MarsBlog.net

NASA is tentatively sorta kinda considering the possibility of China maybe somehow taking part in the VSE…maybe…sorta…

NASA admits China to exploration discussions

Long shunned as a player in U.S-led international space ventures, China has been admitted to talks with NASA about helping to accomplish President Bush’s goals for exploring the moon and Mars.

With the blessing of the U.S. State Department, a Chinese delegate this week joined representatives from Russia, Japan, Canada and other foreign powers for a NASA-sponsored workshop on the unfolding space initiative.

China’s involvement in the three-day workshop that ended Thursday was a small but highly visible breakthrough in relations with a potential to improve global security as well as advance space exploration, participants and outside experts said.

But they cautioned against reading too much into the session, which drew representatives from 30 countries. More talks are planned for early next year.
“This indicates a very cautious, small first step,” said Joan Johnson-Freese, a national security specialist at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., who monitors Chinese developments. “The fact we did invite and China did send someone is very good news, but I would not jump to the conclusion there will be a partnership.”

But, don’t read too much into all of this, because, you know, they’re just, like, talking about it. Sorta hypothetical-like. Maybe.

[via Carl Carlsson]

Posted on November 22nd, 2004 under Space Policy. Comments: 1

Some have criticized the Vision for Space Exploration as having been crafted behind closed doors, without input and guidance from the public, academia, and international partners.

Europe, on the other hand, is taking a very different — and characteristically European — approach in the formulation of a new collective space policy:

The European space council is set to meet in Brussels for the first time on Thursday this week. Ministers who sit on the EU’s competitiveness council will attend the meeting along with ministerial officials from the European Space Agency (ESA).

The meeting is being touted as the first step towards a co-ordinated European space policy, and the announcement from ESA gives an insight into just how much bureaucratic wrangling goes into a project this size.

In brief: the Space Council sessions were first proposed in a Framework Agreement, which was adopted in 2003, and came into force in May this year. This agreement sets out how the EU will develop a coordinated, pan-European space policy. An outline of how the policy might look already exists – it is the result of three years of effort between ESA and the EU, defining objectives and identifying priorities. The final document is expected to be approved at a space council session towards the end of 2005.

The ESA says that an exchange of views will be at the core of the agenda, along with the almost inevitable progress report. The outcome of the meeting will be made public late on Thursday evening.

I can hardly wait for the European space policy counterpart to the VSE to be published…it will be the culmination of a grand generational undertaking, not unlike the return to the Moon itself.

Posted on November 22nd, 2004 under Space Policy. Comments Off

Looks like someone famous (with an alien connection) will be among the first Virgin Galactic customers.

Posted on November 22nd, 2004 under Space Commerce. Comments Off

India is also planning a reusable launch vehicle demonstrator: Govt. nod for ISRO’S RLV technology demonstrator

Giving a boost to the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) ambitious programme to idigenously develop Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLV), the Centre recently gave clearance for a technology demonstrator, ISRO Chairman G Madhavan Nair said.

…Mr Nair said the detailed design work for the technology demonstrator had already started.
The RLV technology demonstrator, expected to be ready within three to four years, would be the first step for ISRO to ultimately build its own RLVs, which could bring down the cost of launching satellites by as much as 60 per cent.
The Indian Space Research Organisation would have to work on a number of cutting edge technologies, including those related to hyper-sonic speeds and thermal protection, to perfect the technology demonstrator, Mr Nair said.

Having several botched U.S. RLV programs to learn from should make it somewhat easier, though, eh?

Posted on November 21st, 2004 under Indian Space. Comments: 1

They’re at least thinking along those lines: India debates space flight as lunar project proceeds

India’s space agency is ready to send a man into space within seven years if the government gives the nod, while preparations have already begun for the launching of an unmanned lunar mission, a top official said Sunday…

Nair said “a lot of debate” had to take place in India before a final decision is made on a manned space flight.

“The benefits and the costs involved have to be examined,” he said. “Various facilities and equipment such as a space capsule for human habitation, shielding, control and safety features have to be built. A large amount of funding is required.”

More on the same theme: IAF, ISRO discuss plans for manned space mission

Posted on November 21st, 2004 under Indian Space. Comments Off

The ever-irritating al.com (sorry — any site that forces me to drop ALL of my security features to get at an article doesn’t get a link) reports on Boeing’s heavy-lift dreams:

Getting NASA back to the moon could depend on building a spacecraft in low-Earth orbit, much like the International Space Station has been assembled, space experts say. Right now, the Boeing Delta IV heavy-lift rocket is the only commercial expendable rocket available to loft payloads into space. Lockheed Martin’s Atlas 5 has not been designed for a multiple-booster capability.

What???

One: Boeing announced last July that they weren’t going to market the Delta IV for commercial launches. Not much of a commercial rocket if it’s not being commercially marketed.

Two: the “only commercial expendible rocket available to loft payloads into space”? What about this? And this? And this? And this? And this? And this? And this? And this? And this? And this? And this? (Umm, maybe not.) And this? And several others I haven’t obsessive-compulsively linked to here? If the Delta IV Heavy is the only vehicle that can get payloads to space, we’ve got problems…it hasn’t even flown yet.

Three: the assertion that Atlas V hasn’t been designed for multiple-booster capability is a bit too…mmmmm…categorical, shall we say…?

The Delta booster rocket is built by Boeing in Decatur at its massive 1.5-million-square-foot plant…The Delta plant was designed to build about 40 boosters a year, but downturns in the commercial launch market put the plant production rate at less than 10 per year.

Which, of course, has nothing whatever to do with Boeing employees pitching a Boeing-built Saturn-class HLV.

Even with an enhanced capability, Boeing’s Delta rockets probably couldn’t get humans back to the moon, she said.

“The Delta may or may not be the best option for a return flight to the moon, but it’s a pretty good one for putting large payloads into orbit right now,” LeRoy said. “Eventually, to get to the lunar surface and most certainly to Mars, (NASA) will probably have to consider building a heavy-lift vehicle like a Saturn V.”

Unless it considers other options…like multiple launches of existing large vehicles or nascent private alternatives. Of course, that’s not quite as glamorous as using a giant rocket.

Options for returning to the moon could mean building a spacecraft in Earth orbit, and then putting a crew on at a later time by using commercial rockets such as the Boeing Delta IV. To do this, Boeing would have to get more “bang for the buck” out of the Delta launch vehicles, LeRoy said, and be able to move large payloads that could be assembled in orbit.

There would, of course, be change orders involved…

One plan would be to cluster up to seven of the Delta boosters in a circular fashion – similar to the first stage of the Saturn IB on display at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center – in order to move about 100,000 pounds into orbit.

Umm…not quite. Saturn Ib was a cluster of tanks, adapted from other rockets (Redstone and Jupiter), not a cluster of individual boosters. It’s not a trivial difference.

Beyond rocket-booster clustering, the next option would be to redesign the Delta’s size – a move that would mean changes to the Decatur plant.

But not dramatic changes, from the descriptions I’ve heard, since portions of the facility and tooling are apparently built to accommodate 27.5′ diameter tankage. (Gee, that dimension seems curiously familiar for some reason…)

A next-generation Delta could be accomplished by increasing the size of the booster from a 16.5-foot diameter to about a 23-foot diameter and adding improved engines to the first and second stages.

In other words, by completely redesigning it so that it has about as much in common with the existing Deltas as the Atlas V has with the Atlas II and III families.

Posted on November 15th, 2004 under Space Policy. Comments: 5

Mark Whittington points out a survey conducted by Dittmar Associates, a Houston-area business and IT consulting firm, on public attitudes towards space exploration. The survey is listed at $950 a pop, so I haven’t read the actual content, but their summary of results teaser includes some interesting information:

• Endorsement of the space program in general is very strong, with 69% of Americans voicing their support.

Given the nearly 50-50 partisan split, this indicates a decent level of bipartisan support. Of course, the devil in the details here is the distribution of that 69%…if the bulk of the support is on the Democratic side, for example, it is likely to mean less in a Republican-controlled government. Then there is the matter of how “the space program” is defined…if the surveys have been conducted in the past two months, could some of this support actually be a by-product of the successful SpaceShipOne flights, which have nothing to do with what would typically be considered “the space program”, i.e.:NASA?

• Interest and excitement about the Vision for Space Exploration is strong for near-term aspects of the plan (65% of Americans responded positively) and for returning to the Moon. This is not true for plans to send humans to Mars, which is seen as involving much more risk (18% of Americans responded positively).

