----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- > Subject: Space Access Update #114 2/20/06 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:55:08 -0800 > > Space Access Update #114 2/20/06 > Copyright 2006 by Space Access Society > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Do not hit "reply" to email us - it'll be buried in tides of spam, and > we won't ever see it. Email us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Contents This Issue: > > - Space Access '06 Hotel Info & Conference Info > > - Some Thoughts On The Revolution > > - Industry Roundup > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Space Access '06 April 20-22 in Phoenix Arizona > Preliminary Conference Info > > Space Access '06 is our upcoming annual conference on the technology, > business, and politics of radically cheaper space transportation, > featuring a cross-section of leading players in the field. Our > fourteenth annual conference will once again be an intensive informal > snapshot of where the burgeoning low-cost space access industry is this > spring of 2006. Space Access conferences are specifically set up to > maximize opportunities for exchanging information and doing business. > No rubber-chicken banquets, just an intensive single-track schedule in a > setting with plenty of comfortable places to go off and talk during the > breaks, not least of these our world-famous Hospitality suite. > > Our location this year is the Grace Inn, 10831 S 51st St, Phoenix > Arizona, a clean modern resort hotel seven freeway miles from the > Phoenix Airport, with a free airport shuttle. Our special conference > room rate, taxes and full buffet breakfast included, is $99 a night > single or double, $119 for a suite. Call 1 800 843-6010 for room > reservations, mention "space access". Space Access '06 times are > Thursday April 20th 2 pm through ~10 pm, Friday the 21st and and > Saturday the 22nd 9 am to ~10 pm. (We will post a more detailed agenda > as the conference approaches and we pin down our speakers' travel > schedules.) > > Confirmed speakers so far: Armadillo Aerospace, FAA AST, Len > Cormier/PanAero, Mike Kelly/ Personal Spaceflight Federation, Jim > Muncy/Polispace, Jerry Pournelle, Rocketplane LLC, Henry Spencer, TGV > Rockets, XCOR Aerospace. Watch for additional speakers as they confirm > plus other conference info at: > http://www.space-access.org/updates/sa06info.html. (We are very > conservative about listing speakers as confirmed; expect this list to > grow fast as we catch up with a bunch of interesting people who've > indicated they'd like to talk over the last year.) > > Space Access '06 registration is $100 in advance, $120 at the door. > Student rate is $30. (Day rates available at the door.) Mail checks > to: Space Access Society, 5515 N 7th St #5-348, Phoenix AZ 85014. Be > sure to include your name, address, affiliation info for your badge (if > desired), and an email address (for Updates) with your Space Access '06 > advance registration. > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Some Thoughts On The Revolution > > We are going to take a look once again at what Space Access Society is > trying to accomplish, and why, and how we think it's going lately. > (Bear with us, old hands, we actually have a few new points to make.) > > US space launch prices currently run on the rough order of ten thousand > dollars per pound delivered to low orbit, the first essential step into > the solar system. We're here because we think it's possible, by > applying sensible management and inspired engineering to existing rocket > technology, to bring this cost down by one to two orders of magnitude. > (See http://www.space-access.org/updates/saspolcy.html for the detailed > arguments behind this assertion.) > > What interests us here today though is that the core of our position, > the possibility of as much as a hundredfold lower launch costs without > waiting for radically new technologies to arrive, has spent a long time > as a matter of faith among a small minority, a point argued mainly by > analysis, a point absent proof not widely accepted. > > For a while we thought we had our proof in DC-X, built and flown and > flown again by SDIO for a fraction of traditional government aerospace > costs. But the limited nature of the DC-X project and the massive botch > NASA made of the X-33 followon combined to hopelessly muddy the waters. > We had additional evidence, but persuasive proof remained lacking. > > Then in fall 2004 Paul Allen, Burt Rutan, and company won the X-Prize, > and in the process beat the old X-15 piloted suborbital altitude record, > for just over one percent of what the X-15 program cost. We had a new > proof, one hard to ignore, one that quickly started catalyzing multiple > funded followup projects. Hallelujah, the revolution was at hand! > > We have more proofs in the pipeline this year - SpaceX will soon take > their next shot at demonstrating they can match Russian expendable space > launch costs (several times lower than traditional US Big Aerospace) > even while paying US wage, materials, and overhead rates. We expect > them to succeed, if not this time (first launches of new boosters are > historically a 50-50 thing) then the next, or the next. And in the > coming months, Bigelow Aerospace will orbit their first subscale demo of > a commercial inflatable orbital habitat. Both the means to get there > and a place to go to, already at near an order of magnitude below > traditional Big Aerospace costs, are on the verge of changing from sci- > fi wishful thinking to