Page 22 of 55 - Previous page

Despite my original optimism that it might do some good and be listened to, it appears that less than a year after it was published the Aldridge Commission Report is dead. It didn't even last a full year (its 1 year birthday would have been June 16th).

So far I see Griffin just making the rounds of all of the centers letting them know that business as usual is still business as usual (unless your in aeronautics… yawn). I'm still “staying tuned” but my dislike of the channel is growing, not fading.

---

Comments

Dan Schrimpsher sent email about SpaceDev making a profit very late last night so I'm just now posting this (or, as a friend says, “Sleep when you're dead”):

SpaceDev (SPDV) posted a $101,223 net income for 2005, up from a net loss of of $442,549 last year. The really good news is that it was real since backed out EBITDA was $94,628. They even had to pay $400 in income tax.

Great job guys!

BTW, read their 10QSB in detail. There are some interesting tidbits in there such as the fact that Lunar Enterprise of California has paid them a total of $250,000 for lunar mission development and the revenue from the Scaled Composites contract was around $686,000.

---

Comments

Subject: Simplifying “Rocket Science” – Educational Software Allows Students and Rocket Enthusiasts To Safely Design And Launch Model Rockets.

Apogee Components has released a new version of the RockSim software that allows rocketry modelers and educators to design any size model rocket and then to simulate how high they fly.

The software, used by over 856 schools throughout the USA, simplifies the rocket design process by allowing designers to “stretch and pull” common shapes into any size rocket they desire. Based on the shape, weight, and dimensions, the software calculates how high and fast the rocket will fly using any commercially available model rocket engine. It also checks the stability of the design prior to flight making sure that the rocket will fly a straight and safe trajectory path.

RockSim is unique in that it generates a 3D animation of the rocket's flight, including fire and smoke emitting from the rocket engine. This simulation allows younger children to actually see the flight of their rocket before launching it. In effect, it makes “Rocket Science” easy to understand. But its accuracy is what makes it useful to professional aerospace engineers who use it in developing rockets for scientific research.

The software allows teachers to quickly and safely demonstrate common scientific principles such as Newton's Laws of Motion and aeronautic concepts of “lift”, “drag”, “thrust”, and “trajectory flight”. Educators can also use it to create detailed simulation reports and graphs that give students further insight as to what is occurring during their rocket's flight. Modelers say they've learned more in one hour of play in RockSim than they have in over a year of trial-and-error on the rocket range.

RockSim has changed how people design, build, and fly model rockets. It has made it easier, cheaper, and safer to try multiple configurations of rockets and see how they will fly long before the rocket is built.

The RockSim software is available for both Windows and Macintosh OSX computers. A free 30-day trial version can be downloaded at: www.ApogeeRockets.com/rocksim.asp

For more information contact:

Tim Van Milligan

Apogee Components, Inc.

1130 Elkton Drive, Suite A

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907 USA

Tel: 719-535-9335

Fax: 719-534-9050

Web site: www.ApogeeRockets.com/rocksim.asp

Email (please use contact form at): www.ApogeeRockets.com/contact_us.html

–end

Screen Shot Image Available at:

http://www.ApogeeRockets.com/rocksim_screen_shots.html

---

Comments

Michelle Murray from FAA's Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (aka AST) is asking for agenda items for this months COMSTAC RLV Working Group meeting. So if you were at Space Access and you were in on the big policy discussion and you have an issue that would fit their focus, please notify either Michelle (Michelle.Murray at faa.gov) or Mike Kelly (mskellyrlv at earthlink.net).

And be kind. Don't send them things like “fund cold fusion!” or “give me $10 billion to build my moon base!”…

---

Comments

Dan Schrimpsher of Space Pragmatism, commenting on the CDSVN stuff I'm presenting at ISDC 2005 next week, observed that, “in every other industry, it is easier to teach an engineer about business than an MBA about engineering. But as you say, not in space. Why do you think that is?”

I think it goes partially back to an article I wrote just after I setup Rocketforge: The Sad Legacy of the Apollo Space Program and Captain Kirk. The gist of that article is that science fiction and NASA haven't really done us any favors in the long run.

