Page 29 of 55 - Previous page

I'm out at RTTM V and finally found network connectivity. So far no earth shattering news. Paul Spudis gave a nice overview of the current state of the Vision and the Aldridge Commission report. That and the Moon/Mars Blitz earlier in the week suggest at least to me that the entire thing is tenuous due to the politics of the day.

Pictures are up. They're somewhat dark since the lighting in here kind of sucks.

---

Comments

Sorry for the lack of articles. I've been at the Space Exploration Alliance Moon-Mars Blitz and just got back. I'll be posting a few pictures from the Blitz tomorrow. After that I'm off to RTTM V where there should be better network connectivity.

---

Comments

From Wired: SpaceShipOne Back on Course:

bq. X Prize contender Burt Rutan says his team has solved a control problem that threw its spacecraft off course during a historic flight last month and that the next time the ship flies it will be to capture the $10 million space jackpot.

---

Comments

This article was submitted before Scaled's attempt but due to time and other issues I wasn't able to proof it and post it. But its still timely. Could whoever submitted it let me know? Thanks!

On Monday, June 21st Scaled Composites will attempt to do what no entity has ever done before: Send a human into space without government sponsorship.

This event is so exciting, so thrilling, and so exhilarating that hundreds, maybe thousands, of journalists will be on hand to witness the attempt, and space aficionados have packed the hotels for miles around the launch site.

If Scaled Composites succeeds it will be one flight away from winning the Ansari X-Prize, the $10 million dollar prize created by space visionary Dr. Peter Diamandis to spur space exploration.

But what will happen if Scaled Composites fails? What happens if the failure is so catastrophic that it takes the life of the pilot? What happens if spectators are killed? What will happen then? In particular, how will the US Government respond?

There are two possibilities worth considering:

1. The US Government will do little or nothing.

2. The US Government will halt all flights by X-Prize teams.

If the Government pursues the second option it would deal a fatal blow to the hopes and dreams of a dozen companies and would cripple the space industry for the indefinite future.

X-Prize teams are demonstrating by example that getting to space need not be costly or time consuming. NASA – as well as the majority of the aerospace industry – has failed to do what X-Prize teams have accomplished in just a few years. This success should be encouraged and supported, not legislated and regulated out of existence.

The entrepreneurial sprit that the Ansari X-Prize has unleashed must be preserved, no matter what happens on Monday. Government regulation and policy must not be allowed to destroy this spirit.

We all want Scaled Composites to succeed, and we all want to see a healthy and competitive space industry develop over the next few years.

But if Scaled Composites fails in a way that takes human lives we must band together to prevent the Government from suffocating the X-Prize teams and the space industry.

We must convince the Government that the best policy is to let Â’em fly and die.

---

Comments

The 5th Return To the Moon Conference is coming up and this years is looking to be extremely interesting. With several slots devoted to issues and updates from the Aldridge Commission and others from companies actively working on lunar missions it looks as though, unlike years past, that this conference will actually be about stuff that's actually happening. Plus, as with many events like this these days, the really important stuff happens in the hallways. I suspect that prize related topics will be the topic of the entire weekend.

Registration is still open. The preliminary agenda has also been posted.

---

Comments

What with Scaled's SS1 flight, the Aldridge Commission, and other various things, it seems that we've been ignoring Mr. Bigelow a good bit lately. This article in AvWeek suggests we should be paying a little closer attention:

bq.

China is eyeing participation in new privately funded U.S. space ventures, such as the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable habitat for biotech or other space-business endeavors.

…

Bigelow has taken over part of the TransHab technology under Space Act and other agreements with NASA, and space agency managers speak highly of the Bigelow. As part of these activities, Bigelow and NASA have just completed a second exclusive licensing agreement–this one for debris shield-related technology to be transferred from JSC to the company.

The Bigelow project involves more than two dozen established aerospace subcontractors and nearly 60 full-time Bigelow employees.

The team is working in 120,000 sq. ft. of floor space on a 50-acre site in North Las Vegas, Nev. These efforts have gone virtually unnoticed by the broader aerospace community. The company is preparing to add an additional 40,000 sq. ft. of space and several additional subcontractors.

It is well into the development of 25% and 45% scale inflatable flight test modules for a series of four privately funded unmanned orbital test flights during 2005-07. It has already developed substantial full- and reduced-scale inflatable ground test hardware.

