On Monday, billionaire space advocate Richard Branson and New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez dedicated a new building devoted to commercial access to sub-orbital space: Spaceport America. This will be the new home of Virgin Galactic, Branson’s company that will take people into space.

Technically, this was simply a press event. There were no launches, and there’s nothing really new here. However, I do think this was important. Virgin Galactic is using vehicles built by Scaled Composites, the company that built SpaceShip One, the first private rocket that took a human into space (in 2004). Shortly thereafter they won the Ansari $10 million prize by being the first privately built rocket to get back into space after a 14 day turnaround. Tickets for SpaceShip Two are for sale at a mere $200,000 a piece.

(more…)

The U.S. Air Force, in cooperation with NASA and the National Reconnaissance Office, has announced their certification strategy to allow competition for rocket launch contracts. This is after a Letter of Intent was signed by the three groups last year, and a Memorandum of Understanding earlier this year. What it means is that another necessary step has been taken in allowing private companies to compete for the lucrative contracts.

I think this is a good thing. Right now, the Air Force contracts all its launches with the United Launch Alliance, a union of Boeing and Lockheed Martin that started in 2006. These are the folks who make rockets like the very reliable Delta II, which has sent a large number of probes to destinations in the solar system, and the Atlas V, which will launch the Mars Science Lab to the Red Planet in November.

I wouldn’t necessarily say ULA has a monopoly, since in many ways they are the only game in town to launch such rockets (though others don’t hesitate to call it that). But Space X, a private company, has successfully launched its Falcon 9 rocket, capable of taking supplies and humans to orbit (though it’s not human-rated yet; it has to be certified to take people up, which should happen in the next couple of years). The future for Space X looks pretty good. This new announcement by the USAF/NRO/NASA means that companies like Space X have a chance to elbow their way into this billion-dollar opportunity.

And again, this is just one more step toward this open contract; it may be some time before any money exchanges hands. This situation is interesting; Elon Musk, head of Space X, has made it clear he is gunning for ULA; Space X filed an antitrust suit against the formation of ULA in 2005 (which ultimately was denied), and has made many announcements in the past that he can launch rockets cheaper and better than competitors. I think he may very well be right. ULA makes a huge amount of money in defense launches, and if Space X can get a piece of that then things will get very interesting indeed.

I’m a big fan of competition, when the playing field is level. I’m not an expert in this area, but this sounds like a good direction for the government to go. If Space X — and a handful of other companies coming up now — can launch rockets reliably and less expensively, then that makes access to space easier for everybody. And that is something I’d very much like to see.

Again, I am no expert here. If you agree or disagree, or better yet have information about this, I’d be curious to see it; please leave it in the comments. This is a fairly complex situation, and I’d like to learn more.

Image credit: Space X

Florida Today is reporting that Space X is planning to launch their first Falcon 9 rocket as early as this week, May 27 or 28! [Update: I just found out that the launch has been delayed to Jun 2/3 due to a slip in the schedule of a launch of a Delta IV.]

I am an unabashed fan of Space X, one of many commercial companies building rockets to make access to space easier, more reliable, and less expensive. They have already shown themselves to be capable of putting rockets into space, and being resilient while doing so. The Falcon 9 is the next in their series of rockets; this one capable of getting supplies to the Space Station, sending astronauts into orbit, and eventually, being able to put a 20 ton payload into geosynchronous orbit.

You can keep up-to-date with what’s what on the Space X updates page. I’ll be keeping a close watch on events as well. This is the future of space exploration, quite literally, and I’m very excited about it.

Obama lays out bold revised space policy
Falcon 9 getting ready for maiden voyage
Falcon 1 launch a success!
Falcon 9 standing tall
High roller



Image credit: Space X.

Over at Universe Today, Nancy Atkinson has written an interesting piece on whether NASA should consider extending the Shuttle program, which is currently planned to end in September of this year (or thereabouts, depending on delays). After that, NASA will rely heavily on private companies to ferry cargo to orbit, and eventually humans as well.

My thoughts on this are already a matter of record: I don’t think NASA should be in the business of doing anything routine, and several companies are gearing up to take over flights to low-Earth orbit (or LEO as it’s called). Space X may be ready as early as late this year for unmanned trips to the space station.

