Scroll down to read this post.

 

Genesis cover

On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.

 

The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.


The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
 

"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News


Boeing vs Boeing.

Boeing vs Boeing.

The story describes how Boeing is considering upgrading the X-37B to become a manned ferry to ISS, thus putting it in direct competition with the company’s other manned capsule, the CST-100.

At the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’s Space 2011 conference in November, Boeing’s Arthur Grantz revealed that the company is studying a new derivative of the Boeing/USAF X-37B. The new X-37C would be 65-80% larger than the current B version. Launched by an Atlas V rocket, X-37C could carry pressurized or unpressurized cargo or 5-6 astronauts. Grantz is chief engineer in charge of X-37 at the Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems Experimental Systems Group .

Hat tip to Clark Lindsey.

Readers!

 

Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.

 

In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.

 

Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.

 

You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:

 

1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.

 

2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
 

3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:

 

4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.

7 comments

  • Chris Kirkendall

    Interesting ! ! Not long ago some of us were speculating on just this thing – could the X-37B or a larger derivative be used for this purpose? One thing that I think is somewhat encouraging re: the space program – there seems to be a greater willingness to think outside the box (to use a well-worn phrase!). There’s Orion, SpaceX’s Dragon & others, now the X-37B, and some healthy competition could be a good thing. Kelly, you may not agree with this – I know you prefer the idea of one program with contractors cooperating & dividing up responsibilities, and that idea does have some merits, but I think this willingness to try new approaches is healthy. It seems to me when gov’t programs grow too large & cumbersome, the bureaucracy tends to explode in size & ends up wasting not only time but money as well. I’m certainly not anti-NASA – I wish they had MORE funding & support from Congress, the President & the public, but in recent years, they don’t look like they have a clear plan, it seems to be start, stop, junk this plan, come up with another, and we end up getting nowhere. Maybe the problem is a lack of clear goals…

  • Kelly Starks

    This isn’t actually news. As the article said the Boeing X-37 lead said last year that they weer studying this – but then and still (unless I missed something) Beoing hasn’t said they are niterested in going ahead with this.

    >..Kelly, you may not agree with this – I know you prefer the idea of one program with contractors
    > cooperating & dividing up responsibilities, and that idea does have some merits, but I think this
    > willingness to try new approaches is healthy.

    Actually I agree with you. From a customer standpoint, you can save money consolodated, adn if everyones building basicly the same thing (or mostly the same systems in similar things) its hard to justify the redundancy.

    However! NASA should be about pushing technology. So developing one old school design as a back up, while funding a secound or third high risk/high gain project would make more sence.

    Course in this case that hardly applies sine the X-37B based design is the lowest risk/cost option since its already developed adn operating, adn merely needs to be streached a bit adn life support adn docket systems be added. (Ok, you could skip the life support for guys in suits – but its a nit given they are off the shelf systems.)

    >== It seems to me when gov’t programs grow too large & cumbersome, the bureaucracy tends to
    > explode in size & ends up wasting not only time but money as well.==

    Agreed, but that argues for consolodation, which would eliminate redundant section of a program. (Or you could take a more hands off program management idea adn save tons – but thats a political non starter.!)

    >== [NASA] don’t look like they have a clear plan, it seems to be start, stop, junk this plan, come up
    > with another, ==

    No they had clear plans. Don’t replace the shuttle adn do other studies mearly for the sake of studing and burning money with studies.

    Then they weer ordered to drop the Shuttle. Then Constellation got downsized adn COTS/CCDev weer not droped as expected … etc.

  • Chris Kirkendall

    Yeah, you may be right that a lot of the delays, start/stop & dropped plans may not really have been as much NASA’s fault as it was too much political involvement & interference…

  • Kelly Starks

    ;)

    Eiather way, a X-37 based craft could be much beterthen the capsule based designs – and cheaper.

  • wade

    lets drag out? or at least Build the B model of this craft. it is worthy. yet , at this time a private company has pursued the very same design with Private funding mixed with a smidgen of Federal funding. hard to grasp by NASA Shuttle proponents, yet economically feasible.

  • wade

    overall, us peons are arguing over tech that has existed from way Back in history as to ignited fuel thus results in lift , minus the mass, and drag multiplied by a factor of gravity and atmospheric resistance equated to orbital speed . i have to Laugh as to the wonderment and display of such values.

  • Kelly Starks

    Other then Boeing, no commercial is developing anything this sophisticated. Not many in the busness could, and they didn’t find a customer.

    >..hard to grasp by NASA Shuttle proponents..

    Hardly.

    I do find very many NewSpace folks inability to understand you need a buyer to develop any of these. And the list of companies hanging on the hope of NASA COTS or CCDev crumbs shows how they failed to find buyers.

    No bucks, no Buck Rodgers.

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *