Over the weekend, it was widely reported that the Obama Administration has proposed cancelling NASA’s next big project, The Constellation Program, which was designed to return humanity to the Moon, but instead, increased NASA’s budget by $6 Billion. The official explanation was that Constellation would largely be a repeat of the Apollo program by returning Americans to the moon, and was rejected by an independent review panel. While there has been a considerable amount of press regarding this, it is most likely better for the US space program as a whole.

I was happy to see President Bush announce the Constellation Program, but in the couple of years since its announcement, it’s become increasingly clear that this was a project that wasn’t going to work in the long run. In the history of space exploration, numerous presidents have used the space program as a way to launch legacies and to bolster public support for their administration, most notably with the Kennedy Administration, as well as the Nixon Administration. Undoubtedly, this was a goal of the second Bush Administration, which faced flagging support as the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were getting worse. This sort of support from an administration isn’t unwarranted, or really unwelcome, but given the absolute complexity of something such as Apollo or Constellation, there needs to be broad public support and administrative support for the program. This worked extremely well during the 1960s, as politicians were able to use the advances of the Soviet Union as a way to link both spaceflight and military technologies together. If the Russians were able to reach the moon first, they would be perceived as being technologically superior. In a world of unorganized terror and irregular warfare, this threat doesn’t exist. While it’s clear that Iran and North Korea has experimented with IRBM and ICBM technology, there isn’t a race to see who’s better. Thus, public and political pressure for a successful moon landing project isn’t behind a push to go to the moon, which will hurt the project in numerous ways, such as budget cuts.

Beyond that, however, is the entire purpose of a moon landing program. The Mercury and Gemini programs were both designed with much different criteria in mind: Could humans go to space, and could humans live in space? The successes of both and the subsequent Apollo program indicated yes, making them an unparalleled success. When it came to Apollo, the end goals are more limited: Could humans land on the moon? While Apollo proved that this was true, it was far more limited, with no aftermath plan put into place, and with fewer tangible results that could come out of it. Once humanity reached the moon, public support slowed, and the last three Apollo missions were cancelled, despite the hardware and training that had gone into them. A repeat of Apollo wouldn’t prove anything new, other than advancing some of the known technologies. Until a good reason is found to return to the lunar service, it shouldn’t be subjected to the constraints of taxpayer whims and political points, and this is what would have happened with Constellation. A return to the moon would be a tremendous boon to the United States, but it would be a superficial one, without real substance.

While this shuts out a lunar moon program on the part of NASA, this does open the doors for private aerospace companies, new and old. Earlier today, NASA announced five companies were receiving large grants, while other companies, such as SpaceX, will be tasked with shuttling people and materials back and forth between the earth and orbit. Private industry will likely be a better choice for space technology, because it is freed from the constraints of public funding and politicians. This doesn’t necessarily mean that NASA will be out of the space business either – several programs that will be brought up will be focusing on robotics and orbital stations, as well as investigating new equipment and technology, which will undoubtedly help create a foundation for further exploration to the moon and solar system.

There are some drawbacks to this. It’ll take longer, which will push the United States back a bit, and it will place some exploration in the hands of machines, rather than people. That, however, is a smaller price to pay if it helps to put the United States and humanity on track to reach the stars on a bit more of a permanent basis. What I can foresee, is a buildup of additional companies such as SpaceX, which will help to build a large industrial and commercial basis for human habitation in space. That, I believe, is incredibly important, especially given the problems with the economy as of late. This would provide the US with a wholly unique industry, something that is badly needed.

The problems with going to space are complicated, and returning to orbit will be a very different thing after twenty years of depending on the space shuttle. Hopefully, these changes will be the start of new priorities for the space agency, and hopefully, exploration to the Moon and Mars won’t be too far behind.

With the release of its 2011 budget proposal, the Obama administration has concurrently announced, in no uncertain terms, that the current NASA Constellation program is cancelled.

“The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration…” -Official White House website, 2011 Budget fact Sheet

The fact sheet goes on to explain the new direction focusing on private space, including some significant funds:

• $1.2 billion for transformative research in exploration technology that will involve NASA, private industry, and academia, sparking spin-off technologies and potentially entire new industries
• $500 million to contract with industry to provide astronaut transportation to the ISS, reducing the sole reliance on foreign crew transports and catalyzing new businesses and significant new jobs.