However, no private company has yet made a cargo launch capable of reaching ISS, and there may still be a gap in our ability to get into space. Extending the Shuttle program sounds like a good idea, but I have three concerns: safety, money, and NASA’s ability to extend it.

1) Safety. As far as that goes, I’m no expert, but the people on the blue-ribbon Augustine Commission certainly were. In their report last year to President Obama they said:

However, one option [we examined] does provide for an extension of the Shuttle at a minimum safe flight rate to preserve U.S. capability to launch astronauts into space. If that option is selected, there should be a thorough review of Shuttle recertification and overall Shuttle reliability to ensure that the risk associated with that extension would be acceptable.

In other words, as long as it’s safe, and the schedule isn’t too fast to preclude handling safety concerns, it’s not so bad (and in the UT article, Shuttle Integration Manager Mike Moses agrees). OK, so perhaps that’s an option. However, even so…

2) Money. The Shuttle is very expensive, and there isn’t a lot of money for it in the budget, even if we radically overhaul what the President submitted. I’m not sure I see how we can give money to the private companies so they can develop their tech at the same time we keep the Shuttle running. That would delay the companies’ advancement, which would extend the Shuttle further. That’s a snake eating its own tail.

Still, some folks want to fight to extend the Shuttle in the budget. I had to smile a bit when I read this quote by U.S. Representative Suzanne Kosmas:

President Barack Obama’s budget proposal was not acceptable as is because it would cede the United States’ leadership position in spaceflight in the short term — and possibly the long term.

I disagree with this statement, since within a year we’ll be using U.S. companies to send cargo to the ISS, and humans in three. We already can’t put humans in space all that often with the Shuttle, and once it retires this year (a plan that has been in effect a while now, since the Bush Administration) there will be a long gap before NASA could put people in space anyway. But I also happen to be a tad skeptical about opinions from politicians when their districts include NASA centers. I’m not saying I don’t trust her, but I am saying that the most vocal people I have heard in Congress are from folks who fall into that category (such as Alabama politicians).

However, that looming gap in space capable launches is almost on us. Extending the Shuttle might have traction politically, which means financially. But…

3) Ability. Can NASA even do this? The program has been winding down for some time; even one launch pad has been converted to use by Constellation, which itself may never get past the blueprint stage (I disregard here the Ares 1-X which many consider to be nothing more than a publicity stunt). Lots of workers have been looking for other jobs. And I wonder if the administrative side of NASA would even be able to figure out how to put together another launch or series of launches in time before Space X can start lofting cargo. I’m not clear on how quickly they could turn this around, even if Congress told them "Go" today. And, of course, Congress is not known for being light on its feet either.

So my thinking is that even if it’s safe, and politically expedient, I’m not clear on its worth. It depends on how much it would cost, how possible it is logistically, and if it makes sense to spend a billion or so per launch of the Shuttle when it would be far cheaper to hitch a ride on a Soyuz or three while we wait for industry to catch up.

So I’m not sure how this would work out. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays in Congress, and as it does, I’ll be paying attention.

President Obama’s plan for NASA in the future is to rely heavily on private industry. One of the companies preparing for this is Space X, which has tested its first generation Falcon 1 rocket successfully. The Falcon 9 is a much larger rocket capable of carrying a much heavier payload, but has not yet flown.

However, the first F9 is at Cape Canaveral, getting ready for launch. It’s been sitting horizontally in a hangar for some time, but is now vertical.

It will undergo a series of ground tests, including a 3.5 second full engine firing (the rocket will be locked down to keep it from going anywhere) before it’ll be cleared for launch. Launch could be as early as March!

Once it’s flown, the next step will be to carry a test version of the Dragon module — the part that will carry big payloads — on top which could happen as early as July. Once that passes, Space X will be ready to start ferrying material to the space station. They hope to be able to be man-rated by 2013 or 2014, so they can begin to ferry humans into orbit.

Image credit: Chris Thompson/SpaceX

As promised, today President Obama released his planned NASA budget for the year. Not too surprisingly, it’s pretty much as the rumors indicated. There’s a lot to say here, and I have a lot on my mind, so please hear me out.

The Good News

The good news for sure is an increase of $6 billion over the next five years. It stresses new technology and innovation (to the tune of over $1.5 billion), which is also good. A lot of NASA’s successes have been from pushing the limits on what can be done. It also stresses Earth science, which isn’t surprising at all; Obama appears to understand the importance of our environmental impact, including global warming. So that’s still good news.

