NASA
Dan Schrimpsher @ Space Pragmatism added to the ideas the following day
Clark Lindsey @ HobbySpace - RLV News mentioned both articles
Rand Simberg @ Transterrestrial Musings picked up the discussion and added to it
During the ensuing discussion Paul Dietz made a couple of great comments:

"... Delivering propellant in disposable tanks doesn't preclude the possibility of transfering that propellant to other tanks.... "

and

"... I was saying that disposable tanks can be used to carry up propellant for transfer to a different set of reusable tanks (for example, those inside a space tug or lunar landing vehicle.)

We might even imagine launching the propellant in a different chemical form and converting it to fuels in space (water converted to hydrogen and oxygen, for example); the launch tank wouldn't need to be capable of holding cryogens. ..."

Which correlates to my own thought process so closely, it's scary.

Here's how I got there:

I run a small software services company, CE Dev, which specializes in helping small and medium sized companies customize, integrate, deploy and support Open Source applications (such as Moodle, OpenCMS, Mambo, etc)
We're primarily a services firm, which in this economy scares the bejeezus out of me
To help us switch to a more balanced product/services mix I went to ISDC 2005 this spring to see if a small agile software company can find a spot in the nascent alt.space sector
Alas, to my great disappointment, conversations with many participants made it clear that there is no business case for such a venture; the reasons are many and varied and are beyond the scope of this blog
It took a few days to realize, however, that the overall picture emerging from the conference had a hole in it:

There are plenty of companies working on the sub-orbital launch segment and it's exploitation
There are fewer, but still enough companies working on the orbital launch and it's exploitation
There are even companies (Bigelow) working on building destinations for the orbital launch sector
Beyond that was the province of mission-oriented government agencies (NASA, RosKosmos, ESA, JAXA, etc.)
But nobody was looking at the overall space transportation architecture from an economic development point of view (except Mike Mealling, who put together a great theoretical foundation for such an effort)

Here's what I mean by that last comment:

The goal of space development efforts is to create a thriving, self-sustaining economy in space
"Flags & Footprints" missions are not relevant to this goal at this stage - they were phenominally important in getting us to this point, but they no longer help in getting us closer to my stated goal
Being basically a capitalist pig :-) I strongly believe that the economic motive is the only thing that will get us to that goal
Transportation has always been a critical component of every expansion/economic development period in human history (starting with Roman roads, sailing ships, railroads, aircraft); it only stands to reason that in an environment as challenging as space, a transportation infrastructure is a critical component of overall economic success
Looked at it that way, I realized that "mission-oriented" transportation architectures, however efficient, will not work well enough to support the economic engine
What's needed is a modular, flexible, extensible, standards-based architecture

Such an architecture will allow competition between vendors to rapidly improve quality and efficiency of operations and lower unit costs. Such an architecture will allow companies to specialize in solving specific, smaller problems, instead of trying to solve all the world's technical problems all at once - increasing the probability of success. Such an architecture will allow venture funds to "get" the sector, and move in aggressively to support it.

Having come to these conclusions, I started thinking about one specific architecture by examining transportation architectures in other environments and mapping them and their components on to the Earth-Moon-Mars economic system. I started by asking a simple question: How did my car make its way from a factory in Japan to my doorstep in New Jersey. Certainly it didn't leave the factory floor with enough buoyancy to cross the ocean or enough fuel to drive from there to here. Instead, it relied on a transportation infrastructure consisting of:

trucks
fuel generation and distribution systems
roads
port facilities/transshipment points
ships
trains

The next questions was: how would these components map on to the Earth-Moon-Mars economic system?

Here's one such possibility:

Earth Surface - LEO Lift
LEO Space Port(s)
LEO Space Port - Destination Space Port Transfer (L-points, Moon, Mars, etc)
Destination Space Port(s)
Last Mile Transport (similar to #1 above, but at the destination)

What does such an approach give us that "mission-oriented" architectures don't?

We don't need to make a car that can swim the ocean
We don't need to make a car that carries enough fuel to get from Japan to New Jersey
We don't need to put the 10,000 miles of wear and tear on the car before it gets to its assigned area of operation
A truck company can specialize in building trucks
A shipbuilder can specialize in building ships
A train builder can specialize in building locomotives and freight cars
A shipping line can specialize in running large quantities of cargo across long distance, using multiple modes (air, land & sea)
A fuel company can specialize in creating, distributing, storing and disbursing fuel to multiple kinds of consumers

That last one sounds like a lot of fun......... more later.

Welcome

2005-08-19T08:10:00.000-07:00

Hello World!

Thus begins a career of many a first time programmer. It is only fitting that I start this blog in the same way, although this is not the first blog I attempt to write: see The Tapestry for my first attempt ca. 1995.

The Tapestry was about me. Thin Layer is not. It is specifically about the business of getting us humans off this woinderful mudball, however beautiful, and past the first thin layer of the atmosphere. It is an opportunity to focus on the "how" and assume the "why" has been answered. It is also about the people who are part of the burgeoning Alt.Space community.

That said, let's get to it! Please come and share your thoughts, and help us grow.