Can you imagine any other industry that grew up with a literary tradition as strong as science fiction and that existed before the industry was mature? Naval fiction has an extremely long history but it didn't predate the boat. It came after the industry and lifestyle were well established. And for all my respect for Heinlein's D.D. Harriman character, Heinlein probably did us a disservice by never writing about the actual business that D.D. did on a daily basis. Some current authors are attempting to change that with books such as The Rocket Company but even this book is not going to be read by science fiction buffs raised on Asimov and Apollo. You can't even find it on Amazon.

No, I think that in the long run our science fiction literary heritage has harmed us. Sure, it creates a “vision and inspiration to drive for”, but is it better to live vicariously on fictional vision or to build a world that allows vision to be physically realized by the visionary? Right now most of the potential space workers a vibrant space economy would be based on are living that lifestyle as voyeurs: reading about it in novels and watching a few government employees piddle around at it. Just enough voyeurism to channel what would have been the natural urges of any normal industry into a side industry of NASA lobbyists, space “advocacy” and science fiction conventions.

I'm still going to go see Star Wars this weekend, though. I'm even thinking about buying my own lightsaber…

---

Comments

When Rick Tumlinson gives his standard stump speach (which is a soul stirrer) he often cites the three people who define various approaches to space:

Saganites: “Space is big, billions of stars, isn't God's creation incredible…DON'T TOUCH IT.” This view pretty much sums up the science side of NASA.

Von Braunians: “We vill go boldly into space, and you vill watch on television, and you vill enjoy it because of the glory it brings to ze state!” This is what the engineering side of NASA has built since the 60s.

O'Neillians: “We will build the tools, go into space, and use its resources to expand humanity and freedom into the cosmos…. but would you mind if we raised your taxes by a few percentage points to do it?” While this is getting close to something interesting, it always smacks of socialism to me. Don't get me wrong, I'd probably have been right beside Gerard at the time if I'd been old enough to know better. This just seems to be what Zubrin is always yammering on about and I just can't see how you can make that sustainable and profitable.

But I think for a large portion of us, our ideological father is more Heinlein than anything. But even then you have to pick one of his characters. Of all of the space related archetypes available, I have to say that its D.D. Harriman

He's as close as we have to John Galt, Clayton Christensen, Bill Gates and Burt Rutan all wrapped up in one single rocket building nut job of a businessman.

---

Comments

MSS had major success with the igniter last night. 44 consecutive starts with no issues.

---

Comments

Masten Space Systems April Update is available. This month it was Space Access, cold flow tests, and tea cart construction!

---

Comments

I've fixed the new account registration and the stats page. Apparently postnuke doesn't automatically upgrade things when you tell it to upgrade. Silly me…

---

Comments

Jeff Foust was at the Women in Aerospace breakfast with Mike Griffin where Mike apparently reiterated his view that he can't put commercial providers in his critical path but he can do things that leave an intact marketplace behind. Jeff also got the exact wording of Mike's email to Rick Tumlinson: bq. Public money can be used to support more than one objective. In fact, I view my challenge with respect to commercial providers as being succinctly thus: How can I use public money to make a space market available to purely commercial enterprises – pay for performance, period – without having a government program that sits on the sidelines waiting for private industry to deliver? This latter alternative would constitute malfeasance for a public official. I have to execute a government program with public money that does NOT depend for its success on whether industry can do what they promise, or not. Yet, one of the “grades on my report card”, when I am done, should be, “What kind of commercial space industry have you left behind you?” The idea is not to pick winners, but to craft a program which rewards them, while not wasting public money. I have some ideas. Stay tuned.

The thing that really concerns me is not Mike, its the bureaucracy below him. This quote “if a commercial provider shows up, government will stand down” sounds nice but the issue is often before the commercial provider shows up NASA stands up even higher and overshadows that provider. What criteria will Griffin use to determine when a provider “shows up”? How does he ensure that before that point his government program won't be squelching the ability of that company to get started?

Sure, I'll stay tuned. But I'm going to remain skeptical….

---

Comments

Next page