The very very good news is that half that money — half, folks, 3.2 billion dollars — is going to science. Yeehaw! The release specifically notes telescopes and missions to the Moon and planets. That, my friends, sounds fantastic.

Bye bye Constellation

Now to the other aspects of this budget. As I have written before, this new budget axes Constellation:

NASA’s Constellation program – based largely on existing technologies – was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA’s attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations. The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration…

[Emphasis mine.]

I can’t say I disagree with much that’s written there. A lot of it is based on the conclusions of the Augustine commission, a blue-ribbon panel of experts appointed by Obama to look into NASA’s future plans and make recommendations.

The Space Station

The budget calls for extending the International Space Station beyond the 2016 timeline, perhaps for four more years. I would say this is a bad idea, BUT the budget also asks for extending the ISS’s scientific capabilities. I would be happy to see that; ISS is very limited as a science platform. However, the dang thing is already built and in orbit, so it makes sense to spend a little bit more (I was surprised to see only about $180 million for this) to make it useful scientifically. If that becomes the case, then a lot of the issues I have with ISS go away.

Incidentally, the budget calls for a guaranteed $600 million for the next five Shuttle missions to ISS, even if a launch slips into FY11.

Back to the Moon?

So, where does this leave us as far as going back to the Moon? It leaves us delayed, again. That sucks. However, as I have pointed out before, Constellation was already a mess. Behind schedule, over budget, and starved of funding. It was a mandate from the Bush White House, but never got the money it needed from them or Congress to ensure it could be done (this didn’t work when it was attempted from the Bush Sr. White House/Congress either).

I don’t want a repeat of the Apollo program: a flag-and-footprints mission where we go there, look around, and then come home for another 40 years. I want to go there and stay there. Apollo was done as a race, and the goal of a race is to win. It wasn’t sustainable. We need to be able to figure out how to get there and be there, and that takes more than just big rockets. We need a good plan, and I’m not really sure what we had up until this point is that plan.

Building a heavy-lift rocket that can take us to the Moon, Mars, and near-Earth asteroids is not really easy. It’s not like we can dust off the old Saturn V plans and start up the factories again. All that tech is gone, superseded, and we might as well start from scratch with an eye toward newer tech. This budget is calling for that, as well as relying heavily on private companies.

Commercial space

And about that. I’ll say this again: private companies have not yet put a man in orbit, but Space X, as an example, is close to doing so. Once the Shuttle retires later this year, private companies will be putting humans in space before NASA will have the capability to do so again [UPDATE: please see my comment below; the above statement about companies beating NASA is correct]. I am no fan of paying the Russians or other countries to do this for us, and going the route of civilian space makes sense.

Now, Space X doesn’t have the heavy lift capacity that an Ares 5 or other planned NASA rocket might have had… but with routine launches to space covered by private companies, NASA can concentrate on what it should: innovation, pushing the limits, paving the road. Once the road is laid, let others use it.

So I don’t see this as doom and gloom. I see this as 1) putting science and innovation first, and 2) freeing NASA up to do what it does best: explore the boundaries.

Here’s what I think. Warning: political complaining ahead.

Remember: the way we’ve been doing things for 40 years has gotten us literally in circles. It’s perhaps long past time to shake things up and try something different. In my previous posts on this (see Related Posts at the bottom), people are complaining that Obama is killing our Moon plans and gutting NASA. That’s simply not true. I think this may very well save NASA and our future manned exploration capabilities, if this is all done correctly.

As for that, and having said my piece that I think this is a good idea, it may not matter: the other thing to remember is that this must pass Congress first. I honestly don’t think that will happen. For one thing, two many Congresscritters have too big a stake in NASA to let go; if you don’t believe me, read this article where Alabama Congressmen complain about the new budget. When Republicans whine about privatizing something, you know you’re in for a fight, and it’s not like Congressional Democrats haven’t been all that useful in backing up Obama’s plans.

We’ll see how this goes. If it’s business as usual with Congress, then I suspect it may be a lot like the health care plan all over again: lots of spin and noise, lots of knee-jerk reactions because it’s Obama’s plan, lots of "compromise" that’s really just watering down something to make it worse, and then a budget will be passed that won’t be able to get anything done.

