Author Topic: Space Access '11 Live Blog  (Read 25565 times)

Offline simonbp

Space Access '11 Live Blog
« on: 04/07/2011 08:07 PM »
I've just set up at the Space Access Society 2011 Conference, and will try to live blog the presentations over the next few days. The schedule is at the link below:

http://www.space-access.org/

(And if you're here, I'm the guy in the brown shirt with a laptop.)
« Last Edit: 04/07/2011 08:07 PM by simonbp »

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9903
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #1 on: 04/07/2011 08:13 PM »
Where is it being streamed?

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #2 on: 04/07/2011 08:17 PM »
Where is it being streamed?
I don't think it is.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #3 on: 04/07/2011 08:17 PM »
I don't know that it is; I'm physically here...

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #4 on: 04/07/2011 08:19 PM »
Good work Simon, thanks!

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9903
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #5 on: 04/07/2011 08:21 PM »
That's too bad... Well looking forward to your notes regardless!

(PS tell the organizers about this little thing called streaming :) )

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #6 on: 04/07/2011 08:24 PM »
I'd like them to stream, but can't blame them for not. It's a pain under the best of circumstances, which this probably isn't, and every little hitch generates tons of generally nonconstructive complaints. Maybe next year.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2011 08:25 PM by Halidon »

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #7 on: 04/07/2011 08:32 PM »
Henry Vanderbilt just giving the welcome.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #8 on: 04/07/2011 08:38 PM »
Henry Spencer first up on Beyond LEO.

(First presentation of his without an overhead; Win98 laptop instead.)
« Last Edit: 04/07/2011 08:39 PM by simonbp »

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #9 on: 04/07/2011 08:47 PM »
LEO is very small; can only play with inclination. Equatorial best, misses South Atlantic Anomaly. But launch sites aren't so great. And bad for tourism -> bad views. 60 deg much better, great views and even flying through aurorae; 4 deg/day precession rate.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #10 on: 04/07/2011 09:06 PM »
GEO lowest interesting place above VA Belts; actually just in outer belt -> need lots of shielding. MDA actually spending their own on Intelsat refueling contract. GEO much closer to escape than LEO. GEO can have up to 72 hour Earth eclipses. Need big dishes; lots of station-keeping dv.

Less that a 100 m/s difference escape and Lunar trajectory; always need course corrections. Moon has a very small Hill sphere. ESL-1/2 at ~150% Earth's Hill radius. ESL-1 could be a very good place for a manned base, continuously illuminated. Solar sails allow you to cheaply stationkeep around the ESL points. Artemis is finding that L1/2 stationkeeping (SK) is pretty cheap, but needs lots of computing power. LLO very unstable (150 m/s per year SK). 500 km orbit SK is 12 m/s, much better. High Lunar Orbit could be better than L1 for staging.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #11 on: 04/07/2011 09:08 PM »
GEO can have up to 72 hour Earth eclipses.

Huh? Was that supposed to be 72 min eclipses?
« Last Edit: 04/07/2011 09:16 PM by ugordan »

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #12 on: 04/07/2011 09:15 PM »
LP has first NS mapping of lunar polar Hydrogen. LCROSS found 6% ice by mass in first meter of Cabeaus floor, as well as CH4 and NH3 (better than LH2 for fuel). LRO NS data confusing -> need (manned) surface exploration to know; very complicated geology. Problem getting resources off Moon. Rotating tethers (MX)?

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #13 on: 04/07/2011 09:15 PM »
GEO can have up to 72 hour Earth eclipses.

Huh?

At solstice.

EDIT: I think he meant 72 minutes.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2011 09:20 PM by simonbp »

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #14 on: 04/07/2011 09:19 PM »
NEOs are usually pretty inclined to eccliptic, and have pretty large relative velocities. Could do an encounter with an asteroid doing a flyby, but much more dv expensive than the Moon.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #15 on: 04/07/2011 09:35 PM »
Mercury like the Moon, but worse (except for potential ice caps). Venus really useless (except as radioactive waste dump :) ). Mars prime territory for a space elevator. Mars surface to orbit is 4 km/s. Phobos outgassing something?

Jovian VA Belts make Earth's look like a joke. Naked on Europa, the radiation would kill you before the vacuum. Also very large dv between Galliean sats.

Once beyond the Moon, Mars plus asteroid. Main Belt is Ceres, Vesta, Pallas and debris. Points out asteroid Spencer. :) Asteroid point-to-point very expensive in dv. Asteroids are very diverse bodies; main belt comets very volatile rich.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #16 on: 04/07/2011 09:46 PM »
GEO can have up to 72 hour Earth eclipses.

Huh?

At solstice.

EDIT: I think he meant 72 minutes.

And probably equinox  :)

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #17 on: 04/07/2011 10:32 PM »
Dennis Stone on CCDEV/COTS

C3PO 5 years old now. NASA investing in both supply and demand. Purposely didn't use traditional government FAR. Give companies maximum possible IP control. SpaceX had financial milestone to prove they were putting skin in the game. Really portrays COTS as a venture capital portfolio. ULA's abort detection system could be used on other vehicles than their own. Blue Origin had some unique TVC on pusher abort. Bob Bigelow very active in CST-100. In an abort, Dreamchaser could land on the SLF at KSC. There will be a CCDEV3, the "big program", in FY2012 as soon as funding is ready. Commercial means more customers than just the government. Advertising allowed (because no NASA co-branding needed) on COTS/CCDEV spacecraft. Still haven't reconciled government costing models with the COTS/CCDEV funding profiles; hard to predict entrepreneurial efforts; being worked on now. CCDEV2  would involve demonstrations in addition to development.

Also, "human cargo" not a good term; became a running joke...

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #18 on: 04/07/2011 11:39 PM »
Jeff Feige on Orbital Outfitters

Hasn't really been development in pressure suits in past 20 years. Lot of testing for suit for Xcor Lynx. Every vehicle really needs a unique suit. Suborbital in-suit time as long as for orbital. Hypergols nearly killed the crew of ATSP. Comfort in spacesuits in relative. Even in best case, suits will always add cost. Never want to be on a vehicle that needs a suit (LK?). Shuttle is a textbook example of how not to integrate a suit into a vehicle; lots of post-Challenger compromises to fit in suits for ascent/descent. Suits are a safety subsystem; has to be developed in parallel with the vehicle. Ballpark price of suborbital suits is less than a suborbital ticket price.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #19 on: 04/08/2011 12:44 AM »
Gwynne Shotwell, President of SpaceX

(lots here)

Lucky to be president of the coolest company she knows of. :)

Falcon 1 program is inactive until at least early next year.

FH core almost (but not quite) full when boosters separate.

NASA wants a fresh Dragons for CRS (because of costing uncertainties), so DragonLab will all be reflights.

Insurance rates 7-8% by Flight 6.

Production rate of 12 F9s by 2013.

Sep events largest cause of failure for LVs. F9 factor of safety 1.4 (vs 1.25 for EELV).

Might have redundant engines on second stage in future!

Dragon on ship's deck within 2 hours of landing.