“Entire new industries”, “catalyzing new businesses” and jobs…As hinted at in his campaign space plan (and by his initial Commerce Secretary appointment of NM Gov. Bill Richardson), Obama clearly believes in the economic potential of an industry-focused NASA. Note that the ISS contract mentioned there is already awarded—SpaceX just needs to prove its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule are human-ready for the option to vest, and both Orbital and SpaceX are already the new ISS cargo suppliers.

What does this mean for moon colonization? It means that NASA itself won’t be landing anyone on the moon.

There is a lot of ‘doom and gloom’ out there about how there won’t be humans on the Moon anytime soon, which is a false assertion—the Chinese program is full-steam-ahead, and if private space can be trusted with the ISS contracts at this early stage, then they’re on a course to be putting men on the Moon before long; perhaps even before NASA would have landed men anyways.

Americans will be on the Moon again soon; they’ll just have to hitch a ride with a company or an international effort to get there. And the U.S. will remain a major lunar player, with many private companies and Google Lunar X PRIZE efforts being American.

The fact sheet doesn’t say anything about new human exploration options, such as the ‘Flexible Path‘ suggested by the Augustine panel, so word remains to be seen regarding that, and whether NASA will shift to a manned asteroid mission or mission to Mars’ moons.

As he announced the budget for fiscal year 2011, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden confirmed what many feared. President Obama basically axed American manned spaceflight for the foreseeable future. Read the remarks here.

Among the hot air and the Obama-Messiah complex there is precious little of a vision. Even the extension of American involvement in the International Space Station is a possibility, and the keeping of the commitment to the other partners is presented as a nice bonus.

Manned spaceflight will be handed over to commerical companies, none of which have proven themselves and only one, SpaceX, is even close to a first test flight.

The Constellation program is scrapped, last year’s Ares 1-X test launch a waste of money. Reason: it won’t meet its goals of getting people to the Moon and Mars on current funds. That was exactly the reason why NASA needed a new vision in the first place! It is presented here as almost an oversight on NASA’s part, while it is the government refusing to increase the pittance NASA receives now.

What will NASA be doing? Well, you tell me. No specifics are given, only some generalities about new technologies and reinvigoration - managerspeak, in other words. In reality, nothing will change and NASA is forced to continue on the path is has been on for decades, but this time even without a capability to launch people into space.

Russia, Japan and Europe are the places where the future of space exploration will be made. NASA will matter increasingly less.

I’m disappointed and a bit angry.

In some leaks that came out before the State of the Union Address tonight, confirmed by President Obama’s remarks, it appears that the Constellation Program is currently dead in the water.

White House won’t fund NASA Moon Program

I have to say that I’m completely baffled by Obama’s decision here. This warrants a breakdown of the many effects of this move.

1. The United States surrenders its ability to perform heavy lift missions into space.
2. The ISS is tossed into the (capable?) hands of the private space companies.
3. China takes the lead in the race to return to the Moon (and Mars as well).
4. NASA becomes a glorified research department

2) Private corporate supply of the ISS:
Let’s get this out of the way: Privatization of space is definitely in the cards in the next fifty years. Moving on from that statement, there is no way that these companies (SpaceX, Orbital, etc.) are ready to take on significant roles in the development of anything beyond light commercial space travel in the immediate future. Certainly they would not have the capacity to be at where the Constellation Program would be given the same proposed time period. SpaceX hasn’t even finished its Dragon, the proposed ISS resupply delivery system, which might go unfinished by the time the Shuttle is retired. Why then does Obama pull the plug in the name of private industry and competitiveness? Probably because it earns him brownie points for bipartisanship on an issue he cares nothing about.

