----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- > Subject: Space Access Update #111 04/05/05 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:36:50 -0700 > > Space Access Update #111 04/05/05 > Copyright 2005 by Space Access Society > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Do not hit "reply" to email us - it'll be buried in tides of spam, and > we may not ever see it. Email us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Contents this issue: > > - SA'05 Notes > > - Low-Cost Launch: The Concept Is Spreading > > - What We Want From NASA: Low Cost Hardware/Flight Demos > - Pay For Results, Not Process > > - Industry News Roundup > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > SA'05 Notes > > First a few quick notes about our upcoming Space Access '05 conference, > April 28-30 in Phoenix Arizona: > - The latest SA'05 info will be posted from now till the conference at > http://www.space-access.org/updates/sa05info.html > - Our $79 hotel room rate is guaranteed available through April 6th - > we'll very likely be able to negotiate extensions as the conference > approaches, but book by the 6th to be sure. > - If you have trouble getting our rate or booking the type of room that > you want, try calling our hotel (Four Points by Sheraton Phoenix > Metrocenter, 602 997-5900, mention "space access") between 8 am and 4 pm > weekdays Mountain Standard Time (EDT-3) since outside those hours calls > automatically get switched to the Sheraton national reservations center, > which seems to have occasional problems with local hotel details. > - If you still have any difficulty booking a room at our rate for SA'05, > drop us a note at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ASAP. Thanks! And now back to > our irregularly scheduled Update... > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Low-Cost Launch: The Concept Is Spreading > > It's a good thing this is America, where "may you live in interesting > times" is still more blessing than curse. Kudos to the X-Prize, Scaled > Composites and their subs, and Paul Allen - a lot of people are now > aware that there are alternatives to the Government-Space Industrial > Complex, paths off the planet that don't cost major slices of a national > budget. The consequences have started arriving one after another. > > One we should get out of the way immediately: Watch your wallet, the > quick-buck artists are here. The email we saw about the Nigerian > astronaut stranded on the Space Station until we take our 15% cut of an > international funds transfer to pay for his return trip (please provide > our account info) was actually pretty funny, but we suspect that the SEC > wouldn't be at all amused by some of the outfits that have popped up > peddling stock lately. Caveat investor... Not that every outfit around > before the field got hot was a good place to put money either, but at > least most actually meant well. Thomas Olson, Paul Contursi, and David > Livingston have a short article in The Space Review with eight things to > watch for when you're thinking of investing in a space startup, at > http://www.thespacereview.com/article/329/1. Strongly recommended. > > Another thing we've seen is multiple announcements of brand-new > conferences and/or newsletters. Our rule of thumb is, if all the > promoters seem to know is "X-Prize", "Scaled", and "SpaceDev", they > probably have a way to go before they're worth much attention. > > One new entrant in the conference field we are paying attention to is > Esther Dyson, of computer journalism fame, with her "Flight School" one- > day new-aviation/new-space event, debuting last month tagged onto the > end of her long-time influential "PC Forum" IT industry conference. At > $1492 "Flight School" was a bit steep for our budget (though one way to > look at that is that the price succeeded - it kept the riff-raff out!) > but response we've heard has been positive - introducing her field to > our field is generally seen as a good thing. Given Dyson's reputation > as one of the sharper tools in the shed, her extensive information > industry contacts, and her considerable resources, we expect we'll be > hearing more from her. > > One of the bigger space conferences around, the Space Foundation's > National Space Symposium annual gettogether of everybody who's anybody > in Big Aerospace (in Colorado Springs this week) this year features an > "Entrepreneurial Spirit" panel with Courtney Stadd, Eric Anderson of > Space Adventures, Jim Benson of SpaceDev, David Gump of T/Space, and > George Nield of FAA AST, plus an appearance by SpaceX's Elon Musk on a > New Directions In Launch panel. It's a good start. Also of interest on > their schedule, a live broadcast on NASA TV of "The Vision For Space > Exploration: Getting There From Here" (we wonder where that phrase > percolated up from...) set for 11 am to 12:15 pm mountain time on > Wednesday April 6th. (As