Mark and Rand consider this to be bad news for humans-to-Mars, but it may not be as simple as that. Much of the attention the VSE has received has been on the near-term aspects for which the survey sees public support — these aspects, including a new crewed vehicle and a return to the Moon, are better defined and have, in some form, been done before. Which is to say, the general public is more comfortable with and confident in those VSE goals which they already know to be achievable. The description of manned Mars missions as “involving much more risk” points in this direction: it seems risky, perhaps too risky for 82% of those surveyed, because it is something which hasn’t been done before.

As what Rand might term a “Barsoomophile” (the blog’s name sorta gives it away, eh?), I don’t find this in the least bit surprising nor disappointing — nor is strong public support for humans-to-Mars required at the moment. We need to go to the Moon first for a variety of reasons, and the survey shows support for that element of the VSE. If the lack of similar support for Mars really is rooted in the perceived risk, that perception will surely change (or be amenable to change) by the time we are ready to undertake such missions, having demonstrated hardware, new (civil and private) space infrastructure, and fresh experience operating in distant, harsh planetary environments to work with.

• Out of 5 options, Americans ranked ?International participation and cost-sharing? as their #1 choice for funding the Vision ? with certain conditions.

I sure would like to know what those “conditions” are.

• There are large and significant differences in the degree of enthusiasm about the plan on the basis of sex, ethnic groups, age, and other variables.

Ditto for these demographic differences.

• Americans understand and appreciate the benefits of the space program (?spin-offs?, science, and the impact of space-based technology developments to daily lives).

While the notion of spinoffs is seen by others with some distaste, I think it is only natural that the public appreciates “the space program” on the basis of how it benefits their daily lives — they are looking for (and apparently finding) a return on their “investment” in space exploration activities. It would be nice, yes, if people supported space activities for the “right” reasons espoused by different branches of the space advocacy community, such as a dramatic and inspirational expanding of the frontier, the spawning of a new branch of civilization, insurance against extinction events and other calamities, or simply as a vast new economic sphere to be developed for profit. And yes, there is the danger that the pursuit of spinoffs as the primary justification for space exploration (rather than space exploration resulting in spinoffs as a side effect, as the term implies) pushes “the space program” in unhelpful directions. But this expectation of a return is not an inherently bad thing, and is what all the visionary goals ultimately boil down to anyway.

• Americans believe that much more can be done to promote NASA and its goals.

One wonders what NASA goals were specified for the respondents. The agency could certainly do more to promote the goals contained within the VSE. I’m not sure about promoting NASA is necessarily a positive, however, as it sounds uncomfortably like promoting the myth that space is/should be the sole province of NASA — it all depends on what NASA is being promoted as and promoted for.

Posted on November 14th, 2004 under Space Policy. Comments: 20

Reuters reports that Northrop Grumman is now teaming with Boeing on the Constellation project:

NASA will award two development contracts next year, potentially worth billions of dollars, for the spacecraft that will replace the space shuttle for carrying astronauts to and from space.

One of those two contractors will then be chosen in 2008 to actually build and test the Crew Exploration Vehicle, a cornerstone of the plan President Bush announced in January to build settlements on the moon.

The Northrop and Boeing pairing reduces the competition for those contracts, with only one other major player, Lockheed Martin Corp., left in the field.
[emphasis added]

Not much of a downselect involved, when there are only two realistic competitors/teams for the project.

(And is that a stab in the back for LockMart, or what?)

Posted on November 9th, 2004 under Space Policy. Comments: 3

Modernized version of Soyuz rocket launched

The rocket has taken the first step in modernizing the Soyuz vehicle, which has been in service since the 1960s. The Soyuz 2-1a configuration flown today featured a digital control system that enhances the guidance during ascent to reach more precise orbits and that will allow the vehicle to fly with a larger four-meter diameter nose cone payload fairing.

The Soyuz 2-1b rocket is slated for its inaugural launch in mid-2006 featuring a more powerful third stage engine package to improve the vehicle’s performance and increase the cargo-lifting capacity.

The modernized rocket is being prepared for launches starting in 2007 from the European Space Agency complex in Kourou, French Guiana. European and Russian space teams are building the commercial Soyuz pad at the base where Ariane rockets are flown.

I don’t have the numbers, but I’d imagine that launching the new version from the higher-inclination Plesetsk amounts to a break-even compared to the previous version launching from Baikonur — the real payback is likely to come from the near-equatorial commercial launches from Kourou and the reduced dependence on the good graces of Kazakhstan.

(Translation: “Not your father’s Soyuz”.)

Posted on November 8th, 2004 under Uncategorized. Comments: 1