3) The Red Side of the Moon:
At this point, taking it as a given that the Constellation Program is done, it will be a Chinese taikonaut that next lands on the moon. Is this inherently a bad thing? No, but there are many side issues which could potentially harm American interests. With the American space program stalled, and commercial ventures still struggling, will China bridge the gap? Granted, its possible that Russia could still remain a player in space; however, their capabilities are not projected to increase significantly over the next decade or so. China is the nation with its eyes to the stars, much as America was back in the 50’s and 60’s. The Chinese are set to blow by us in the space race, will they really stop to help us pick up the pieces of our own program?

4) The Decline of NASA:
Without a space program, where does this leave NASA? It is somewhat amusing that, while the Constellation Program gets killed, NASA itself is still getting more money for scientific experiments. With what will it conduct these experiments? The Space Shuttle will be gone in a year, its not certain that private companies will be able to resupply the ISS, and who says that China will want to help us stay in space? NASA becomes a truly ground-based space agency, shooting up a satellite or two per year perhaps but not much more. Rather than existing for the sake of expansion into space, NASA becomes Earth-focused and therefore extremely limited in scope. President Obama doesn’t realize that the goal now is not maintaining the International Space Station; the ISS will go down as an insignificant footnote in history someday. The goal should be to expand human operations outside of our own region in space; that means the Moon or Mars. In this respect, NASA is the only agency capable of planning this sort of project. Unfortunately, by taking away Constellation, Obama takes away much of that agency’s reason to exist.

Overall, it comes down to self-sufficiency; for all Obama talks about making America sustainable and free from foreign control, he’s killing us on the issue which will be most important in the long run: space travel. Without our own independent launch vehicle like the Ares I or V, we might as well just shoot ourselves in the foot; it would accomplish just as much as anything we could otherwise do in space. I can only hope that Congress puts up a fight on this issue although they are probably the only group more shortsighted in government than the President. Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath.

Its news now – and it isn’t good.

NASA without Shuttle, without Ares, without a purposeful astronaut program post 2020. Yes, there is more than just human spaceflight activities in the space industry, I know that best, but when you take a 50 year old institution based on its valour, experience & spirit and strip away its core motivations and expertise, what are you left with?

US President Obama is expected to announce in the coming days about funding for NASA and the US Space Program’s future – perhaps linked to his upcoming State of the Union address later this evening.

2 sources (thanks to friends for sending them over) already state that “Moon is dead” and for good reason. Although their sourced references in the articles are anonymous, that’s politics for you.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-nasa-budget27-2010jan27,0,1252176.story – The LA Times

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/01/27/the-moon-is-dead/ – Jeff Foust @ Spacepolitics.com

***UPDATE: http://spacenews.com/policy/100122-budget-increase-nasa-fate-ares-unclear.html - Space News***

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35131431/ns/technology_and_science-space/ – MSNBC – Although I wish they would get their facts correct – you can’t put Virgin Galactic and Boeing into the same category – VG is only suborbital flight and Boeing predominately orbtial! Big difference MSNBC.

Why is this announcement so shocking, or at least so important?

Because the rest of the world’s agencies (perhaps even China) will feed off of the US’s plan. Perhaps there is to be a shift in the space leadership – fine, but when ESA, CSA, Russia, JAXA and others have been stalling making future plans for Lunar+ directions because of waiting on the US – looks like they’ve got their own individual futures, or perhaps collaborations themselves to think about – and fast.

Think for a moment:

The US without its own launcher in at least the next 2 decades – ok using the Russians through till 2020 when the Space Station is out is great temporary solution – but then what? What of the current and future astronaut corps? What of the scientific research regarding the human body, biology, physics and chemistry in microgravity? The technical spinoffs and spinins, the inspirational advantage? The incredible number of students and professional who are engaged to enter space-related fields? Of course all of this won’t come to a sudden crashing halt – some of it will continue, but this HUGE blow to the core of NASA’s space activities will hurt them significantly. Such is the politics of space. Oh, and you can’t just build a rocket in 5 years and hope to send humans to the Moon – this isn’t the 1960’s anymore. You have to start early – apparently that starting date will not be seen in the foreseeable future. “Flexible Path” it seems is the choice to go forward as suggested by the Augustine Commission…

I appreciate the immense technologies and superior advantage Earth Observation & remote sensing has brought to our society – everything from agricultural sustainability, disaster management, GPS/GALILEO/GLONASS to Google Maps. But basing an entire program around EO/RS principles is tough to engage the population, the people who give you the money, to give you the money. Humans connect with humans, its just an affinity that is inherent in our nature.