I’m pretty damn tired of that, and I’m going to do something about it. I’ll write my Congressmen, and I’ll tell them that the time for bending over backwards is long gone. It’s time to grow a spine, time for boldness, time for innovation. Whether people like it or not, this is the new budget being proposed, and if Congress wheedles over it, then yeah, NASA really will be screwed, and we’ll spend the next four decades circling our planet and gazing at the Moon, wondering when we’ll ever go back.

Perhaps it’s fitting that this news is released on the anniversary of the loss of Columbia — it’s been seven years since that day when the orbiter broke up upon re-entry. A very good case can be made that complacence played a big role in that event. When it comes to space exploration, we must never rest on our laurels, we must never have the arrogance to think we have it all under control, and we must never forget that to explore means to push ahead into unknown territory. That is the lesson of Columbia.

The Moon, Mars, and all of space await us. This new budget may not be perfect, but I strongly suspect it’s the best we can do, and far, far better than the course we currently have laid out. If we don’t push for this now, we may never go back.

A ship may be safe in the harbor, but that’s not what ships are for.

For criminy’s sake. What is it with people and all the rending of garments over the impending doom of NASA?

First:

1) The reports of Spirit’s death are greatly exaggerated.

OK, yes, Spirit is now stuck. It looks like even if it survives the Martian winter it may no longer be able to traverse the Red Planet’s landscape. But that doesn’t mean it’s dead. Instead of a rover, it’s now a stationary platform capable of doing a lot of science on the cheap (since most of the cost was getting it there).

If you’d rather not have a lander sitting on the surface of Mars doing science that we simply cannot do from millions of kilometers away on Earth, then fine. But astronomers and scientists and science journalists should know better. Stop saying it’s dead.

[And I can picture Opportunity on the other side of Mars, waving its mast frantically, saying, Hey, remember me? Still moving, still doing cool stuff!]

Next, and more importantly:

2) The reports of the manned spaceflight’s death are greatly exaggerated.

OK, yes, it does look like (assuming the rumors are true) the Obama budget for NASA is cutting out the Constellation rocket program in general and Ares in particular. But that doesn’t mean manned spaceflight is dead.

As I said in that above link, private space companies are still a ways off from putting people in orbit. However, I strongly suspect they’ll be doing it before Ares would’ve been ready to do it anyway. Private companies like Space X may be two years from that, while Ares wouldn’t have been ready for five, assuming NASA could even get Ares ready by the scheduled time and in the assigned budget (which I would give a chance of, oh, say, precisely 0). So it’s possible, perhaps even likely, that after the Shuttle retires later this year (or early next) companies like Space X will be able to reach the International Space Station with rockets before NASA could.

As far as going back to the Moon, we still don’t know exactly what the budget for NASA will be like, but it was made clear in the leaked reports (again, assuming they are true) that money will be spent to look for a better heavy lift vehicle than Ares. No specifics were given (though the Commercial Spaceflight Federation says it may be 6 billion bucks, a huge chunk of change), so let’s wait until we actually see the report, hmmm?

Also, a lot of folks thought Ares was a waste of time, money, and with little or no chance of working well. Heck, the Space Frontier Foundation praises the killing of Ares! So not only is it unfair to lament the death of manned spaceflight, some people think — with some evidence, mind you — this will spur it on even more.

That last sentiment rings true to me. NASA’s manned program has been endlessly circling the Earth for almost 40 years now, with no real end in sight. I don’t have a lot of faith, so to speak, that Ares can do the job in breaking this cycle. I suspect a lot of the same folks who are decrying this move by Obama are the same ones who would be first in line to say that NASA has had its wings cut for decades now, making one bad decision after another when it comes to space exploration. Maybe it’s time — maybe it’s long after time — that we let someone else have a stab at this.

When I look at the Moon, I see a place where people will one day work, live, breathe, play, and explore. I also see that future receding two years for every year NASA doesn’t have a rocket to go there, and I’ve been watching that movie play for many years now.

I’m tired of it. When I look out my window now I see a future I’ve been dreaming of my whole life, a future that seems just out of my reach. When my children, my grandchildren, look out their windows in that future, y’know what I want them to see?

The blue-green crescent Earth hanging in a pitch black sky over a cratered horizon.

Let’s give space a chance.