conference organizers ourselves, we'd advise > allowing for a bit of schedule slop if you're setting up to tape it.) > > Another major player that is starting to pay attention: NASA. We don't > have much detail yet, but Explorations Systems Mission Directorate, > ESMD, the large slice of NASA HQ tasked with making the Vision For Space > Exploration happen, seems to be at least thinking about some sort of > "non-traditional" Earth-To-Orbit development path in parallel with their > main effort, the multi-billion dollar Crewed Exploration Vehicle (CEV) > that is planned as the mainstay of post-Shuttle NASA manned spaceflight. > > No further detail of what ESMD has in mind available yet, but we > speculate this may have something to do with the schedule gap between > Shuttle shutdown in 2010 and CEV operations start in 2014 - both SpaceX > and Kistler (whose reorganization plan was just approved by the > bankruptcy court) plan on having suitably-sized "non-traditional" > boosters flying well before 2010, and there are a number of "non- > traditional" parties who are more than willing (and quite possibly able) > to put basic crewed ships on top. Add in Bigelow's "America's Space > Prize" ($50 million for just such a basic crewed ship) as extra > development leverage, and a plausible picture begins to emerge. However > speculative it is at the moment, of course. > > One thing we do know for sure: Rick Tumlinson of the Space Frontier > Foundation arranged for David Gump of T/Space, Tom Taylor of Lunar > Transportation Systems, and Jim Muncy of PoliSpace to brief NASA's Lunar > Exploration Roadmap Committee last Thursday, and by Friday the committee > had a new Commercial Subcommittee, consisting of those four gentlemen > plus Jeff Taylor of the University of Hawaii. Our congratulations to > all concerned - we expect they'll bring in some fresh ideas. > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > What We Want From NASA: > Low Cost Hardware/Flight Demos - Pay For Results, Not Process > > On a related subject, something we'd like to see happening at NASA (but > don't really expect out of Exploration Systems) would be a whole series > of low-cost (a few hundred thousand to a couple tens of millions max) > hardware and/or flight demonstration projects, from non-traditional > vendors, done under a reduced-paperwork pay-for-results-not-process > regime. We think this could usefully expand the repertoire of known-to- > work engineering solutions available and on the shelf, and usefully > expand the space industrial base of experienced vendors ready to apply > those solutions for NASA and for the US space industry in general. > > Why don't we expect it out of Exploration Systems? To be frank, because > ESMD already have their hands full developing CEV. Admiral Steidle, > before he became ESMD's boss, did succeed in getting a flyable Joint > Strike Fighter out of the established major aerospace contractors via > the established defense procurement process, but we expect he's very > aware that he's at NASA now, where the procurement process and > contractors makes DOD's equivalents look simple efficient and reliable. > > Anything that doesn't contribute directly and immediately to meeting the > transportation needs of NASA's new space exploration program is likely > to be seen as a distraction and a drain on scarce funds - funds quite > likely to get scarcer in future years, while future year costs all too > likely climb. The natural inclination is going to be for ESMD to focus > primarily on its major objectives at the expense of lesser projects. > > We may already be seeing a symptom of this (necessary) focus: Cries of > pain, public and private, over how thoroughly HQ is applying traditional > NASA paperwork requirements to the smaller bidders. Whether ESMD > actively wants the small outfits to just go away or merely lacks the > time and attention to cut them the appreciable amount of slack available > within the rules is moot - the effect is the same either way. Small > companies end up taking NASA money to produce reports and viewgraphs, > not testable hardware. > > As for the viewpoint that if this level of paperwork is OK for the > established majors, the startups should just suck it up and deal with it > too, do we really want to foster new companies whose core expertise is > dealing with NASA process, not delivering functional product quickly and > affordably? Haven't we already got enough of those? > > We suspect moving such minor industrial-base/engineering repertoire > expansion efforts out of ESMD could be a good thing for all - less > distraction for Exploration Systems, and steadier support for the small > vendors involved. Looking around for a suitable home for such, we > note that significant parts of NASA have considerable in-house design- > support and engineering-test capabilities sitting around begging for > customers - indeed, in danger of being shut