demonstrated fact. > > So. The revolution is unstoppable now, right? And the winners are > established and can start coining money? The rest of us should all go > home now - right? > > Wrong, wrong, and wrong. It's been another good year - a great year - > but there's still a long hard road ahead. > > We've seen the revolution arrive unstoppably before, twice now in just > over a decade, with the flights of DC-X and then with the prospect of > skies dark with low-orbit telecomms satellites. Far too much might yet > go wrong with this "unstoppable revolution" too. > > As for the winners being established, everyone else can go home now... > We can forgive such sentiments, between well-earned euphoria and > understandable preemptive marketing hype (this is America, after all) > but the history of previous transportation revolutions tells us that the > first often don't dominate in the long run. Else we'd all be riding in > Curtiss-Wright airliners... We think there's room for a bunch of > competitive new entrants, and may the best ships win. But the only > halfway safe bet right now is that the Boeing and Airbus of the mid-21st > century won't be called "Boeing" and "Airbus". > > Keep in mind too that there are large engineering hurdles still ahead. > Those taking the reusable suborbital development path need to keep in > mind that winning the X-Prize took handling perhaps a tenth of the > energy involved in getting to orbit. Even going long distances point- > to-point on Earth will require two-thirds to three-quarters of orbital > energy; there's no obvious small easy next step there. Meanwhile, those > going for orbit now and reusability later also have some major hurdles > ahead. We advocate reusability, but we don't pretend it's easy in a > vehicle that has to make it to orbit and back - it will take some > inspired engineering and a lot of hard work. > > Getting to orbit and back reliably, repeatably, and radically cheaper is > going to take additional generations of reusable rocketship development. > The good news is, we're seeing ever more proof that a generation of > spacecraft development done right (outside the sclerotic existing > government-aerospace bureaucracy) can happen in just a few years, not > decades. Multiple generations of development per decade are possible - > it's been done before. It's starting to happen again now, in the new > private space sector. > > But then there are the legal aspects - government regulations, plus the > closely intertwined issues of liability and insurance costs. We've seen > progress on these fronts, and we're cautiously optimistic, but there's > still a lot of work ahead here too. > > And let's not forget the purely political angle - we have three more > years of a relatively supportive Administration to get as much done as > possible. After that we could see anything from continued support > through indifference to outright ideological hostility from DC. Make > hay while the sun shines, guys... > > But we can't complain. These are great times. We're not there yet - > but we are getting there. > > Viva la revolucion! > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Industry Roundup > > This is not intended to be a comprehensive look at the state of the new > low-cost spaceflight industry. (For that, you're better off monitoring > on an ongoing basis the websites that do daily coverage - not to slight > anyone else, but www.spacetransportnews.com is one good place to start > following links and building up bookmarks.) Rather, we're going to skip > around to various items that made an impression on us in recent months, > with an occasional interjection of our views on one thing or another. > > We are seeing signs that this industry is growing up fast. One trend is > specialization - rocketship builders are starting to differentiate from > rocketship operators, something that happened to the air transport > industry too around the time it was getting serious. > > Another is that rocketship builders are beginning to access a novel > method of finance for this industry: Paying customers, both government > agencies wanting a mix of tech development and delivered payloads, and > commercial operators wanting actual ships to fly. > > And while most company finance in this industry is still via some > variant of "angel investors", aka wealthy individuals, there have been a > number of signs that the venture capital industry may not be that far > behind. First there's all the positive press buzz of the last year, of > course. Never underestimate the herd factor in investment trends. > > There are also signs of a fundamental VC investment requirement firming > up: The exit strategy. One time-honored way to cash out investment in > an innovative startup is by selling out to an established player that > wants a foot in the new door. Arianespace showed up at the X-Prize > Cup's Personal Spaceflight Symposium last fall "looking for possible > connections" in this new industry. We've seen indications the US launch > majors too are keeping a close eye on developments among the startups. > Looking to eventually buy what they can't foster internally? It > wouldn't be unprecedented. > > On the regulatory front, things keep moving forward. FAA AST's Notice > of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on commercial human spaceflight is open > for comment through February 27th - text of the NPRM is at: > http://ast.faa.gov/files/pdf/Human_Space_Flight_NPRM.pdf. This is AST's > proposed implementation of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act > passed just over a year