A review and analysis of China’s space program.
The review’s one fault is that it ignores the military aspects of China’s effort. Nonetheless, its conclusions on China’s reasons for building this program illustrate once again why I repeatedly say, “The competition is heating up.”
The competition heats up: Boeing today unveiled a full scale mock-up of the interior of its CST-100 manned capsule.
From one of my readers: The Plundering of NASA: an Expose, How pork barrel politics harm American spaceflight leadership. You can buy the ebook edition here, and the print edition here.
I just finished reading it. Boozer’s introduction and opening two chapters provide one of the best detailed summaries explaining clearly why the United States today cannot launch its own astronauts into space, and why we are threatened with the possibility that we won’t be able to do it for years to come. And while his perspective is mostly from an engineering perspective, he also gives some of the political background behind this situation.
His later chapters are not as effectively written, but the opening is still worth it.
I will give a hint about his thesis: it involves comparing the Space Launch System (SLS) with private commercial space. And SLS does not fare well.
Robot engineers have successfully built a fleet of small flying robot helicopters that can fly individually or as complex large arrays. With video.
Applying this biologically-inspired solution to swarms of robots could enable a wide range of applications. Swarms of robots could be used to explore other planets, or search a large area for a missing person. When a larger payload needs to be lifted, groups of robots would combine to make a larger flying platform and when that job was done, disperse into smaller groups that can cover a larger area. The advantage of distributed control in these scenarios is that there is no vulnerable central control unit which, if taken out, could bring down the entire mission.
The competition heats up: With Proton rocket’s most recent launch failure, Inmarsat looks for alternatives.
The failure and its spectacular nature, all caught on video — oscillating trajectory on liftoff before tipping over, bursting into flames and then crashing — cast a harsh light on Inmarsat’s sole-source decision for the Global Xpress satellites. The company’s stock tumbled on the London Stock Exchange but has since recovered as details emerged about the relatively easily addressed causes of the rocket’s failure.
Inmarsat officials said at the time of the ILS contract award that they received an exceptionally low price in return for booking all three launches on Proton and that the vehicle’s record justified the choice not to include a second vehicle in the Global Xpress mix.
NASA and Jeff Bezos today confirmed that one of the Saturn 5 first stage engines recovered from the ocean floor by Bezos’ expedition was from the Apollo 11 launch.
The Russians admitted today that, due to the Proton launch failure two weeks ago, only five more Proton launches can occur this year.
Before the crash they had hoped to get in about nine launches, more than one per month, all of which were commercial in nature. It was my impression that this launch rate was an effort to provide service to their customers as fast as possible, in order to hold on to them. The crash, like the previous Proton failures in the past few years, has given their competitors a window of opportunity to grab the Russian market share. If SpaceX is successful in its first commercial launch in September the competition in this industry will certainly heat up.
Russia confirms that a Proton rocket failed at launch two weeks ago because three of six sensors were installed upside down.
They are going to subject the personnel involved to lie detector tests in order to find out who did what. We should then expect them to prosecute those individuals. Unlike the U.S., they won’t simply fire them.
The private plan to put a telescope on the Moon.
The competition heats up: SpaceX has renegotiated its lease with the city of McGregor, Texas, in order to begin testing the Falcon Heavy rocket.
What I found stunning about this article is this quote:
The Falcon Heavy will have commercial, civil and national security applications, Ra said, adding that customers will pay $81 million to $135 million per launch, depending on the weight of the payload and the rocket’s destination. That is about twice the price of a Falcon 9 launch.
These prices for the Falcon Heavy are actually comparable or cheaper than that charged by most other rocket companies for geosynchronous launches. If SpaceX succeeds in doing this — launching Falcon Heavy at these prices — they will certainly open deep space to private enterprise. And even if their prices end up being twice this, those prices will still be anywhere from one fourth to less than a tenth of what it will cost NASA to launch its SLS rocket.
Which should make us all wonder: Why is anyone in Congress still voting to fund SLS?
World’s largest building has opened in China.
The competition heats up: SpaceX has successfully completed a full duration test firing of 9 upgraded Merlin engines.
The full mission duration firing of the next generation Falcon 9 booster was completed on Sunday. The booster’s nine Merlin 1D engines fired for approximately three minutes, simulating what the booster may experience in flight before stage separation.
With this success, I suspect they are finally ready to begin their commercial launches. The first is presently scheduled for September 5.