Abort system core of CCDEV2 proposal. People up within 3 years of starting on abort system.

Elon driving for reusability; continuing work on both first and second stage recovery.

Merlin 1D on test stand now. Still really want to build a F-1 class engine.

"We haze our lobbyists." Four new lobbyists.

1D meant to be easier to mass-produce.

Had to pay full price for her Tesla. :)

Trying to get to ISS on next flight, but could still have COTS3.

FH: C3=3 km2/s2 -> 12 tonnes, C3=90 km2/s2 -> 3 tonnes. Still optimizing trajectories for FH.

Lots of little customers for DragonLab, rather than few big (heading cats); first in 2013.

Really happy to launch Orbital Starbuses; rest of relationship "complex".

Did look at Falcon 1e Heavy to chase Minotaur IV; trading with manifesting on F9. Orbcomm moved 1e payloads to F9, and that put 1e on hold.

Falcon 5 is hard to control; not worth it.

5.2 meter faring on FH. Bunch of little payloads on first FH flight.

Plan is crossfeed on FH from start.

Few (very few) people still working on Raptor.

Development of abort engine long pole for crew. Still in trade whether to use parachutes nominally for propulsive landing.

Interested in electric propulsion.

10-15 years until first Mars mission. :)

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 519
« Last Edit: 04/08/2011 12:50 AM by 2552 »


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28469
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8338
  • Likes Given: 5481
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #22 on: 04/08/2011 12:59 AM »
Several, several threads in the SpaceX section are now better resolved because of Shotwell (Falcon 1e heavy, Falcon 1(e) status, reusability, Falcon Heavy payload to escape, etc, etc).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #23 on: 04/08/2011 01:03 AM »
Thanks for reporting from there. ( suprisingly Twitter is pretty quiet about SA )
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline e of pi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 678
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #24 on: 04/08/2011 01:09 AM »
Forgive a newbie to payload planning, but what destinations do those C3 values correspond to?

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4278
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #25 on: 04/08/2011 02:06 AM »
Gwynne Shotwell, President of SpaceX

(lots here)
Indeed!!

Here's a few that stand out for me (on SpaceX)
Quote
FH core almost (but not quite) full when boosters separate.

NASA wants a fresh Dragons for CRS (because of costing uncertainties), so DragonLab will all be reflights.

Might have redundant engines on second stage in future!

Interested in electric propulsion.

10-15 years until first Mars mission. :)

Thanks for the notes simon. Very much appreciated!
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4303
  • Liked: 1556
  • Likes Given: 1282
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #26 on: 04/08/2011 02:09 AM »
Forgive a newbie to payload planning, but what destinations do those C3 values correspond to?

C3 is the square of the excess velocity over that needed to escape, in this case Earth.  Squared corresponds to energy. (E=1/2*mv^2)  Lots of hits with Google for "C3 escape velocity". There is a relatively fixed C3 for efficient transfers between planets.  Bigger numbers means going faster.   A C3 of 90 (cm^2/cec^2) is pretty darn good.  The New Horizons mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt left with C3=163 km^2/sec^2, the fastest ever. (IIRC)
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #27 on: 04/08/2011 02:13 AM »
On the fresh Dragons point, was apparently the case that they had no idea what it would cost to refurb them when the CRS contracts were written, so NASA just specified new ones to allow for fixed contracts. The recovered Dragon is actually in better shape than they predicted, so the spacecraft costs for DragonLab are going to be pretty low.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4278
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #28 on: 04/08/2011 02:15 AM »
On the fresh Dragons point, was apparently the case that they had no idea what it would cost to refurb them when the CRS contracts were written, so NASA just specified new ones to allow for fixed contracts. The recovered Dragon is actually in better shape than they predicted, so the spacecraft costs for DragonLab are going to be pretty low.

A great bonus for sure!
(of course if it were my company, I would dedicate those vehicles to students/schools for reasearch purposes)
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #29 on: 04/08/2011 02:15 AM »
A C3 of 90 (cm^2/cec^2) is pretty darn good.

Shotwell said that was for a "very specific application", which I assume is either Uranus or Neptune (and probably Uranus given the Decadal survey).

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #30 on: 04/08/2011 04:00 AM »
James Reuther on NASA Space Technology Roadmaps

(Very much a bureaucratic NASA HQ talk)

$1 Billion requested in FY2012 for Space Technology; slightly more than in 2010 Authorization. Large amount of funding is for grad student fellowships (~500) to work at NASA centers. Franklin and Edison small sat development programs for technology development. Technology was 10% of budget during Apollo, 2% in last year. Try to have strict budgets and accountable milestones. Vet technologies with National Academes study to develop roadmaps; started study in December and finished next January. Nuclear surface fission still in development, and NTR and NEP still in play. Mission directorates do not fund low TRL, so this fills the gap.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #31 on: 04/08/2011 04:30 AM »
George Herbert on An In-Situ Resources Manufacturing Proof-Of-Concept

Direct metal laser sintering, 3d rapid fab method for in-space construction with ground up asteroidal metals. Can't do with materials that vapor deposit, like Al. Next step is actually to try it; need metallic meteorite iron.

Change tracks to using neutron flux from a bomb to deflect an asteroid. Asking for a redacted version of classified report...

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #32 on: 04/08/2011 04:54 AM »
Change tracks to using neutron flux from a bomb to deflect an asteroid. Asking for a redacted version of classified report...
Really? What medium to transmit the pulse?

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #33 on: 04/08/2011 05:00 AM »
Gary Hudson on t/Space's CCDEV2 proposal

Scaled Composites, ULA, Dynetics among partners. "XV" Kistler-style reentry vehicle and "OM" docking/power/etc service module. OM can be left as a free-flyer (like Shenzhou mission module). 20,000 lb in total. Patent on integral liquid abort system. LV agnostic. Designed to be lowest-cost solution. Cargo revenue on CRS flight pays for crew. XV plus drop tank doesn't need second stage on Atlas, Falcon or Taurus II (OMS provides last 1 km/s of dv). All avionics on simple mission on XV. Really poo-poos using anything fancy to "load" crew onto XV. GOX and GCH4 propulsion. Capture parachute Corona-style with a Skycrane. Same interior diameter as CRJ regional jet. Up to 12 crew in lifeboat mode. No chance for CCDEV because no skin in the game.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #34 on: 04/08/2011 05:01 AM »
Change tracks to using neutron flux from a bomb to deflect an asteroid. Asking for a redacted version of classified report...
Really? What medium to transmit the pulse?

Vacuum. The neutrons ablate a layer of rock which expands off, carries momentum, and acts as an effective rocket.

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #35 on: 04/08/2011 05:09 AM »
Hell of an event.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #36 on: 04/08/2011 05:11 AM »
Gerry Nordley on Tethers Unlimited

Solar arrays for cubesats and other bus work. Terminator Tape deorbit module: deploy a conductive tape to cause EM drag to deorbit nanosat. Different version for orbit raising with EM tether. Nanosat IMU, release mechanism

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #37 on: 04/08/2011 05:32 AM »
Alex Bruccoleri on Propellant Density Effects on Hydrogen Thermal Rockets

Use a microwave phased array fired from the ground to heat LH2 and use it as a thermal rocket. But does the low density of LH2 make it worth it? Answer is no, LOX/RP-1 is better per volume, unless much better pumps, etc. Also, range of phased arrays just 100 km, which implies >20g acceleration! Use NH3 instead (much higher density)?