There are other means – commercial. Efforts as the X-Prize, NGLLC, SpaceX, and others were spurred by the latent bureaucratic ways of government agencies, to try and take efforts another step themselves – looks like they’ve just been doled their opportunity on a silver platter.

Space is no longer the final frontier for private enterprise.  One major deal and the emergence of some private operators is an indication that this nascent industry will finally take off (pardon the pun) in 2010. 

For the first time, two commercial operators, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, will begin providing delivery services for NASA as part of a large multi million dollar contract to transport cargo into space.  One of the deal’s triggers was NASA’s recognition that the US will face a 6-7 year launch gap beginning next year when the Space Shuttle program is retired.   Since the Space Shuttle has essentially been a delivery vehicle for cargo and astronauts, a replacement will be needed to fill the void.  A new NASA-developed shuttle replacement program is planned by 2017.   However, this timing could be in doubt as the choice of vehicle has yet to be made and the public funding environment remains murky.

Though there are cargo delivery options with non-US space agencies, one of NASA’s major issues is with the cost and reliability of transporting astronauts.  After this year, NASA will be dependent on the availability and kindness of Russia’s Soyuz space craft, which carries a $50M per seat tariff.  However, many pundits believe a US private industry solution could launch astronauts into space at a fraction of the Soyuz rate.  Futron, a research firm, pegs the potential 2021 orbital (read: astronaut transport) market for commercial providers at 60 passengers and $300M in revenue. 

Importantly, the SpaceX/Orbital contract may not be the only deal done between NASA and commercial operators.  A new generation of suborbital vehicles currently under development could open up new market opportunities for other services such as microgravity science research, astronaut training and remote sensing.  For perspective, NASA spends $300M (according to Virgin Galactic) conducting its own suborbital work.

Other than the pending delivery gap, other factors will likely increase the appeal of private sector offerings.  Widespread technological advances in computing power, materials and miniaturization are bringing down the cost of blasting objects into space; tight government budgets are restricting the amount of suborbital R&D that NASA can conduct and; there is grudging acceptance in many parts of the US governement that commercial operators could deliver solutions as good if not better than NASA and other government agencies.

Interestingly, 2010 could finally witness the emergence of space tourism.  A number of players including Virgin Galactic and XCOR will use their proprietary launch vehicles to begin suborbital trips for the well-heeled.  Although the pricey customer experience will likely be no more comfortable than being squeezed into a plane’s cockpit, there has been extensive, global interest.   In February 2009, Virgin Galactic claimed they received $39M in deposits from 300 customers.  Many developments may facilitate greater consumer demand including: declining payload costs that will help reduce seat fees well below the million dollar threshold; enhanced capsule comfort and; improvements in perception around safety and reliability. Estimates on the size of the space tourism market vary widely.  Futron forecasts the 2021 suborbital tourist market at 15,000 passengers and $700M in revenue.

It’s too early to tell whether cargo transport and tourism will be the “killer apps” that kick starts a commercial space industry.  Many challenges remain in areas like investment finance, technology and regulations that will need to be addressed.  However, it’s a promising start and its happening in 2010.

For more information on our services and work, please visit the Quanta Consulting Inc. web site.

Ok, let’s go over a few of my favorites, not in any particular order…

1> LCROSS Impact Study.

The slightly controversial “bombing of the moon” found significant amounts of water ice in the moon’s cold south polar regions and generated heat back home.  Whether or not you think that water ice on the moon is important, you have to admit that the human interest this mission generated was profound.  I won’t criticize the people who think that the mission did anything like significant damage to the moon (two more small craters on a crater saturated surface the size of Africa), because I think it is cool that folks are paying attention and that they care.  Truth is: water is very heavy, lifting heavy stuff to the moon is very expensive, and humans need water—ergo, water already on the moon may be an important find for engineering a permanent manned presence on the moon.  All I can say is, “Folks, turn your passion into an education, and then a career, in a space science related field.”