down - and might well be > suitable hosts for such work. We speak, of course, of the various NASA > aeronautical centers - aeronautics is in fact a major element of the > transit between ground and orbit we at SAS are primarily concerned with. > > This arrangement could have a number of benefits, among them leveraging > of existing underused NASA resources and a built-in Congressional > constituency separate from the major NASA space operations centers. We > think the greatest advantage of all would be the competitive aspects, > however. Nothing gets the creative juices flowing like a little healthy > competition, whether between companies or between NASA field centers. > > But our bottom line is: NASA should be doing low-cost hardware and > flight demonstration projects from non-traditional vendors under a > reduced-paperwork pay-for-results-not-process regime, *somewhere*, if > the agency is ever to break out of the high-overhead low-flight-rate > high-cost cul de sac it's in now. > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Industry News Roundup > > Enough editorializing - on to a quick sampling of some things going > on recently in the industry. > > Armadillo has decided to pursue bipropellant liquid oxygen engines. > They haven't been able to obtain commercially the high-concentration > hydrogen peroxide they'd need for acceptable monopropellant performance, > and their pursuit of "mixed monopropellant" - lower-concentration > peroxide premixed with fuel just before flight - ran into problems with > limited engine catalyst-pack life. They could make the engines perform > reliably, but only by rebuilding them far more often than practical for > the sort of routine operations they're pursuing. Armadillo has been > developing liquid oxygen preburner technology in parallel with their > peroxide work for a while, and now they've announced they're making > their main propulsion development path engines based on that technology. > > X-Prize has announced their planned X-Prize Cup rocket races and > Personal Spaceflight Expo, to take place annually in early October at > the Southwest Regional Spaceport in New Mexico. The first Personal > Spaceflight Expo will take place over four days this year, with > exhibition rocket flights added in 2006 and the first X-Prize Cup rocket > races in 2007. > > TGV Rockets remains reticent about announcing much publicly, but they > have seen some government funding these last few years, and they will > admit they'll be hitting some development milestones in the coming > months. > > Not directly related to our industry but an old friend of the family, > Bill Stine, G. Harry Stine's son, is reviving Quest Aerospace, his > educational model rocket company, shut down after a motor manufacturing > accident several years ago. Kit manufacture will now be in China, > motors in eastern Germany. The Stine family project to set up a > scholarship program and a library to house Harry's extensive collection > of space books and papers is still in the works. > > Len Cormier's PanAero is bidding on an NRO BAA for an Operationally > Responsive Launch Vehicle, and is proposing the Space Van '09 concept > for it; he'll be telling us more at SA'05. > > XCOR should have an interesting announcement sometime Tuesday - look for > the press release at http://www.xcor.com. > > There's a company in South Korea call C&Space working on an LNG-LOX > engine for their Proteus suborbital ship - details are scant; we've had > limited correspondence with them and their website (www.candspace.com) > is in Korean. They tell us they've conducted ground firings of a water- > cooled test chamber, and are working toward a ten-ton thrust LNG-cooled > operational version. This does bear out something we've been saying for > a long time - rocketry may involve high-performance engineering but it's > no longer ultra high-tech; the rest of the world is catching up, and may > well leave us in the dust if we don't start doing the things we need to > do to move ahead again. > > Dr. Jordin Kare has spoken at our conference several times in recent > years about his relatively low-tech approach to laser launch, using > commercially available semiconductor lasers and heat-exchanger liquid > propulsion. He tells us that the technology needed to do this is > essentially available off-the-shelf now, and he'll be telling us about > his plans at this year's conference. (We really are into the 21st > century - we just typed the words "a relatively low-tech approach to > laser launch" in complete seriousness!) > > The Space Launch Amendments Act passed last winter with numerous > mandates for how FAA AST should regulate commercial passenger-carrying > space transports. That was the easy part - now the FAA needs to > translate those broad mandates into detailed regulations. We're working > with FAA AST to have someone at SA'05 to talk about how that process > works, where it's gotten to so