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #38 on: 04/08/2011 05:40 AM »
And that's it for day one of three; much more tomorrow, including our own Jon Goff.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #39 on: 04/08/2011 08:30 AM »
A C3 of 90 (cm^2/cec^2) is pretty darn good.

Shotwell said that was for a "very specific application", which I assume is either Uranus or Neptune (and probably Uranus given the Decadal survey).

Unless it involves a Jupiter flyby, 90 (km/s)^2 doesn't look enough for Uranus. Injection energies to Jupiter apparently range from 75-85, depending on if you have good winds that day.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #40 on: 04/08/2011 03:58 PM »
Unless it involves a Jupiter flyby, 90 (km/s)^2 doesn't look enough for Uranus. Injection energies to Jupiter apparently range from 75-85, depending on if you have good winds that day.

Well, given that the entire reason Uranus was favored over Neptune in the Decadal was because it had better Jupiter gravity-assist opportunities, it's probably a given that they will use it. It's just that you wouldn't need an SEP stage in addition (which adds a lot of cost).

Though it could also be for JEO, again to eliminate the Venus-Earth flybys and fly directly to Jupiter.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #41 on: 04/08/2011 04:03 PM »
Keep in mind any of those outer planet missions beyond Jupiter (and Jupiter missions closer in than Ganymede) would need to have FH certified for nuclear payloads. Blackstar mentioned that is a very expensive and long process, in addition to actually certifying the vehicle for high cost, high low risk NASA missions.
« Last Edit: 04/08/2011 04:04 PM by ugordan »

Offline mrhuggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • East Yorkshire, UK
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #42 on: 04/08/2011 04:10 PM »
Keep in mind any of those outer planet missions beyond Jupiter (and Jupiter missions closer in than Ganymede) would need to have FH certified for nuclear payloads. Blackstar mentioned that is a very expensive and long process, in addition to actually certifying the vehicle for high cost, high low risk NASA missions.

With the inherent nature of the FH design ie been human rated, i wouldn't think it wouldn't take much more in terms of getting it nuclear rated. Most of the work to get it would be on the handling side.

The atlas 5 has to have gone through same procedures for New Horizons and MSL.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #43 on: 04/08/2011 04:17 PM »
With the inherent nature of the FH design ie been human rated, i wouldn't think it wouldn't take much more in terms of getting it nuclear rated.

Human-rated and nuclear-rated don't necessarily have the same requirements. Human-rated means a vehicle that would give a crew a high chance of surviving a failure, by monitoring health and picking up problems early enough to initiate an abort.

Unmanned probes don't have abort modes. When a vehicle fails, it goes down into the drink. Along with its plutonium.

So the vehicle design needs to be looked at closely to ensure it will actually be reliable enough to make such a failure very unlikely to be an allowable risk.

Quote
Most of the work to get it would be on the handling side.

I don't understand. What handling side? I'm not talking about payload processing.

Quote
The atlas 5 has to have gone through same procedures for New Horizons

I know. It wasn't a walk in the park, either.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4303
  • Liked: 1556
  • Likes Given: 1282
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #44 on: 04/08/2011 04:26 PM »
With the inherent nature of the FH design ie been human rated, i wouldn't think it wouldn't take much more in terms of getting it nuclear rated. Most of the work to get it would be on the handling side.

The atlas 5 has to have gone through same procedures for New Horizons and MSL.

You wouldn't think, but probably incorrectly. 

The process for getting a rocket certified to carry an RTG is well established and very involved.

The process for "human rating" a rocket is not yet fully defined, so "the inherent nature of the FH design" may count for little in either rating.
« Last Edit: 04/08/2011 04:27 PM by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #45 on: 04/08/2011 04:49 PM »
Change tracks to using neutron flux from a bomb to deflect an asteroid. Asking for a redacted version of classified report...
Really? What medium to transmit the pulse?

Vacuum. The neutrons ablate a layer of rock which expands off, carries momentum, and acts as an effective rocket.

Are you sure you're not thinking of x-rays ablating the surface? Neutrons would penetrate much deeper and transfer their momentum directly and more evenly, avoiding large structural stresses like those of x-ray-powered rocket propulsion.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #46 on: 04/08/2011 05:06 PM »
Jeff Greason on XCOR Aerospace

XCOR on track for best year yet, still a few unannounced contracts. ULA contract for 25,000 lb LOX/LH2 that resemble a certain engine on the market today. Parts of ULA don't act like big aerospace; try to build a better product rather than yelling to senators. ULA concentrated all the pro-commercial space people at LM and Boeing. Market for expendable rockets not as big as some may like. Has a mixed history with hydrogen. H2O on Moon means hydrogen is future for exploration. LH2 engine "going nicely". Conventional wisdom about handling LH2 makes it a bit worse than their experience.

Lynx engine fully up and running; testing new nozzle fabrication techniques for ULA (to reduce cost). Still have pump integration to go, but propulsion is not long pole for Lynx. Separate test stand for pumps. 3 markets for Lynx (people, payloads, and nanosats) equally. Certain interest in fixed vacuum payloads on dorsal pod (instrument testing?). Can put a Shuttle mid-deck locker in place of passenger seat. Separate companies for payload integration. Wet lease program for Lynx. Two announced customers, and a bunch of unannounced.

2004 Commercial Space Act had a moratorium on fantasy-based regulation at FAA. That moratorium is soon to expire. Interaction with State Department not as bad as expected, but don't surprise bureaucracy (because they'll just say no).

Couldn't be happier about the progress on Lynx. Progress based on profits from separate contracts, but getting better. Have enough to be able to build Lynx without further investment, but only slowly.

The more he works with wind tunnels, the more he likes them. MSFC tunnel folks are great. USAF might be giving him a bunch of tunnel time. No comparison to time for CFD.

Just a little bit of toxic props is still toxic. But, non-toxic RCS is very hard, though they have made progress. Highly oxygenated near-monoprop with a bit of GOX.

Dorsal pod removable from Lynx.

ITAR has a guilty until proven innocent mentality. Everything that has a rocket is on the munitions list. State can't publish past ITAR decisions, making it hard to figure what works.

XCOR does not accept cost plus contracts.

Considering LH2 for Lynx upper stage; ease of use determining factor.

WRT regulation, crashed spacecraft do not make money. That's the real regulation.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #47 on: 04/08/2011 06:05 PM »
Rick Wills on REFPROP

NIST propellant material properties database. License $200. Very useful for tank and engine design.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #48 on: 04/08/2011 07:35 PM »
Max Vozoff on ISP Systems and NOFBX

Hydrazine Sucks: ubiquitous, dangerous (hundreds of deaths), expensive, tremendous overhead, not a good monopropellant. But really no alternative.