ago, now well on its way to becoming detailed > regulations. > > And there's a "Space Weather Week" gettogether in Boulder April 25-28 - > see http://www.sec.noaa.gov/sww/. Some of the people involved will be > at Space Access '06 the week before, holding private discussions with > interested industry parties, AKA potential customers for timely space > weather information. > > The X-Prize Cup > > Probably the single place that brought together more interesting trends > in this industry (at least until Space Access '06 this April) was the X- > Prize Cup series of events in New Mexico last fall. On the downside, > events were scattered over four days and a quarter of the state, and > there was a certain amount of first-time disorganization and slack time. > > On the upside, a lot of good and interesting things happened. We > already mentioned Arianespace checking out the new industry. Virgin > Galactic's Alex Tai emphasized to the same Personal Spaceflight > Symposium audience that Virgin will primarily be an operator, not a > developer, saying more or less "if you have a better spaceship, then we > want to operate it" - making clear that Virgin's deal with Scaled > Composites for SpaceShip 2 suborbital tourist ships is non-exclusive. > Armadillo and XCOR both flew - for pay - reusable rockets, XCOR twice > the same afternoon, wowing the (large, paying) crowd at the day-long > "Prelude To The X-Prize Cup" rocket festival at Las Cruces Airport. > Much of the rest of the industry showed up with static displays, booths > and mockups, some threatening to be back next year with flyable ships > themselves . XCOR CEO Jeff Greason, by the way, mentioned at the > Symposium that XCOR's marginal cost per flight of their EZ-Rocket > demonstrator was about $900, stunningly low by Big Aerospace standards > of recent decades. And Peter Diamandis, wearing his Zero-G Corp > (weightless parabolic-arc airplane rides) hat, mentioned that their > operation has achieved a spacesickness rate among passengers of under > 4%, as opposed to the NASA "Vomit Comet" record of 25-50%. Being > customer-driven can make a difference, apparently. (Though to be fair, > one skeptic points out to us that NASA typically flies several times as > many parabolic arcs as he experienced on his Zero-G flight.) > > Commercial Spaceports > > Another, less obvious good thing that happened at the XP Cup events was > that a lot of New Mexico movers and shakers showed up to see whether > they should take this new industry seriously. New Mexico got burned in > the late nineties putting tens of millions into a spaceport aimed at X- > 33, and the memory lingers. Apparently they were reassured by what they > saw this time. The New Mexico legislature just approved the first > hundred million in funding (of $225 million total expected) for the new > Southwest Regional Spaceport to be built on state land west of the White > Sands Missile Range, with Virgin Galactic as an anchor tenant. > > Commercial spaceport development has become a hot topic in general. > Over at Mojave Spaceport, Burt Rutan has said that he expects that among > four or five different potential SpaceShipTwo operators, at least two > would fly out of the already-licensed California facility, home base to > Rutan's scaled Composites, XCOR, and a number of other outfits. > > Virgin made clear that New Mexico's greater willingness to provide > incentives for siting there was a factor in their decision. There is a > Futron estimate that by 2020 the new spaceport could return some 5,800 > new jobs and $752 million new economic activity to the state. New > Mexico expects to obtain their FAA spaceport license by the end of 2006. > In the meantime, UP Aerospace will break in the site with a series of > sounding rocket flights starting in late March under FAA waivers. > > Oklahoma meanwhile quietly completed environmental assessments for their > own commercial spaceport at Burns Flats early this year and is expecting > FAA approval in the spring. Oklahoma is already home to Rocketplane LLC > and TGV Rockets. > > At the same time, Florida is one of a number of states vigorously > debating making a significant commercial spaceport investment and > looking at possible sites > > The Suborbital Contenders > > Getting down to actual rocketship builders and operators, now, first > we'll take a look at some of the suborbital contenders. There is a LOT > of action in this field. > > We'll start with a look at a sub-suborbital contender... The new Rocket > Racing League (RRL) announced by X-Prize's Peter Diamandis and Grainger > Whitelaw (a partner in several Indy 500 racing teams) plans to hold a > series of rocket powered airplane races around the country, culminating > in a yearly fly-off at the October X-Prize Cup event in New Mexico. > > (We say "sub-sub-orbital" because the RRL plan is to fly a closed course > at low altitude in front of spectators. We confess to a prejudice in > favor of what rockets do best, flying high straight and fast - Mojave to > Vegas time trials, anyone? - but the RRL approach probably does make for > a better show, and will certainly advance operability of the ships > quickly, as reliability and turnaround time in refuelling pit-stops will > be key competitive elements. We'll watch this sport.) > > The rocket racers are inspired by XCOR's "EZ-Rocket" operations-testbed > conversion of a Long-EZ light sportplane, and will be based on a higher > performance airframe manufactured by Velocity Aircraft of Florida, > powered by an XCOR 1800-pound thrust LOX-kerosene rocket engine. The > first Rocket