RTWT…

---

Comments

I caught the tail end of O'Keefe's presentation today and I must say that I'm not very impressed. The answer to just about every “But what about my group's pet project” question was “Don't worry, nothing is changing.” In this CNN article O'Keefe says:

bq.

O'Keefe said the agency was considering the panel's recommendations.

“The approach we've taken is to look at those recommendations and to see how and if they will be implemented,” he said. “A lot of information must be gathered to make informed judgments.”

h2. If?

I was hoping for someone to sit above NASA and say must. To not give that bureaucracy any chance to equivocate on what it had to do. As it stands I'm not seeing any suggestions that the Commission's recommendations are anything more than toilet paper.

Unless someone can show me some real progress and fast my opinion on this entire vision thing is going to go south very quickly.

---

Comments

Update: From reliable sources there is a suggestion that there has been no legislation written yet that is a result of the Aldridge Commission report since they are still testifying to Congress about it. At the same time this legislation does contain some information that corresponds to what is in the report. Was this written in anticipation of the report? I'll try and find some clarification and let you know.

Thanks to Jim Burk of ProjectConstellation.US I found the newly submitted NASA Authorization bill that was mentioned last week.

My first impressions are that something seems to have been lost in the translation. For example, Section 305, “COMMERCIALIZATION PLAN WITH OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCIALIZATION.” says this:

bq.

   (a) IN GENERAL- The Administrator and the Director of the Office of Space Commercialization of the Department of Commerce shall develop a commercialization plan to support the human missions to the Moon and Mars. The plan shall identify opportunities for the private sector to participate in the future missions, including opportunities for partnership between NASA and the private sector in the development of technologies and services.



  (b) REPORT- Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator and the Director jointly shall submit a copy of the plan to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science.



  (c) Report To Be Combined With Section 306 Report- The Administrator shall combine the plan required under subsection (b) with the report required by section 306 and submit them as a single document.

This section reads to me as though the plan is to let the OSC write the recommendation for 'partnerships' when the Aldridge Report seemed to recommend that the private sector actually run the entire mission.

Section 306 even goes on to ask NASA to evaluate private industry:

bq.

   (a) IN GENERAL- The Administrator and the Director of the Office of Space Commercialization of the Department of Commerce shall develop an assessment of the capability of the private sector, including small businesses, to support the manned missions to the Moon and Mars. The assessment shall include the ability of private industry to support--



        (1) the definition of basic program requirements;



        (2) an assessment of current technologies and shortfalls; and



        (3) the production and manufacturing capabilities necessary to implement the manned missions to the Moon and Mars.



  (b) REPORT- Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator and the Director jointly shall submit a copy of the assessment to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science.

Umm…. sense when do you let the child that has been misbehaving define the new behavior its being asked to adhere to?

Section 311 at least got the private property rights request right:

bq.

SEC. 311. LEGAL ASPECTS OF LUNAR EXPLORATION.

  The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit a legal review and interpretation of laws and treaties governing the exploration of space and the possible ownership of resources on the Moon and Mars. The review should determine if any changes or new agreements are needed to reflect the growing role of the private sector in space exploration. The review shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science within 90 days of enactment of this Act.

Now its possible that, being a lay person, I'm not capable of interpreting legislation correctly. There is also this in Section 403, “COMMERCIAL GOODS AND SERVICES”:

bq.

It is the sense of the Congress that NASA should purchase commercially available space goods and services to the fullest extent feasible in support of the human missions to the Moon and Mars and shall not conduct activities with commercial applications that preclude or deter commercial space activities except for reasons of national security or public safety. For purposes of this section –

         (1) a space good or service shall be considered to be commercially available if it is offered by a commercial provider, or if it could be supplied by a commercial provider in response to a Government procurement request; and



        (2) a purchase shall be considered to be feasible if it meets mission requirements in a cost-effective manner while offering the same or a higher level of safety.

But even this allows NASA the out by letting them define the mission and safety requirements. Section 404 describes an Industry Advisory Board that can “review and discuss opportunities for the private sector to invest in and take advantage of activities at NASA” but again, this all seems to be a one way street with no teeth.

The Centennial Challenges authorization is also in there (Sectino 408) but its a little confusing as to time limits.

There just seems to be way to much wiggle room here for business as usual to sneak in. I hope there is some way for the Aldridge Commission members to jointly react to how their recommendations have actually turned out.

---

Comments

Found on Cerdipity.

---

Comments

I've been taking pictures and posting them on the wiki. See the ScaledLaunchPictures link. More to come tomorrow!

---

Comments

Next page