Nitrous-oxide based monopropellant. Non-toxic and environment friendly; much less overhead and liability. Hydrazine-powered rocket a chemical weapon warhead worse than Agent Orange. Not export-controlled, thus international patents. Tested in up to 200 lbf rockets. ISP systems is a tech incubator to develop NOFBX. Better vac Isp than best hydrazine biprop systems (>320 sec vac). Spark-ignited, unlike hydrazine systems. Very fast kinetics relative to biprop systems; almost silent burning. Self-pressurizing, no He needed for RCS applications. Less than 5% of cost of hydrazine. Can be used to regen cool nozzle; thrusters <150 deg C when burning.

Initial products 5 lbf and 100 lbf thrusters. ISS flight experiment in 2012 to get "flight heritage" with 100 lbf thruster. Prop transfer simply a matter of differential heating (= differential pressure). International commercial and domestic military customers. NOFBX is a disruptive technology.

Right now a plan; ask again in 3 years how it goes. Nitrous Oxide with a "secret sauce" added. Separate NASA-funded and FAA-funded stability tests. Always a balance with monoprop. Hydrazines are all grandfathered in, wouldn't pass modern tests (which NOFBX has so far). Room temperature pressure is 700-800 psi. All gas-phase when it gets to the injector. Proprietary flash-back arresting hardware.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4278
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #49 on: 04/08/2011 08:18 PM »
Max Vozoff on ISP Systems and NOFBX

...
Right now a plan; ask again in 3 years how it goes. Nitrous Oxide with a "secret sauce" added.

Hmmm. Interesting.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #50 on: 04/08/2011 09:30 PM »
Max Vozoff on A Model for Successful Commercial Crew Procurement

Shuttle has set a pretty low bar for safety. Very hard to get past Soyuz on safety per cost. Innovation hard to incorporate in space industry. Bigelow needs 8 crew flights/per year. Purely commercial flight marginalizes NASA spaceflight. Killing people is very bad for business. Any government program longer than 8 years will get canceled. NASA's information base is owned by the US public and should be pushed out to private companies.

COTS is a funded Space Act Agreement -> removes a lot of overhead relative to FAR. If Space Act milestones are missed, USG can take property and IP. Goals rather than detailed requirements. Government-controlled IP scares investors. ISS safety is were USG should regulate, everything else is were it should not.

Fixed price only works if the bidders know what they're bidding. Draft requirements can't be too specific. Compete a funded Phase A. Then, drive down to 3-4 year program to demonstrate crew to station. Finally, make awards based on number of delivered crew to station, like CRS. Maybe $500 million per crew flight.

Multiple funded 9-month Phase As, like SMD. Needs to be skin in the game; if not, may not be market to support product.

"Radical left" is COTS office; "radical right" is traditional NASA HSF and Spaceflight Awareness.
« Last Edit: 04/08/2011 09:39 PM by simonbp »

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #51 on: 04/08/2011 10:01 PM »
Charles Pooley on Microlaunchers

Relocating to Las Vegas; business much easier than in California. Sending Nanosats to NEOs and Earth quasi-satellites. Attitude control with radiation pressure. Total mass less than 200 grams. 7 cm telescope for imaging. 100-300 kg GLOW launch vehicle.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4278
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #52 on: 04/08/2011 10:07 PM »
Charles Pooley on Microlaunchers

Relocating to Las Vegas; business much easier than in California. Sending Nanosats to NEOs and Earth quasi-satellites. Attitude control with radiation pressure. Total mass less than 200 grams. 7 cm telescope for imaging. 100-300 kg GLOW launch vehicle.

Geez!! 200 grams!

(appreciate your updates simon! Great job)
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #53 on: 04/08/2011 10:15 PM »
George Herbert on Wild and Crazy Propellants

SF6/NH3-Li rockets. SF6 relatively nontoxic, much denser than bulk air. Products are solid LiF and Li2S, both of which are solid phase. Used as torpedo propulsion system (with a turbine).

Add NH3 and get Isp of 271 sec (theoretically). Exhaust will sink, literally. Also little bit of hydrofluoric acid in exhaust. Li miscible in NH3. Self-pressurizing. Li expensive, but only 10% of prop mass. Rare hypergolic that isn't really deadly, and amateur-friendly.

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #54 on: 04/08/2011 10:36 PM »
Quote
Relocating to Las Vegas; business much easier than in California. Sending Nanosats to NEOs and Earth quasi-satellites. Attitude control with radiation pressure. Total mass less than 200 grams. 7 cm telescope for imaging. 100-300 kg GLOW launch vehicle.

Wow. If you can take 300kg on Earth and get anything to a NEO, why aren't we launching these twice a day and getting close up shots of everything?

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #55 on: 04/08/2011 10:46 PM »
John Garvey on Garvey Spacecraft

Nanosat launch vehicle. Close collaboration with Cal State. Semi-refurbishable rocket. Cubesat-derived avionics on rocket. Zigbee-based telemetry downlink. Reference config 10 kg to 250 km circular. Community wants 20 kg to 450 km, so cluster. 2009 launch with multichamber aerospike; 7/10 chambers ignited -> crash. Not deep enough pockets for fixed-cost projects. Under Class 2 waiver, working towards Class 3. Competing for NASA suborbital reusable contract. LOX/Propylene good compromise of density and power.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #56 on: 04/08/2011 11:56 PM »
Mike Kelly on FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST)

License and permit operations, rather the certification of vehicles. SS2 will fly under an experimental permit once it begins powered flight. 8 licensed launches since April 2010. Large learning curve on Dragon entry permit. Working with Bigelow. Commercial Space Transportation Center of Excellence; government-commercial-academia partnership.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #57 on: 04/09/2011 12:29 AM »
Jon Goff on Altius Space Machines

First time pitching the company in front of a large audience. :) Depots major motivation for starting Altius. Hunch: Many key spacefaring technologies can profitably developed today. Rather serial progression, attack from both ends. Didn't mean to create spacecraft mechanisms company, but did. Rendezvous and docking is key bottleneck for low-cost spaceflight.

Sticky boom electroadhesion docking. Will stick to wood, concrete, cats. Even better in vacuum. Long boom allows "contact at a distance". Tradition docking is controlled collision. F-15s don't ram the back end of a Tanker to dock.

Sticky boom for Mars Sample Return return vehicle. Sample collection from NEA mission. Allows you to capture a tumbling object.

For a depot, tanker is just a dumb tank. Enable daily "milk runs" for ISS.

Handheld demo mechanism; didn't have any videos, so brought working hardware instead. :) Want to get flying in next few years. Build custom sticky for third party spacecraft.

Possibility to combine with a Terminator Tape Electrodynamic tether for junk disposal.

(And I'm sure he can add much more if you ask)

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4278
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #58 on: 04/09/2011 12:32 AM »
Oh sweet! So that's what that electroadhesion doo-hickey thing was for!  :)
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #59 on: 04/09/2011 12:45 AM »
Frank Smith on KC Space Pirates

NASA space elevator power beaming challenge. Laser-power RC car. Laser sponsor pulled out, but don't have $1 million to replace. Challenge may be changed. Small (<1 kg) tether nanosat.