Racer is expected to fly demos at next October's XP Cup, > with racing to commence the following year. > > On to the suborbital spaceflight companies... Armadillo Aerospace plans > to approach 100 kilometers altitude with its latest computer controlled > bipropellant engine Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTVL) rocket this > year. They plan to fly it at next fall's XP Cup event. We expect it's > no coincidence that our back-of-the-envelope performance calculation for > this vehicle matches closely the requirements of a NASA Centennial > Challenges prize contest to be run for the first time at the XP Cup. > The Lunar Lander Analog Challenge has a $2 million prize for the first > vehicle that demonstrates powered vertical takeoff and landing plus > enough velocity change capability to go from Lunar surface to Low Lunar > orbit and back. Detailed rules for this contest are expected out in the > next few days. > > The ever mysterious Blue Origin (funded by Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com) > continues its secretive ways. We've seen information recently primarily > due to legal requirements as they establish facilities. Test flights of > their VTVL suborbital ship from West Texas may come later this year. > The company has purchased a headquarters in Kent, Washington that > includes a rocket test stand and various shop and assembly areas. > > Speaking of mysterious, TGV Rockets, the granddaddy of all reusable > suborbital ventures, continues to pursue government rather than > commercial markets, and is looking for a few good engineers. For > anything more than that you'll have to come to Space Access '06 and try > to pry it out of TGV yourself. Good luck! > > Rocketplane plans to roll out their prototype Rocketplane XP by the end > of this year, commence test flights early next year, and hopes to start > commercial service late next year. The prototype will be powered by a > Rocketdyne RS-88 50,000 pound thrust engine borrowed from NASA and > derated to the XP's 30,000 pound thrust requirement. (We expect it's > significant the engine is coming from NASA and not Rocketdyne; the > company reputedly is tough to deal with even for large government > customers.) Rocketplane has announced agreements to market seats on the > XP with Incredible Adventures, Inc and with a UK company, Pure Vacations > The latter's marketing division for the flights is called Pure Galactic. > > Masten Space Systems is testing and refining its 500 pound thrust engine > and assembling parts for the XA-0.1 VTVL testbed, which through several > iterations is planned to lead to the XA-1.0, 100 kg payload to 100 > kilometers system. We understand that they are developing market data > and have started looking for their first round of external investment. > > Brian Feeney of the Canadian da Vinci project tells us that development > is continuing on the original three seat, balloon-launched suborbital > ship, but the earliest flight attempt would be in the 1st or 2nd quarter > of 2007. In reaction to others' progress toward commercial suborbital > flight, they have also begun proof of concept work on the Tiger, which > would be a winged nine seat suborbital ship dispensing with the balloon. > > UK-based Starchaser twice fired their Churchill II engine at the XP Cup > rocket festival last fall, the second try resulting in a Hollywood-style > billowing fireball. They didn't seem surprised, saying that particular > engine was nearing the end of its expected life. We speculate they may > have decided there was little downside to accidentally doing something > so crowd-pleasing. They have scaled back for the moment their plans for > a 3 person suborbital capsule/reusable rocket, in favor of building and > marketing a smaller unmanned sounding rocket. They have an office in > Las Cruces NM, and are seeking a site for a rocket-assembly facility in > the area. > > Planetspace has a lot on their plate, working toward first manned launch > of their Canadian Arrow V-2 derived ship in 2008, announcing the long- > term goal of developing their Silver Dart orbital spacecraft (based on > an old USAF lifting body concept called FDL-7 and powered by a booster > using up to ten of the Canadian Arrow's 70,000 pound class engines) and > working on a NASA COTS proposal based on the Silver Dart. > > And in this week's big surprise, Space Adventures in partnership with > the Ansari family's Prodea investment firm announced a deal with a > consortium of Russian aerospace companies via the Russian Federal Space > Agency to build the five-seat "Explorer" suborbital tourist ship, a > larger version of the Myasichev "Cosmopolis 21" air-launched solid- > rocket powered spaceplane that was being promoted a while back. The > deal includes operations from multiple spaceports worldwide, possibly in > the US and Australia, and definitely in the United Arab Emirates and > Singapore. Plans are to be flying as soon as late next year. > > Savability > > Now, before we move on to some of the low-cost orbital ventures, we want > to briefly climb onto a hobby-horse of ours, "savability". It's an > awkward word, but we haven't come up with a better name for the concept > in nearly twenty years of trying, and it's a vital concept. > > Savability is what Max Hunter called the vehicle design characteristic > of being able to, at any point in a flight, decide that things aren't > going well, stop, and land the ship safely. Savability is what makes > modern air travel so safe - modern airliners by design can survive the > vast majority of things that might go