far, and what to expect down the line, > plus we'll have feedback from various of the regulated parties about > what they hope to see, and a talk from Tim Hughes, majority counsel to > the House Science Committee and heavily involved in the drafting of the > Amendments Act, on what the intentions behind various provisions are. > > Rocketplane Ltd got full funding for their Rocketplane XP development > last year and are currently moving ahead building a practical suborbital > transport around various existing aircraft components - to oversimplfy > considerably, a Learjet fuselage, engines, and landing gear with new > wings, thermal protection, and an Orbitec "Vortex" rocket engine in the > tail. They're aiming at completing the flight test program in '07, and > currently seeking funding for the passenger-carrying commercial > operations phase to follow. > > We spoke with David Gump, President of the T/Space consortium (Scaled > Composites, Airlaunch LLC, CSI, USL, Delta Velocity, and Spaceport > Associates among others) about the report in New Scientist the other > week that due to the massive paperwork burden, T/Space would not bid on > the next phase of NASA CEV. David told us that he had discussed the > merits of a low-overhead rapid-prototyping approach versus the > traditional NASA paperwork-intensive development process with New > Scientist, but that T/Space has not yet made any final decision on > whether they'll bid the next phase of CEV. > > Scaled Composites is of course busy developing the suborbital passenger- > carrying SpaceShip 2 for Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, with > passenger service schedule to commence in '07. Burt Rutan punctuates > this routine by travelling to receive various (well-deserved) awards. > Latest we hear is he'll be in DC to accept the prestigious Collier > Trophy at the National Air & Space Museum April 19th. Rumor has it, by > the way, that SpaceShip 2 may well use an all-EAC engine rather than the > mix of SpaceDev fuel casting and EAC plumbing SpaceShip 1 flew with. > > Airlaunch LLC, Microcosm, SpaceX, and Lockheed-Martin are competing in > the DARPA/Air Force FALCON small launch vehicle program and are not > currently talking much. The next phase of the program, one or more > contractors building flight prototypes, will be decided this summer. > > Meanwhile the Air Force ARES program, to build a reusable rocket > spacelift first-stage demonstrator, is getting underway. We'll have a > briefing on FALCON and ARES at SA'05. > > SpaceX meanwhile is still working toward first flight of their Falcon 1 > launcher - they've completed all structural testing, but are still > working on main engine qualification. The latest delay now is a matter > of site scheduling at Vandenberg AFB - the final Titan 4 launch has > pushed them back to Q3 '05 at earliest, longer if the Titan launch (as > has happened before) is delayed. SpaceX says they may consider doing > their first flight out of a site being developed on Kwajalein Atoll, if > the VAFB delay goes on long enough. > > Blue Horizon meanwhile continues to reveal their plans very slowly - the > latest new info is from a Jeff Bezos interview with the local paper in > west Texas where he owns close to 200,000 acres of ranchland. He plans > eventually to fly from that land, and what he'll be flying will be > vertical-takeoff, vertical landing rockets - first a suborbital ship, > then eventually orbital. > > And that's only a fraction of what's been going on lately. The best > single site for day-to-day coverage of this fast-moving field is still > Clark Lindsey's www.hobbyspace.com "RLV News" section, but even Clark > can't get it all. We also recommend Jeff Foust's www.spacetoday.net and > www.thespacereview.com, Keith Cowing's www.nasawatch.com, and of course > the Space News, Space.com, and Aviation Week sites all come up with > good stuff. Over the last year Alan Boyle at www.msnbc.com has written > a lot of good space pieces - Alan was responsible for MSNBC cable's > coverage of the SpaceShip 1 flights being far more technically informed > than the other networks there. Space coverage is showing up in the most > unlikely places these days, though; it's impossible to keep with it all. > > Interesting times! > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote radical reductions > in the cost of reaching space. You may redistribute this Update in > any medium you choose, as long as you do it unedited in its entirety. > You may reproduce sections of this Update beyond obvious "fair use" > quotes if you credit the source and include a pointer to our website. > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Space Access Society > http://www.space-access.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System" > - Robert A. Heinlein
----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [email protected] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