Ashes to orbit; spread ashes from polar orbit, land over entire Earth. Only $2000.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #60 on: 04/09/2011 01:07 AM »
Rich Pournelle on NanoRacks

Developed as racks for experiments on ISS. 4x4 Cubesat form factor. $25 k for 30 days on station, without return. More for return. Flys in space-qualified camera bag. About 50 payloads so far. 1U, 3U and 4U sizes. All-commercial system; great relationship with NASA. Open source standard.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #61 on: 04/09/2011 01:20 AM »
Rick Tumlinson on the Texas Space Alliance and Space Diver

Change the conversation about space in Texas. Make Texas world leader in spaceflight, and just of a single federal facility. Armadillo, Blue Origin and others, but state does not recognize it. 501C4 lobbying organization. Texas is late to the game. Get to learn from other's mistakes. Worked with Blue Origin on a liability law, that has passed state senate. Crown jewel is spaceports.


Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #62 on: 04/09/2011 03:47 AM »
Bruce Pittman on NASA Ames Space Portal

For helping commercial space. Strong legal background for doing that. Moving from Apollo model to Commercial Leverage model. CRuSR: Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research -> NASA as a customer. Two contracts, one each to Armadillo and Masten. Commercial and Government Responsive Access to Space Technology Exchange: NASA, AFRL, and FAA sponsored.

Did propellant depot analysis after HEFT1 rejected it, and thus they are now at least in play.

Six Innovative Lunar Demonstration Data contracts to share data with GLXP teams. Lunar Orphan (instrument) Flight Test program. International Lunar Research Park discussion with Japanese (Pacific International Space Alliance).

Preparing for the Lunar Wet Gold Rush...

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #63 on: 04/09/2011 04:18 AM »
Dave Masten on Masten Space Systems

A lot of building up the business over last year. Making more like a business rather than a hobby.

Signed Letter of Intent with Space Florida. Florida going to be hungry pretty soon; pick of litter. Also, most friendly for scheduling and range.

Scimatar engine: LOX/Isopropal, 1800 lbf, 9:1 throttling, 225 sec Isp, pintle injector. Isoprop best in terms of operations.

Xaero capable of reaching reaching 30 km. 5 km in Q2 2011. Drag brakes on nose. Katana next engine, Xogdor next vehicle.

Rant: "Senate Launch System" in not going to fly. And could give ammunition to really cut NASA budgets.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #64 on: 04/09/2011 04:42 AM »
Ian Kluft on StratoFox

Volunteer tracking team; stratospheric foxhunt. Mostly hams interested in space. Combination of ARPS and directional. Mostly at Black Rock (Class G airspace) and northern California. Most famous recovery was CSXT's all-volunteer space shot in 2004 to 72 miles. Black Rock can be much cheaper than federal launch ranges.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #65 on: 04/09/2011 05:04 AM »
Keith Henson on High Volume/Low Cost Bases On New Semiconductor Lasers

Huge valley of death between comm sats and power sats. Launching 3-4 Skylons per hour to launch power sats. Beamed energy propulsion to make cheaper, using high-power diode lasers.

"Couple of problems with this design": understatement of the conference...

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #66 on: 04/09/2011 05:31 AM »
Donovan Chipman on Mars To Go: A Minimal Manned Mars Sample Return Mission

Minimal technology mission. Falcon or Delta Heavy launch. Solar plus VASMIR. One-man Corona-based capsule. Bigelow Galaxy. MSL aeroshell and Skycrane. One man open-cockpit ascent vehicle. Good for day or two on surface. MSL-based manned rover. Total mass to LEO: <53 tonnes. Aerobrake (not aerocapture) to low Mars orbit.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #67 on: 04/09/2011 04:50 PM »
Roger Longstaff on Reaction Engines

Very busy past year. C1 could be completed with existing technology, assuming testing goes to plan. NASA and ESA reviews. SABRE demo in Q3 2011. Precooler is only really new component in SABRE.

First HOTOL wouldn't have worked. About $30 million spent on second HOTOL (mostly BAe private funding). Very unstable, complex launch trolley. 50 people working at Skylon today.

Carry a tank of water to force shutdown in abort case. Mechanical compression. Much lighter to control than HOTOL. Payload of 10.2 tonnes to LEO for C1, 7 tonnes to ISS, 3 tonnes to sun-synchronous. Max temp 1900 K on nose/tail. Takes in >1000 tonnes of air, >250 tonnes of O2 during ascent. In air, Isp is halfway between turbojet and pure rocket. Takeoff at Mach 0.84. Most mass lost after switch to pure rocket. Subsonic L/D is same as Shuttle. 5 km runway at moment, Korou could work.

Working on D1 design with target of 15 tonnes to LEO. Allows launch of GEO sat with reusable upper stage. 50 tonnes heavier, but still half the mass of a A380. SABRE 4 engine.

Nacelle test vehicle programme in plan. Ready for full development by prime contractor by 2014. Could fly by 2018, operational by 2020. Once operational, $4-5 million per flight. If it works, very disruptive. But, need $15 billion to get working, comparable to A380.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #68 on: 04/09/2011 05:18 PM »
Timothy Bendel on Frontier Astronautics

Offers hard-get goods and services to entrepreneurial space companies. Converted Atlas E silo to test stand. Three-axis movement test stand. Structural design services. Software ACS flight simulator with Simulink. Offers space for companies to establish Wyoming residency.

XL systems making H2O2. SpeedUp, Luna City. Stone Aerospace working on Europa sub. CU-Boulder. Open Source Launch Vehicle.

Darma South Korean CH4 10-ton engine (descended from KSLV engine). $3 million per engine (1/10 the cost of RL-10).

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #69 on: 04/09/2011 05:32 PM »
Bob Steinke on SpeedUp

Hybrid peroxide-polyethylene engine for upper stages. Full-scale is 6-inch motor. Had failure with 2 inch rocket: engine unlit and the relit with hard start, blew injector off. Lesson: hybrids are not explosion proof. Laramie Rose Lunar X Prize entry: too late, but still want get flying. New, non-pryo valve actuator: self-contained pneumatic ball-valve actuator powered by CO2 cartridge.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #70 on: 04/09/2011 06:56 PM »
Jim Muncy

Not in a pure "fly at your own risk" environment, but regulations officially have to be based on real data. Current commercial space act expires soon, as 8-year period allocated for collecting data. Since not as fast as expected, requesting an extension to have 8 years from the first revenue-generating manned flight.

Orion is not in competition with commercial. LM bought OFT-1 Delta IV with their money. NASA doesn't have enough money to launch Orion to ISS. Orion plus Falcon-launched injection stage could do lunar flyby. Hope is that SLS is delayed enough to allow for commercial systems to replace Shuttle Derived. Seems absurd that KSC and JSC want to wait for MSFC to design a rocket, rather than just use commercial systems. Shuttle Derived is a short-term politically-expedient solution. Do you want a jobs program or a space program? Only 5% of DoD cares about solid-rocket industrial base.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #71 on: 04/09/2011 09:04 PM »
Russ Blink on Armadillo Aerospace

Working with Rocket Racing; 55 tonnes of propellant. You know you're doing a lot of rocket testing when it gets annoying.

Worked with JSC to build the Super Quad. JSC finishing up testing; fly it in Houston by early May. Really good collaboration, going both ways. Two-stage film cooling.

Stig is 29 feet tall; Mod with different tanks. First tether test with Stig had fixed engine and still "hovered" for a bit. Use leftover Helium to eject nose. First 29 km down on drogue, last 1 km on mains. Issues with New Mexico Spaceport getting used to liquid rockets. Actually much easier to hover than Pixel or Texel. Planning 100,000 ft on first flight, going to 100 km later. Lots of improvements planned for Stig. Issues with LOX freezing the alcohol.

Manned vehicle (Hyperion) about size of Gemini: 8-ft diameter, 8 engines (4 pairs). Next vehicle after Stig, ready to start.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #72 on: 04/09/2011 09:34 PM »
Paul Breed on Unreasonable Rocket

Unreasonably Lazy Year. 100g IMU project. Old electronic box is 1 kg, and that's too big. Eventual 100 km and orbital goals.

3D printing rocket nozzles in stainless steel. Plastic in process filled cooling channels -> use multiple pieces, but welding destroys stainless coating. So, direct metal sintering: more expensive, but works much better.

About 20 flights with new IMU. Low-cost IMUs really don't like rocket vibrations. Analog Devices IMU works well. None of the commercial GPS systems could keep lock. So, building GPS integrated IMU with open source hardware and software. COTS GPS front-end with FPGA back-end. Can use IMU to narrow parameter space for GPS.

Working with Microcosom on adapting mass-ratio=82 LOX tanks; finding compatible resin and fiber. Industrial resin and Kevlar.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #73 on: 04/09/2011 11:58 PM »
Rand Simberg on Competitive Space Task Force

Attempting to organize to political conservatives to support commercial space.  Current model is Cold War legacy. Apollo was a state-socialist model in response to Soviet state-socialist model. Created a NASA that wasn't pro-enterprise. Focus on safety over cost. Ecological niches are a function of technology. One billion dollars will get you 2/3 of a Shuttle launch, or three SpaceXs. Don't spend billions having evacuation systems for South Pole station. Move NASA/FAA/DoD space to "Space Guard", based on Coast Guard model.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4278
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #74 on: 04/10/2011 12:03 AM »
Paul Breed on Unreasonable Rocket
...
3D printing rocket nozzles in stainless steel. Plastic in process filled cooling channels -> use multiple pieces, but welding destroys stainless coating. So, direct metal sintering: more expensive, but works much better.

That sounds really interesting!
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #75 on: 04/10/2011 12:26 AM »
Rick Maschek on Sugar Shot To Space

Great stories of launching rockets with kids. :)

Sugar Shot: launch a Sugar-Potassium Nitrate rocket to space. Parts built all over the world. Next step is 100,000 ft rocket. Single stage solid rocket that burns twice; boost, coast, reignite. Reignition difficult.

Offline WulfTheSaxon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
    • #geekpolitics on DALnet
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 698
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #76 on: 04/10/2011 12:34 AM »
Rand Simberg on Competitive Space Task Force
[snip]
Focus on safety over cost[…] Don't spend billions having evacuation systems for South Pole station.

Is he saying that cost is more important than safety? If not, those 2 statements seem to be rather contradictory. (Then again, a lot of what he says never seems to make any sense.)

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #77 on: 04/10/2011 12:46 AM »
Joe Lee on An Open Source Launch Vehicle Project

Amateur racetrack mentality: share strategy, but openly compete. Products and services for "small space". Need common and open tools and methods. Work on tools collaboratively. Approach the market as a cooperative -> needs a cerntain type of investor.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #78 on: 04/10/2011 12:51 AM »
Rand Simberg on Competitive Space Task Force
[snip]
Focus on safety over cost[…] Don't spend billions having evacuation systems for South Pole station.

Is he saying that cost is more important than safety? If not, those 2 statements seem to be rather contradictory. (Then again, a lot of what he says never seems to make any sense.)

No, he was saying that NASA, being a government program, focuses on putting a lot of money into adding only a modicum of safety. Echoing an argument made earlier in the conference, companies don't make money killing people (especially if they are a start-up), so the free market does tend towards efficient (rather than showy) safety systems.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6180
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #79 on: 04/10/2011 12:51 AM »
Rand Simberg on Competitive Space Task Force
[snip]
Focus on safety over cost[…] Don't spend billions having evacuation systems for South Pole station.

Is he saying that cost is more important than safety? If not, those 2 statements seem to be rather contradictory. (Then again, a lot of what he says never seems to make any sense.)

Dude, you're taking shorthand notes from simonbp (already short of context) and snipping out the parts that could have provided you that context, namely:

"Created a NASA that wasn't pro-enterprise. Focus on safety over cost."

shows that "Focus on safety over cost" clearly refers to NASA, and "Don't spend billions having evacuation systems for South Pole station" refers to a non-NASA practice (and the model he thinks NASA should be following).

I don't agree with Rand on many issues, but your post is ridiculous.
JRF

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #80 on: 04/10/2011 01:44 AM »
Final Event:

Panel: "NASA Reform: The Art Of The Possible" - Jim Muncy, Rand Simberg, Henry Spencer, Henry Vanderbilt

Vanderbilt: After Apollo, NASA assumed that the drop in funding was temporary, and thus tried to "keep the team together", and stayed too big. NASA experience is invaluable, but should be used to support industrial base, rather than replace it. Bureaucrats tend to relax to lowest possible energy state.

Spencer: Faster, Better, Cheaper gets a bad rap: Mars Pathfinder was success, MPL and MCS were disasters. Was so because everyone thought it would fail and the old guard avoided Pathfinder, but then killed it with MPL and MCS. Concern that CCDEV will be taken over by old guard and thus fail.

Simberg: Problem isn't NASA, it's on the Hill. Need to get people on Beltway thinking about space to make it important.

Muncy: As long as Space Policy is Space Policy, space is not going to be a salient issue. Where it is important, it's important for the wrong reasons. Congress only think about it as saving/preserving jobs in their districts.

Vanderbilt: Talk to your congressmen, rather than specific committee members. Long term approach, gradually educate congressmen and their staffers. Constellation was an "Apollo Cargo Cult", aping the Apollo program.

Simberg: Budget cutting tea party may be an opportunity.

Muncy: Can't have a single horse that carries the whole load. Gotta be many avenues to commercial space.

Spencer: You don't turn a dinosaur into a mammal by explaining the advantages of fur.

Muncy: NASA already has enough authority to promote prop depots.

Spencer: Outer Space Treaty requires USG to regulate any US prop depots, and FAA is most logical.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #81 on: 04/10/2011 01:45 AM »
Conference is over, lots of fun, time for the bar!