wrong, and either turn back and > land or even shrug and continue to the destination. > > More subtly, savability is what allows modern aircraft to be flight- > tested incrementally to work out all the bugs before entering service - > from low-speed taxi tests through the first short hop on to exploring > the far corners of the flight envelope, every step of the way if > something goes wrong the test pilots can abort the mission, land the > plane, and try again tomorrow. > > Now, savability is never absolute. If an airplane's main wing spar > breaks, it's toast. But savability over the vast majority of possible > failures is what makes modern air travel as safe and cheap as it is. > > Traditional "disintegrating totem pole" expendable rockets are totally > unsavable. You cannot incrementally flight-test them - each time you > push the button to fly, it's all or nothing, orbit or a smoking hole in > the ground. This is why these rockets require such painstaking pre- > flight procedures, months of component testing then hours or days of > traditional countdown, as every last system on the rocket is checked and > rechecked. This is also why even the best of such rockets still fail > catastrophically one or two percent of the time - because in a big > complex system like an airplane or a space rocket, some problems simply > won't become visible till the whole system is flying. > > Reusability brings the potential of savability to rockets. This, just > as much as not throwing the hardware away, is why we think reusability > is essential to radical cost reductions in the long run. Because until > rockets are engineered to be savable under most possible failures, > neither their safety nor their operability will reach acceptable levels > for routine commercial transportation. They'll take way too much pre- > flight prep, and they'll still crash too often. > > Note we said reusability brings the potential of savability, not the > assurance of it. Reusability implies the ability to land the ship again > safely at the end of the flight, but there are all sorts of design > choices that can deny that ability at various intermediate points in a > flight. NASA calls these "black zones", segments of a flight profile > where trying to abort and land means destruction of the ship. A few > common examples: Shuttle launches while the SRBs are burning - there's > no safe way to stop the solids running before they're out of fuel. Any > vehicle while it's still loaded with more weight (propellant or payload) > than it can safely land with, or loaded outside its safe landing center- > of-gravity limits. Any vehicle at a point in its launch profile where > reaching a safe landing requires more maneuverability than it's got, or > requires exceeding aerodynamic or thermal or structural limits. > > Savability is something that has to be kept in mind every step of the > way in designing a truly safe operable rocketship. It will be, we > predict, a major factor in separating the successes from the also-rans > in this new industry. Perfect savability is an unachievable ideal, but > adequate savability, most of the time under most circumstances, is key. > > > The Low-Cost Expendables > > SpaceX right now is nearing the end of a long, painful process every > traditional booster maker has had to go through: Working out that last > 1% of pre-launch procedure that can't be predicted ahead of time, > dealing with the obscure interactions that don't show up until the > actual vehicle is on an actual launch pad being prepared for an actual > launch. Compounding the difficulties, they're doing this from a launch > site 6000 miles from their home base. We counsel patience, both to them > and to everyone waiting to see how they do on their first attempt to put > Falcon 1 into orbit. We also remind everyone that first launches of > expendable boosters are historically a coin-flip, for reasons alluded to > in the previous section. There's just too much that can go wrong when > the first flight test of a complex system has to get all the way to > orbit. All that said, may the champagne be cold, ready, and earned, > soon! > > AirLaunch LLC has been working on the two stage Quickreach rocket to > carry small satellites to orbit at under $5 million per flight with 24 > hour response time, as part of the DARPA FALCON program. In the $11 > million Phase 2A Airlaunch dropped a dummy booster out the back of a C- > 17, proving their concept for bringing the rocket to vertical boost > position so that wings (such as those on the Orbital Sciences Pegasus) > are not needed. In November, Airlaunch got $17.5 million more for Phase > 2B, and by January they had successfully ground demonstrated pneumatic > separation of a dry dummy first stage from the second stage nozzle. > > AirLaunch is also a partner with T/Space in their NASA COTS program bid, > which proposes a much larger version of this booster (Quickreach 2) to > launch a manned capsule. That booster would also be air dropped, from > external carriage under a large new Scaled Composites carrier aircraft. > A subscale drop test succeeded using the existing Scaled Composites > Proteus carrier aircraft. (It's noteworthy that the dollars for this > flight demonstration came from preliminary COTS study funds that NASA > had assumed would be only adequate for paperwork.) > > That's not close to all that's going on in this new industry, but it's > all we have time for now. See you all at SA'06! > ________________________________________________________________________ > > 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