2> Ares Test Launch

Again, another key “baby step” in manned space flight.  Some folks think it was a waste, because the rocket in this configuration is most useful for the space station mission, which they say will be finished before the rocket goes into full operation. 

Truth is, it is only one, very significant, test of a future multi-role rocket system that will launch future manned moon and Mars missions.  It also yielded much data that will be used in a broad range of areas, including the various commercial space flight endeavors currently underway.

The plans to de-orbit the space station is another issue.  I think it’s wasteful and I think others will too.  Hopefully, the ISS will prove so useful that they’ll figure out a way to give it an orbit boost and keep on using it longer than planned.

3> The International Space Station

The ISS is nearing completion and keeps hitting the news.  The planned Earth and Space Science and Space longevity experiments have only just begun.  A truly international effort, this project will yield unforeseeable fruits in public awareness of space related research, as well as the research itself.  There is something about a permanently manned, globally produced orbiting structure that gets folks excited about space science and encourages related research and breakthroughs—several of which are discussed in the Commercial Space Flight Achievements heading below.

Sorry, I just had to include this other cool image. 

It was taken from the ISS. 

It is a shot of the volcanic eruption in June of the Sarychev Volcano in Russia’s Kuril Islands, northeast of Japan.  Click on it for the larger view.

4> Hubble Refit

What I think is the most successful space exploration mission in history just got better.  Back in May, NASA sent a shuttle mission into high orbit to repair and upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope. 

If I wanted to, I could fill this space with breath-taking pictures.  This image of the Butterfly Nebula was a difficult pick and was taken after the upgrade.

Not only is Hubble back in business for the imaging work that it has always done so well, but now they’ve installed some even better instruments for more breakthroughs in the future.

GO HUBBLE!

5> Commercial Space Flight Achievements

SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Masten Space Systems all made major announcements which set the stage for an exciting year of commercial space flight in 2010.

Virgin Galactic rolled out it’s WhiteKnightTwo and SpaceShipTwo, which will take the rich up for a joy-ride in space.  They hope to bring the price down, but that isn’t the most exciting part.  The WhiteKnightTwo Aircraft will fly the SpaceShipTwo Spacecraft to 60,000 feet before launching it.  It employs a completely reusable, horizontal take-off, horizontal landing system that pioneers an important concept for other space launch applications.  It is the newest generation of the X-Prize winning SpaceShipOne.

Wouldn’t it be cool to see a future generation of this spacecraft deliver astronauts to the space station…hmm?

SpaceX has also come a long way since winning an X-Prize.  This year they announced a rocket-launched capsule that will be capable of ferrying cargo back and forth to the space station.  In fact, NASA announced late in 2008 that they won the Commercial Resupply Services contract to fill-in after the Shuttle schedule ends next year.  This year they have been working with NASA astronauts on the interface between their capsule and the ISS.

Masten Space Systems  won the first place X-Prize in the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge in November.  They also announced that they are taking reservations to launch sub-orbital science and educational payloads from Earth, straight up and straight down.

Price starts at $99 for a 350 gram, soda-pop can sized payload.  Here’s the complete launch menu—as quoted from their website:

——————————————————————————————–

• Soda-can sized 350g payload: $99
• 1 kg custom payload: $250
• 5 kg custom payload: $1250
• Full Flight: Give us a call on this one – normally $75,000 (@ 100 kg) but educational discounts may apply.

———————————————————————–

So far as I know, these prices are unprecedented.  If they pull it off they’ll provide what looks like the most down-to-earth launch availability and affordability package to date. 

Even I can afford it—I wonder how many grams a banana weighs.

6> Mars Exploration

More discoveries, imagery, and challenges coming out of both the surface and the orbiting missions currently operating on Mars.

Yes, Spirit is stuck in the soft sand, but the lessons learned from the setback are significant.  In the attached photo they even got one of the wheels that hasn’t worked in years to turn a few times as they tried to get the rover out.  On the left is a wheel that’s stuck.

Understand that Mars is so far away that there is a significant time-lag for radio signals back and forth from Earth.  It makes problem solving for robotic missions like this one extra difficult.  If people lived there, they could just tell someone to walk over and lift it out.

