China successfully launches four satellites

China today completed its fifth launch so far this year, placing three reconnaissance satellites, plus one nanosat, into orbit.

The 2018 launch standings:

5 China
2 ULA
1 SpaceX
1 Rocket Lab
1 Japan
1 India

Two past major players, Europe and Russia, remain launchless. However, later today Arianespace hopes to complete its first launch. Russia meanwhile has its first launch off scheduled for before the end of the month.

1 comment

Video of Falcon Heavy static fire test

I have embedded below the fold the video that SpaceX has released of yesterday’s Falcon Heavy static fire test. This is the first footage I have seen that allows one to make a good estimate of the test’s length, though because the video has one edit during the firing the time length could have been edited.

The video makes it appear that the firing lasted seven seconds. Witnesses however suggest it lasted about twelve seconds, which was the length expected. The difference raises some questions. If the video was edited and the actual test lasted twelve seconds, one has to ask why SpaceX edited their video. Was there some proprietary information that SpaceX was protecting that would have been revealed had it kept the view locked on the close-up camera for the full twelve seconds? Or was there some issue that occurred during the test that they do not yet wish the public to see?

If the test did last only seven seconds, not twelve as planned, was there instead an issue that caused them to shut down early?

I’m not sure what to think. I am also of the mind that I might be over-analyzing this. Other footage from farther away suggests the test was for twelve seconds, as described by witnesses. The footage however is also not definitive. The trees prevent one from seeing exactly when the firing starts and stops.

We will have to wait and see what SpaceX does. If it schedules a launch relatively quickly, then all this analysis is what I suspect, mere junk. If not, or if they schedule a second static fire test, which was always an option, then this analysis is brilliant.

Personally, I prefer the former, not the latter.

» Read more

3 comments

Govt shutdown deal included provision reducing spending oversight of surveillance agencies

The swamp wins: The deal that ended the government shut down included a provision that will allow intelligence agencies to spend billions with much less Congressional oversight.

From the article:

The new wording was requested by the White House Office of Management and Budget at the urging of the Pentagon and was backed by House and Senate appropriations committee leaders over the strident opposition of intelligence committee leadership.

…โ€œEssentially the intelligence community could expend funds as it sees fit,โ€ Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., warned about the change on the Senate floor Monday. โ€œA situation like this is untenable.โ€ Senate intelligence panel Ranking Member Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., warned covert operations could be funded without oversight and the House Intelligence Committeeโ€™s GOP leadership also opposed the wording.

…Steven Aftergood, who directs the government secrecy project at the Federation of American Scientists, has a different view. โ€œThe new provision is certainly a departure from the norm that all intelligence activities must be authorized,โ€ he said. โ€œWhat is not clear is whether this is simply an artifact of the legislative drafting process, with no particular significance, or whether it is intended as a cover for some unauthorized activity,โ€ Aftergood said. โ€œNormally, I would suspect the former. But the fact that steps to correct the language were deliberately blocked in the Senate โ€ฆ makes you wonder if there is something else going on.โ€ [emphasis mine]

Considering the revelations in recent days about the possible secret efforts of FBI agents to overturn the 2016 Presidential election, either Congress is incredibly stupid, or corrupt, or both, to give such organizations more spending power at this time. The highlighted quote indicates to me that they are both, and that there are some people in the government who have done this for very corrupt reasons.

15 comments

The Falcon Heavy vs the Saturn 5

As SpaceX prepares for what it hopes will be the first static fire test of its Falcon Heavy rocket today, this article provides a nice detailed comparison between the new heavy lift rocket and the Saturn 5, the biggest rocket ever built and successfully launched.

But where the Falcon Heavy comes out ahead is in economy. The estimated cost of a Saturn V launch in today’s dollars is a whopping US$1.16 billion. Meanwhile, the upper estimate for Falcon heavy is US$90 million. That’s million with an “M.”

So, which rocket comes out ahead? In terms of sheer numbers, the Saturn V wins hands down, but the contest is a bit unfair. Saturn V was a Cold War project with a main objective to put a man on the Moon as part of the struggle to prove the superiority of the Free World over the Soviet Union. It was a cost-is-no-object machine intended to win a bloodless battle for world supremacy.

Falcon Heavy, on the other hand, is a business venture. Its job is to make a profit for SpaceX’s investors and its development always had one eye on the ledger at all times. Its design is different, its function is different. To compare it with the Saturn V is a bit like comparing a nuclear strike carrier with the Queen Mary 2. Beyond a certain point, the exercise becomes meaningless.

Read it all. The comparison is quite fun, especially if you are an American and proud of our country’s history in space. To date, no one has built a rocket that truly compares with the Saturn 5. And now, today, an American company is proving that such rockets can be built in the future, for an affordable price.

6 comments

ArianeGroup successfully completes first engine test of Ariane 6 rocket

ArianeGroup has successfully completed the first static fire engine test of the first stage main engine for its Ariane 6 rocket, scheduled for its first launch in 2020.

They have already been testing of the rocket’s upper stage engine now for several months. The article also notes that this main stage engine just tested is essentially a more efficient upgrade of an Ariane 5’s engine, which explains how they were able to develop it so quickly.

0 comments

Google Lunar X-Prize announces that it will award no winners

The Google Lunar X-Prize announced today that none of its five finalists will be able to fly a mission to the Moon before the March 31, 2018 deadline, and thus the prize will be awarded to no one.

With Rocket Lab’s successful Electron launch this past weekend, I thought there might be chance Moon Express might get off the ground by the end of March. They were the only finalist that had any shot at making the deadline. However, the timing of this announcement today suggests to me that Moon Express probably consulted with Rocket Lab after the launch, and probably learned that it was unwise to push for a quick launch. Moon Express then probably contacted the Google Lunar X-Prize to say they wouldn’t be able to win, which in turn resulted in today’s announcement.

The contest however was not a failure. Several of the contestants, most especially Moon Express, have said that they are moving forward as private companies offering the scientific community inexpensive planetary missions. I hope that the foundation these companies laid during the competition will result in real missions in the near future.

1 comment

ULA takes over Atlas 5 commercial marketing from Lockheed Martin

Capitalism in space: ULA has now taken over the marketing of Atlas 5 commercial launches from Lockheed Martin.

I was actually surprised when I saw this story today. I had assumed that with the merger of the launch divisions of Boeing and Lockheed Martin into the ULA joint venture in 2005 ULA had been handling this marketing already. This announcement reveals that this merger had apparently only shifted the government Atlas 5 launches to ULA’s control, and only now has the rocket’s entire business been handed to ULA.

I wonder what political in-fighting was required by ULA’s CEO Tory Bruno to get this to happen.

5 comments
1 143 144 145 146 147 155