A dispute over launch pricing between ArianeSpace, the launch company, and Globalstar, the satellite company.

A dispute over launch pricing between Arianespace, the launch company, and Globalstar, the satellite company.

The article only quotes an executive from Arianespace, who suggests Globalstar has been having troubles making payments. I wonder instead if maybe Globalstar has been balking at Arianespace’s prices (knowing there are other companies that can do it cheaper) and has been holding out for a price cut.

India’s space agency celebrated its 100th launch today.

The competition heats up: India’s space agency celebrated its 100th launch today.

It is unclear whether the numbers include their failed launches. Regardless, India has a vibrant space program, modeled somewhat after the Russian system, a government space agency focused on gaining commercial market share. Whether that model can successfully compete in the commercial world remains unknown. Russia has had success, but only during a period when they were faced with few competitors. Now that the competition is heating up it is unclear whether Russia’s model will be flexible enough to compete.

What is clear about India, however, is that they are passionate about space exploration. Historically, even the Russian government model has worked when the country using it was the new kid on the block.

Sign the LunarCOTS petition.

Do you think the commercial space program led by SpaceX is the fastest and cheapest way for the U.S. to get humans back into low Earth orbit? Then why not do it for missions beyond Earth orbit?

The LunarCOTS petition is a campaign to have NASA subsidize private companies to design and build the United States’ future interplanetary missions rather than have NASA do it in big government programs like SLS. Makes sense to me, and so I signed the petition immediately.

We have a choice

A website, ScienceDebate.org, submitted a wide range of questions to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney about their plans for science and technology, and the answers, shown in a side-by-side comparison, are interesting, though in general they demonstrate the ability of politicians to speak for a long time without saying much.

This ability to blather is especially apparent to their answers to the question 12: “What should America’s space exploration and utilization goals be in the 21st century and what steps should the government take to help achieve them?” Neither candidate adds much to what was said in the Republican and Democratic party platforms, making it obvious that neither really cares or knows that much about this subject.

Overall, however, the answers do reveal the basic and fundamental differences between the two candidates, which can be seen in their answers to the very first question about encouraging innovation:
» Read more

The Democratic Party platform’s position on space and NASA is one sentence long.

The Democratic Party platform’s [pdf] position on space and NASA is one sentence long.

President Obama has charted a new mission for NASA to lead us to a future that builds on America’s legacy of innovation and exploration.

This is even worse than the Republican Party platform, and is more inexplicable. Considering how much support the Obama administration has given to private commercial space, this was a great opportunity to sell Obama as supportive of private enterprise. Sadly, they do not, which suggests again that Obama and his party really aren’t that interested in it.

The Forest Products Laboratory of the U.S. Forest Service has opened a $1.7 million pilot plant for the production of cellulose nanocrystals, which have the potential to be stronger, stiffer, and lighter than Kevlar or carbon fibers.

The Forest Products Laboratory of the U.S. Forest Service has opened a $1.7 million pilot plant for the production of cellulose nanocrystals, which have the potential to be stronger, stiffer, and lighter than Kevlar or carbon fibers.

It appears that the lab has been researching the useful properties of these nanocrystals, which is a good thing. However, I can’t help wondering why they are now building a production plant. Shouldn’t this be left to the private sector? What business is it of the Forest Service to be a producer of this product? It could be that the plant is aimed not at production but at figuring out how to make it affordable and practical, a goal that might make sense for a government agency to pursue. If not, however, it seems inappropriate for a government agency to use taxpayer dollars to run a facility aimed at selling a product to the private sector.

The article, as well as the lab’s webpage, do not make this clear.

The head of the Russian space center that built the upper stage that failed on two recent Proton launches has been fired.

The head of the Russian space center that built the upper stage that failed on two recent Proton launches has been fired.

Putin’s action here suggests the Russians are taking these problems seriously. especially with the looming competition from SpaceX. At the same time, the boss doesn’t actually build anything, and firing him won’t fix anything if there aren’t also changes on the factory floor.

More rumors about a year-long mission on ISS

The possibility that NASA might finally agree with Russia’s repeated request to fly a year-long mission to ISS grew stronger this morning with two stories:

The first, by James Oberg, digs into the underworld of NASA politics to find that plans might very well be more advanced than NASA is letting on:
» Read more

Bigelow Aerospace has expanded its workforce as well doubled its factory space in response to the commercial contracts NASA recently awarded.

The competition heats up: Bigelow Aerospace has expanded its workforce as well doubled its factory space in response to the commercial contracts NASA recently awarded.

The company just opened a 185,000-square-foot addition, bringing its North Las Vegas plant up to about 350,000 square feet. It slashed its work force from 150 before the recession to 50 during the downturn; now, it’s looking to jump back up to 90 workers by Christmas. It’s hiring structural, mechanical and electrical engineers, as well as chemists, molecular biologists and workers who craft composite spacecraft parts.

Hat tip to Clark Lindsey at NewSpace Watch.

Engineers at Sandia National Laboratories have developed a robot hand that costs less than $10,000.

Engineers at Sandia National Laboratories have developed a robot hand that costs less than $10,000 and is capable of replacing a flashlight battery.

The researchers were able to scrimp in a number of clever ways. “One was scouring the globe for the least expensive, highest-performing components like motors, gears, etcetera,” says Curt Salisbury, the project’s principal investigator. “Another was to build the entire electronics system from commodity parts, especially those found in cell phones. We also moved from metal structural elements to plastic, being careful to design the structures so plastic would provide adequate strength.”

The article focuses on the potential of using such a robot hand to defuse bombs. I see it as a first step in providing amputees a replacement hand that is fully functional. And that their goal is to bring the cost down to $1,000 is even more exciting.

1 264 265 266 267 268 274