For more cool 2009 space stuff, click the links below:

The 9 Top Spaceflight Stories of 2009 on Space.com

Year in Space 2009 picture slide show on MSNBC.com

I forgot to repost my GD article about the demise of the Space Shuttle. So here ye go mate!

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/12/when-astronauts-no-longer-fly-on-the-space-shuttle/

Image credit: SpaceX

SpaceX have announced that their Dragon capsules will begin lofting cargo to the International Space Station sometime between May and November next year. Three demonstration flights will take place (into orbit, ISS close proximity, and ISS docking) before the main contract for 12 re-supply missions can begin.

Elon came to visit us in Hogsback with his family many years ago, so enjoy hearing stuff about him.

Live: George Zachary Interviews Tesla CEO Elon Musk

Posted using ShareThis

(A Dragon da SpaceX http://www.spacex.com)

A SpaceX anunciou que vai colocar um protótipo da sua cápsula reutilizável Dragon no primeiro voo de um foguetão Falcon 9. A Dragon foi desenvolvida no âmbito do programa “Commercial Orbital Transportation Services” (COTS) da NASA que consiste num acordo comercial da agência espacial para o transporte de carga até à ISS em troca de 1,6 biliões de dólares por 12 voos. A introdução da Dragon no primeiro voo do Falcon 9 é intrigante porque em 2005 a SpaceX tinha declarado que tinha vendido este primeiro payload a um “cliente secreto” e se agora se sabe que o payload é a Dragon… Então que voo será este? Será a USAF tentando determinar se o Falcon 9 pode transportar militares ou ser usado como plataforma de reconhecimento espacial? A SpaceX tem que fazer – além deste – mais 3 lançamentos voos com a Dragon de forma a cumprir o seu compromisso COTS da NASA, de onde já recebeu 278 milhões de dólares.

O primeiro Falcon 9 deve estar concluído até finais de novembro de 2009, mas o lançamento pode ter lugar apenas em janeiro de 2010.

A Dragon foi concebida em 2005, internamente na SpaceX e previu logo desde o começo do programa dois compartimentos, um estanque, outro não. A ideia era então a de enviar cargas e astronautas para órbitas LEO. Posteriormente, a SpaceX adicionou a possibilidade de realizar voos de abastecimento até à ISS. Além destes a Dragon tem também um módulo de serviço o “Service Section” com a aviónica, o sistema RCS, os paraquedas e outros equipamentos. A secção despressurizada conterá também os sistemas de apoio aos painéis solares da cápsula e os radiadores térmicos que permitirão a manutenção de temperaturas humanamente aceitáveis no interior da cápsula quando for sujeita à inclemência dos raios solares e estiver longe da camada protectora da atmosfera terrestre.

A cápsula foi concebida para acoplar de forma completamente automática à ISS, mas a tripulação tem a opção de fazer um “manual override” e conduzir ela própria a operação, se algo correr mal nesta delicada operação que pode colocar em risco a cápsula, os seus tripulantes, como também a ISS e os seus astronautas. A capacidade total de carga será de 3600 Kg, incluindo sete tripulantes e carga, dispostos num total de 14 metros cúbicos. Idêntico volume pode ser utilizado na viagem de regresso à Terra. A manobrabilidade da cápsula será garantida por um sistema de foguetes construídos na SpaceX com 1290 kg de propelente.

A cápsula foi desenhada para amarar no oceano depois de uma fase final de descida sob para-quedas, com grande precisão de descida e com baixos Gs. Para proteger a cápsula, a Dragon está equipada com um escudo térmico de alto desempenho.

A cápsula pode funcionar em duas configurações: carga e tripulada, tendo sido concebida para uma rápida transição entre ambas, tendo a segunda como maior diferença a presença de um sistema de fuga, um sistema de controlo manual e um sistema de suporte de vida.

O segundo voo da Dragon terá lugar em 2010 e durará cinco dias, durante os quais a cápsula aproximar-se-á da ISS a um ponto em que conseguirá trocar dados de telemetria com a Estação. Depois afastar-se-á e cumprirá uma bateria de testes antes de regressar a Terra. O terceiro voo ocorrerá no final de 2010, e terá 3 dias de duração, devendo a cápsula funcionar na sua configuração de carga, atracando na ISS e regressando pouco depois à Terra.

Fontes:
http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090929-spacex-dragon-prototype.html

Estamos a apenas alguns meses do primeiro voo do foguetão Falcon 9 da empresa privada norte-americana SpaceX. Neste primeiro voo – a ter lugar algures em novembro – o Falcon 9 irá transportar uma “versão de qualificação” da Dragon, a cápsula que a SpaceX espera poder enviar para a Estação Espacial Internacional (ISS) em voos tripulados e não tripulados.

O objetivo é testar o novo foguetão, o Falcon 9, assim como a Dragon, que será municiada de um número de instrumentos e sensores para esse efeito.

O segundo voo do Falcon 9 será já no âmbito do programa COTS da NASA e será o primeiro de 3 voos a que a SpaceX se obrigou a cumprir de forma a provar a sua capacidade para abastecer a ISS.

A Dragon foi inicialmente concebida para transportar astronautas, pelo que todos os sistemas da versão de carga – usada no âmbito do COTS – são idênticos.

A SpaceX já testou com sucesso o “DragonEye” ou “Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging” (LIDAR), um sensor que será usado para guiar a Dragon durante a sua aproximação à ISS. Recentemente, a empresa testou também a aterragem por paraquedas da sua cápsula reutilizável e com a construção dos dois primeiros Falcon 9 a correr dentro do planeado tudo indica que a Space se prepara para revolucionar o acesso do Homem ao Espaço demonstrando que tal é possível, de forma economicamente rentável e se consumir as imensas torrentes de dinheiros públicos a que as agencias espaciais estatais de todo o mundo nos foram habituando.

Fonte:
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Dragon_Falcon_9_Update_999.html

As their DragonEye performs as expected.

El lanzamiento del prototipo experimental Ares I-X, ya tiene fecha para el lanzamiento.

En un post anterior, habíamos comentado que se lanzaría el día 31 de Octubre

(Leer aquí: http://noticiasastronomicas.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/se-ensambla-el-ares-i-x/).

Pues bien, se ha adelantado el lanzamiento al día 27 de Octubre. El traslado a la  rampa 39B, desde donde se lanzará, está previsto para el día 19 de Octubre.

Foto del Ares I-X:

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

Además del Ares I-X, también el Falcon 9 ya tiene por fín, una fecha de lanzamiento. Será el día 29 de Noviembre.

Estaremos atentos a estos despegues (Y a muchos otros más), y como siempre, os mantendremos informados.

Foto del Falcon 9:

Não é muito conhecido, mas atualmente estão em desenvolvimento seis engenhos diferentes capazes de colocar Homens no Espaço. Exatamente: seis! Falamos do sucessor das cápsulas russas Soyuz, o Kliper, o CEV/Orion da NASA, da cápsula espacial tripulada indiana ainda em fase preliminar e de três empresas comerciais, a Bigelow Aerospace, a Excalibur Almaz (EA) e a mais conhecida SpaceX.

Os veículos norte-americanos e russos foram concebidos de raiz como sendo capazes de realizarem viagens circum-lunares. A cápsula indiana, não é supostamente capaz de tal, mas como dizem que será capaz de manter 3 astronautas em órbita durante uma semana, não é impossível que pela adição de um módulo adicional de propulsão, lançado num segundo voo e acoplado depois à cápsula, possa também ela, realizar esse feito…

(o veículo orbital indiano em http://www.flightglobal.com)

A Bigelow está também a desenvolver uma cápsula que possa levar turistas e tripulantes até aos hotéis espaciais que espera construir. A capsula (designada de “Orion Lite”) será poderá ser alugada a terceiros, como a missões da NASA e será capaz de se manter em órbita – com turistas – em períodos de até uma semana e com até 7 tripulantes e turistas. Um modelo à escala real foi apresentado em agosto de 2009 e a cápsula deverá voar pela primeira vez em 2012.

A cápsula espacial Dragon, em que trabalha atualmente a SpaceX, deverá realizar o seu primeiro voo para a Estação Espacial Internacional já em 2010, estando agendados 12 voos até 2015, que a NASA contratualizou com a SpaceX por 1,6 biliões de dólares. A SpaceX também já tem clientes para dois lançamentos da versão DragonLab, não tripulada e concebida para realizar experiências automáticas em órbita, regressando depois à Terra.

As duas empresas norte-americanas estão a preparar-se para responderem ao concurso de 50 milhões de dólares por um veículo comercial de transporte tripulado para a órbita terrestre que a NASA vai abrir em novembro.

Uma outra proposta privada é a da Excalibur Almaz que apresentou um modelo à escala real em 2009, no Moscow Air Show. A empresa foi fundada apenas em 2005 por russos e norte-americanos. Como objetivo tem também o turismo espacial, esperando vender até 30 lugares por ano. O primeiro voo da EA deverá ocorrer em 2013. A cápsula está a ser desenvolvida pelo conhecido gabinete aeroespacial russo da NPO Mashinostroyenia a partir de uma cápsula ensaiada pelos militares soviéticos na década de 70. Depois de ter terminado o desenvolvimento desta cápsula, a EA irá começar a trabalhar numa pequena estação espacial de turismo, desenvolvida também ela a partir de uma estação militar soviética da década de 70.

A empresa europeia EADS Astrium está agora a começar a desenvolver uma cápsula tripulada a partir do ATV Jules Verne que recentemente visitou a ISS. Esta cápsula europeia deverá ser tripulada e será capaz de cumprir missões orbitais com até uma semana de duração.

Fonte:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/09/331968/us-russian-capsules-vie-for-orbital-domination.html

I almost missed this, between work and catching up on news from my honeymoon: Armadillo just won (well, completed – other competitors have about a month to match or exceed their feat) the 2nd level Lunar Lander challenge! When you factor in the differences in gravity, it’s about equivalent to actually doing a moon landing and takeoff. Good videos of the flights are here, with comments from John Carmack and SpaceX here and here.

As commercial space increasingly ramps up and proves ever more competitive, and we continue to discover how cash strapped and vision-less our public options are, why are any of us still looking to NASA to do our space travel and exploration?

If the private sector can do it, why not let them, instead of government?

I’ll note that that question extends far beyond just space policy.

A piece in Aviation Week — of all things — gets me on the annoyed soapbox this week.

Lockheed-Martin, a prime stakeholder (i.e. contractor with big bucks on the line) for NASA’s new Orion capsule, got a nice one-page write-up in AvWeek on the potential “problems” surrounding commercial alternatives to its not-to-fly until 2015 manned space craft — oh, like reliability and safety.

Since newcomer SpaceX is currently getting billions in development dollars for its Dragon spacecraft to first deliver cargo to the International Space Station and then evolve it into a manned version capable of delivering people to the space station at about half the cost of the Russians — never mind what Lock-Mart’s price tag is — ya gotta wonder why AvLeak didn’t ask more aggressive questions such as “Gee, so what suggestions do you have to reducing flights to ISS and beyond?”

In an interesting economic development, NASA said today that $50 million in economic stimulus funds will be going towards developing commercial passenger service to orbit (to replace the retired Space Shuttle and to avoid pricey seats on the Russian Soyuz).

Private company SpaceX won one of two cargo contracts for the ISS back in January, and the Dragon craft they are using is designed to be modifiable to a human-passenger mode. NASA is holding a workshop this Thursday for SpaceX and other interested firms (quoted by the Reuters article as Ball Aerospace, Airborne Systems, Boeing, Tether Applications, Retro Aerospace, Emergent Space Technologies, Davidson Technologies, and Paragon Space Development Corp., many of whom appear specialized for certain systems).

Obama’s campaign space plan had hinted at this in the past—the idea of private U.S. space industry as stimulus. Frontiers do have a way of pushing economies along, so this could to be a road to developments much like the railroad projects of old. Considering the potential, Obama’s campaign plan, and certain past Obama decisions, there could be a lot more of this to come, and soon…