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4278
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #82 on: 04/10/2011 01:48 AM »
Vanderbilt: ... Bureaucrats tend to relax to lowest possible energy state.

HAHA. Nice line.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4278
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #83 on: 04/10/2011 01:48 AM »
Conference is over, lots of fun, time for the bar!

Have fun, and have one on me. Thanks so much for the coverage!

Some very interesting notes there.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2294
  • Likes Given: 775
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #84 on: 04/10/2011 02:22 AM »
Thanks for the coverage too Simon!  It was nice finally having a face to go with the name.

~Jon

Offline WulfTheSaxon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
    • #geekpolitics on DALnet
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 698
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #85 on: 04/10/2011 02:24 AM »
No, he was saying that NASA, being a government program, focuses on putting a lot of money into adding only a modicum of safety.

That’s a bad thing? As has been mentioned before, after Apollo 1 and Challenger, everybody pushed for more focus on safety. Then they forgot about them, and started complaining that NASA wastes too much money on safety. I thought we’d learned our lesson after Columbia. Perhaps not.   =\

Echoing an argument made earlier in the conference, companies don't make money killing people (especially if they are a start-up), so the free market does tend towards efficient (rather than showy) safety systems.

The history of commercial aviation seems to show otherwise.


P.S.
Thanks for the great coverage.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2011 02:24 AM by WulfTheSaxon »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #86 on: 04/10/2011 02:27 AM »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9627
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 464
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #87 on: 04/10/2011 02:54 AM »
Rich Pournelle on NanoRacks

Developed as racks for experiments on ISS. 4x4 Cubesat form factor. $25 k for 30 days on station, without return. More for return. Flys in space-qualified camera bag. About 50 payloads so far. 1U, 3U and 4U sizes. All-commercial system; great relationship with NASA. Open source standard.

Sounds good to me!  ;D

Offline MP99

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #88 on: 04/10/2011 11:52 AM »
Gwynne Shotwell, President of SpaceX
...
Falcon 1 program is inactive until at least early next year.

FH core almost (but not quite) full when boosters separate.
...
Production rate of 12 F9s by 2013.
...
Might have redundant engines on second stage in future!
...
Elon driving for reusability; continuing work on both first and second stage recovery.

Merlin 1D on test stand now. Still really want to build a F-1 class engine.
...
FH: C3=3 km2/s2 -> 12 tonnes, C3=90 km2/s2 -> 3 tonnes. Still optimizing trajectories for FH.
...
Did look at Falcon 1e Heavy to chase Minotaur IV; trading with manifesting on F9. Orbcomm moved 1e payloads to F9, and that put 1e on hold.

Falcon 5 is hard to control; not worth it.

5.2 meter faring on FH. Bunch of little payloads on first FH flight.

Plan is crossfeed on FH from start.

Few (very few) people still working on Raptor.

Well, that really answers most of the rampant questions / speculations on SpaceX.

Still surprised they're going for cross-feed on first FH flight.

F5 / F6 would be an obvious way to continue F9 block I performance with M1D. Glad to see that one put to bed (as much as it would be simpler for them to concentrate on just F1 & F9 cores anyway).

Nice also to see M2 and Raptor still on the long-range horizon, but off table medium term (should have been pretty obvious anyway with recent M1D / FH announcement).

Super coverage all around. Many, many thanks.

cheers, Martin

Offline Space Pete

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #89 on: 04/10/2011 01:12 PM »
Rich Pournelle on NanoRacks

Developed as racks for experiments on ISS. 4x4 Cubesat form factor. $25 k for 30 days on station, without return. More for return. Flys in space-qualified camera bag. About 50 payloads so far. 1U, 3U and 4U sizes. All-commercial system; great relationship with NASA. Open source standard.

I read via another site that NanoRacks announced at the conference that they are looking to develop an external payload site on ISS!

Do you recall anything being said about that? Thanks.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2011 01:13 PM by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4278
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #90 on: 04/10/2011 03:18 PM »
Rich Pournelle on NanoRacks

Developed as racks for experiments on ISS. 4x4 Cubesat form factor. $25 k for 30 days on station, without return. More for return. Flys in space-qualified camera bag. About 50 payloads so far. 1U, 3U and 4U sizes. All-commercial system; great relationship with NASA. Open source standard.

I read via another site that NanoRacks announced at the conference that they are looking to develop an external payload site on ISS!

Do you recall anything being said about that? Thanks.

Is there something wrong with Japan's EF, or is just the commercial aspect of it?
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Space Pete

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #91 on: 04/10/2011 03:21 PM »
Rich Pournelle on NanoRacks

Developed as racks for experiments on ISS. 4x4 Cubesat form factor. $25 k for 30 days on station, without return. More for return. Flys in space-qualified camera bag. About 50 payloads so far. 1U, 3U and 4U sizes. All-commercial system; great relationship with NASA. Open source standard.

I read via another site that NanoRacks announced at the conference that they are looking to develop an external payload site on ISS!

Do you recall anything being said about that? Thanks.

Is there something wrong with Japan's EF, or is just the commercial aspect of it?

What I mean is that NanoRacks want to mount some small payloads outside ISS, either on the JEF or on an ELC. I don't mean develop an entire new platform - just develop something that attaches to the existing platforms to accommodate small payloads. :)
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4278
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #92 on: 04/10/2011 03:29 PM »
Rich Pournelle on NanoRacks

Developed as racks for experiments on ISS. 4x4 Cubesat form factor. $25 k for 30 days on station, without return. More for return. Flys in space-qualified camera bag. About 50 payloads so far. 1U, 3U and 4U sizes. All-commercial system; great relationship with NASA. Open source standard.

I read via another site that NanoRacks announced at the conference that they are looking to develop an external payload site on ISS!

Do you recall anything being said about that? Thanks.

Is there something wrong with Japan's EF, or is just the commercial aspect of it?

What I mean is that NanoRacks want to mount some small payloads outside ISS, either on the JEF or on an ELC. I don't mean develop an entire new platform - just develop something that attaches to the existing platforms to accommodate small payloads. :)

Oh okay. Thanks for clarifying that.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline rickyramjet

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Killeen, TX
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #93 on: 04/10/2011 03:58 PM »
Rand Simberg on Competitive Space Task Force
[snip]
Focus on safety over cost[…] Don't spend billions having evacuation systems for South Pole station.

Is he saying that cost is more important than safety? If not, those 2 statements seem to be rather contradictory. (Then again, a lot of what he says never seems to make any sense.)

Dude, you're taking shorthand notes from simonbp (already short of context) and snipping out the parts that could have provided you that context, namely:

"Created a NASA that wasn't pro-enterprise. Focus on safety over cost."

shows that "Focus on safety over cost" clearly refers to NASA, and "Don't spend billions having evacuation systems for South Pole station" refers to a non-NASA practice (and the model he thinks NASA should be following).

I don't agree with Rand on many issues, but your post is ridiculous.

Is it really necessary for you to insult people publicly for the way someone prepares a quote?  It was obvious to me, and probably everyone else, that WulfTheSaxon was probably just trying to save a little space by not quoting the entire original post.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #94 on: 04/10/2011 04:34 PM »
Is it really necessary for you to insult people publicly for the way someone prepares a quote?  It was obvious to me, and probably everyone else, that WulfTheSaxon was probably just trying to save a little space by not quoting the entire original post.

His question was phrased in such a way as to make it entirely non-obvious that he meant what you think he meant. I certainly got the same impression as Jorge.

Oh, and as far as insulting people, FWIW from what I've seen Jorge is probably the least insulting industry insider around here.

Offline WulfTheSaxon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
    • #geekpolitics on DALnet
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 698
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #95 on: 04/10/2011 05:08 PM »
Is it really necessary for you to insult people publicly for the way someone prepares a quote?  It was obvious to me, and probably everyone else, that WulfTheSaxon was probably just trying to save a little space by not quoting the entire original post.

His question was phrased in such a way as to make it entirely non-obvious that he meant what you think he meant. I certainly got the same impression as Jorge.

Oh, and as far as insulting people, FWIW from what I've seen Jorge is probably the least insulting industry insider around here.

Every board has its own conventions*, but from the ones I’m most familiar with it’s generally assumed that somebody’s already read the rest of the thread. So, I was just providing part of the quote as a reminder…

Guess I’ll quote more fully here in future.

* On one hand, there are some forums where my post would have had “@simonbp on 2011-04-09 11:58” and no quote at all; on the other hand, there are some where I’ve seen quoted replies 20 layers deep (I tend not to frequent the latter).

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #96 on: 04/10/2011 05:14 PM »
I’ve seen quoted replies 20 layers deep (I tend not to frequent the latter).

The thing that annoys me most about this forum is some people's tendency to quote the entire post they're replying to (which around here can frequently be well over one screen long) just to add an "I agree" to the last sentence, or some other one-liner.

But we digress...

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #97 on: 04/10/2011 10:06 PM »
The history of commercial aviation seems to show otherwise.

Epic linking. :)

But I think the point wasn't that failure wouldn't happen; remember three people (at Scaled) have already died in pursuit of commercial suborbital flight. It was more that the initial regulation shouldn't be overly restrictive, because without real data, it just doesn't increase safety (though it does make the barrier to enter the market much harder). This was a general theme that several people said in several different ways, especially in the context of continuing the "experimental/data-collection" period defined in the Commercial Space Act.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #98 on: 04/10/2011 10:09 PM »
I read via another site that NanoRacks announced at the conference that they are looking to develop an external payload site on ISS!

Do you recall anything being said about that? Thanks.

I don't recall anything specifically, but since I knew next to nothing about NanoRacks beforehand, I could have missed it.

Someone did ask if any customers had requested a rack to be "tossed out" the airlock of station, and Pournelle said no, not that he was aware of.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #99 on: 04/10/2011 10:11 PM »
Have fun, and have one on me. Thanks so much for the coverage!

You're welcome, and I did. Several times. :)

Offline gregzsidisin

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Frontier Astronautics, Dollinger Aerospace ... and Someone Else!
« Reply #100 on: 04/18/2011 08:06 PM »
Nice coverage, but you left out a fun moment during Tim Bendel's presentation.

Frontier Astronautics is actually hosting a number of companies at their facility, from DARMA Aerospace down to individual experimenters.

In fact, Tim made a pitch for others to join.  $200 a month gets you 10 sq ft, 4 man-hours of Frontier staff time, and access to facilities such as their test stands.  More importantly, it gives people the opportunity to incorporate as a Wyoming space business (wherever they may actually be physically), which has a number of cost, tax and business benefits.

I used this opportunity to publicly sign up as Dollinger Aerospace - a small rocket company named in honor of my late wife Paulette Dollinger.  It's great to know I have access to Frontier's missile base, and its expertise.  We had discussed the rental arrangement beforehand, but Tim's presentation marked the formal announcement of my little company.  We did it in a tongue-in-cheek manner: I ran up waving my $200, we shook hands, and then Tim displayed our logo on the screen.  (Later on, we signed the agreement papers in the hallway.)

But - lo and behold! - another guy who'd had only casual conversations with Tim then ran up unexpectedly, and gave Tim HIS $200!  I assume they discussed making it formal offline afterward.  What a hoot!

I do believe there's still room at the missile base... :)
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 08:06 PM by gregzsidisin »
Greg Zsidisin

"Space pioneers have long studied the laws of the Universe. Now they must learn the ways of the World." -GZ, 1996

"In essence, rocket science is about blowing a lot of hot gas out an orifice. There are more experts in this field than you might realize." -GZ, 2011

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28469
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8338
  • Likes Given: 5481
Nice coverage, but you left out a fun moment during Tim Bendel's presentation.

Frontier Astronautics is actually hosting a number of companies at their facility, from DARMA Aerospace down to individual experimenters.

In fact, Tim made a pitch for others to join.  $200 a month gets you 10 sq ft, 4 man-hours of Frontier staff time, and access to facilities such as their test stands.  More importantly, it gives people the opportunity to incorporate as a Wyoming space business (wherever they may actually be physically), which has a number of cost, tax and business benefits.

I used this opportunity to publicly sign up as Dollinger Aerospace - a small rocket company named in honor of my late wife Paulette Dollinger.  It's great to know I have access to Frontier's missile base, and its expertise.  We had discussed the rental arrangement beforehand, but Tim's presentation marked the formal announcement of my little company.  We did it in a tongue-in-cheek manner: I ran up waving my $200, we shook hands, and then Tim displayed our logo on the screen.  (Later on, we signed the agreement papers in the hallway.)

But - lo and behold! - another guy who'd had only casual conversations with Tim then ran up unexpectedly, and gave Tim HIS $200!  I assume they discussed making it formal offline afterward.  What a hoot!

I do believe there's still room at the missile base... :)
Cool, Greg! That's actually a hell of a deal. I am planning on joining a small "hacker space" (where there's lots of machine tools and equipment and space to share with other tinkerers and people who like to make stuff... mostly meatspace stuff, not much to do with computers) called the "Hack Factory" on Wednesday, and it's $50/month. But a small price to pay to give me access to tools and expertise needed to make (and possibly test) a small rocket motor.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #102 on: 04/19/2011 07:16 PM »
Yeah, one of the guys I talked with there helps run one of the big hacker spaces in LA. There does seem to be considerable overlap in the two communities (which is great!).
« Last Edit: 04/19/2011 07:16 PM by simonbp »

Offline Rick M

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Mojave Desert California
    • you tube
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #103 on: 12/31/2012 01:16 AM »
Rick Maschek on Sugar Shot To Space

Great stories of launching rockets with kids. :)

Sugar Shot: launch a Sugar-Potassium Nitrate rocket to space. Parts built all over the world. Next step is 100,000 ft rocket. Single stage solid rocket that burns twice; boost, coast, reignite. Reignition difficult.

Recently did an outreach with students from Glendora Unified School District on rockets and a rocket launch with some NASA university students I'm mentoring.
Here is a little something one students made up of me:


Tags: