Boeing CST-100

Credit NASA

Boeing and SpaceX have won NASA's Commercial Crew Transportation Capability competition in the last month.  Good job to both teams.  Now, I've written a lot about SpaceX because there has been a lot to write about.  Here, I'm gong to change my focus on the Boeing team.  It may come to a surprise to some of my readers that, in fact, I like Boeing as a company.  I've been a customer, both for pleasure and business, for many years of their jetliners and never had a complaint.  Boeing is mostly a mainstay company.  They have their jets for many decades.  Sure, they change them to meet market demands, but for the most part, they keep them up and running for as long as possible to keep costs down both for themselves and for their customers.  On the rocket side, they have the Delta family.  It has been operating well for many years.  There has been a couple of mishaps, but overall everything is OK.  They do make the currently largest rocket in the world, the Delta IV Heavy.  Then they have business with the military and NASA in miscellaneous projects - at least for this post.  CST-100 is a different project for Boeing.  For a company that is a safe company as Boeing, CST-100 is really out there.

The first thing about CST-100 is that it is not business as usual.  It is not a 'cost plus' contract.  It is a contract where risk is taken on by Boeing.  That, I sense, is a big deal to the company.  Sure, they do take on that sort of risk when they sell a jetliner to an airline company, or do they?  Well there is no airliner to go between the end user and the company.  So far, the contract will be just between NASA and Boeing.  In the unforeseen event Boeing decides to put in a third party, like ULA, then the dynamic would change a little.  Let's assume that it won't.  Boeing will take responsibility for the craft and all the technicalities.  That means that they retain ownership.  For a disposable craft, ownership is a short lived thing.  Risk is the important item here.  Any technical malfunction leading to human injury or fatality could lead to money lost by the company.  Amount will vary on a case by case basis.  Of course, since this is rocket industry, the sky is the limit.  (These are generalized statements. I have no clue what agreements NASA and Boeing will have including anything pertaining to risk.)

Credit EC Holm

Now, in face of the higher risk, I can see why the CST-100 was designed the way it was; it has little innovation.  About the only two major innovations it does have are that it can land on land using airbags and has autonomous docking.  Otherwise, it is shaped like the old Apollo capsule, most of its supporting systems are in the service module like in Apollo, thrusters are in the service module like Apollo.  So the craft has a strong design basis in legacy systems.  I believe this was to reduce risk.

There seems to be a belief out there on the net that this craft's electrical system is only powered by batteries alone.  If that is the case, it is unprecedented and could possibly be a significant innovation.  Batteries are traditionally heavy and don't last long.  They are usually replenished with power form solar cells or fuel cells as is for all modern maned or cargo carrying craft.

The CST-100 team was in a tough situation.  On one side, they had a company that was adverse to a lot of risk, and on the other side, they had a project that demanded to take on a lot of risk.  So the design reflected lower risk.  I applaud the team for their excellent work in such a tough situation.  Is CST-100 really what we need to advance commercial space?  Maybe.  Time will tell.  It is not the best.  It was design for five people but can fit seven.  On the other hand SapceX Dragon 2 was designed for seven people.  Dragon 2 is a riskier program to build.  CST-100 has a better chance at success.  I think both will make it.  I can't stress enough how extraordinary it was for Boeing to take on this project in the first place.  There was never a manned capsule made in Boeing's name.  Instead Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas who had made both the Mercury and the Gemini capsules (late 1950's to early 1960;s).  These are on display at the St Louis Science Center.  I took pictures of them - seen above.  They are strikingly small.  So small that they look like some mesh between modern art and engineering built around humans.  This is a really risky project for Boeing.  I applaud them in taking this leap.

Future of the Dream Chaser

Credit Ken Ulbrich/NASA

NASA has made its choices.  SpaceX and Boeing are in and Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) is out.  In their comments, NASA said that it was a hard choice.  I believe them.  The Dream Chaser was based on the HL-20, a NASA project.  This gives Dream Chaser good credibility.  So, what possible future could there be for a spaceship that needs someone to fly it?

It's an unprecedented situation in the world where a company has an almost ready made space ship but needs someone to fly it.  SNC has vowed to keep on with the project with possibly using it to compete for NASA's next round of cargo hauling to the ISS (see Denver Business Journal article).  In a Denver Post article, SNC said it will offer flight to anyone or even sell a space ship to anyone.  You can see they are trying their best to keep the project afloat.

Now, bear with me in some speculation.  I can think of two customer/buyers that would be in their interest to buy services or a craft.

European Space Agency (ESA) has for a very long time toyed with the idea of having their own manned access to space without relying on Russia or the United States.  They considered making a space plane they called Hermes a long time ago.  They are considering leveraging the ATV technology and making a capsule to launch on an Ariane 5 launcher.  They are currently about to launch a technology tester to test reentry systems known as IXV.  Why not just forgo development and buy a Dream Chaser?  They could take their astronauts to ISS and bring home experiments landing on a european runway.  Sounds like an opportunity Europe would be crazy to pass up.

Virgin Galactic (VG) is about to fly people to space.  Six people at a time get to fly to suborbital space in the new SpaceShipTwo space plane.  They get to experience weightlessness for 5 minutes and then come home.  A chance of a lifetime, nay, a chance never before offered,  What would be the next step?  Why orbit of course.  With a Dream Chaser, Virgin Galactic could take passengers to orbital space for a day or a week and then come home.  Up to six passengers can fit on board.  Then they can land on a runway just like SpaceShipTwo,  Heck, it can be the same runway.  Dream Chaser shares some technologies with SpaceShipTwo.  They have the same non-caustic hybrid engines, and they have the similar type of landing gear configuration.  They are both made out of carbon fibers and resin.

So here we are.  In an unprecedented situation in the history of commerce, a orbital space ship is offered to the world.  Isn't it exciting?  Will ESA and VG make an offer?  We have to wait and see how the market responds.  Is it too early for a commercial orbital space craft?  Does anyone really have the money to purchase?  It the answers are 'no' then SNC will probably store Dream Chaser for a future venture, hopefully.

Future Growth of Pressurized Cargo Deliveries Imagined

Ares V

NASA wants to build a rocket bigger than Saturn V, the Space Launch System 130 metric ton launcher.  This is to get the hardware they need to go to Moon, Astroids, and Mars.  It's basically a cargo hauler.  Now the Ares V, from the cancelled Constellation Program, was going to be a 188 metric ton rocket.  I had done some of my own calculations to realize that it could potentially haul the equivalent of 4 shipping containers to low Earth orbit.  Now, Saturn V was a 118 metric ton rocket.  Take a moment and thing about these numbers.  Think, also, about how much stuff people use every day.  Most of the stuff we use come in shipping containers.  Now consider a city in space.  The content of the many shipping containers that come by train and sea ships has to be launch off the Earth.  Has it dawned on you how much stuff such a city will need?  Has it dawned on you how big the rockets need to be to launch such stuff?  I came to realize that we are just at the very beginning of space colonization.  We have cargo carriers that supply the International Space Station (ISS) now that are both from government and commercial entities.  How much will the rocket launchers of the future have to grow to meet the demand?

ESA ATV

I looked at data shipped to the ISS in 2012.  I then reduced the number to tons per person per year.  I got 3.8 tons.  This is a pretty rough number.  I then did the same with the United States in 2012 and got 6.2 tons per person per year.  It would seem that the astronauts and cosmonauts are living on a shoelace compared the people on the ground.

If that is the case, our current launchers are, for all practical purposes, the smallest they can be to support 6 people permanently in orbit.  Falcon 9 (13.2 metric tons), Antares (6.1 metric tons), Ariane 5 (16 metric tons), Soyuz (6.5 metric tons), and H-II (10.1 metric tons) are the launchers for cargo to ISS.  This is our baseline.  On average, our launchers are 10.4 metric tons to low earth orbit.

If the astronauts lived like we do on earth, by how much will our launchers grow?  I calculate that our launchers would have to be 19 metric tons on average for 6 people with 6 launches per year.  You can see how that number already dwarfs our current launchers.

Now what if we had more than one space station or one big one, in orbit and a total of 100 people living in space full time?  If they live like astronauts do now, they would need 380 tons launched from the ground annually.  They will need launchers of 1,040 metric tons to launch 6 times a year.

Now if those 100 people lived like we do on Earth, then they would need 620 metric tons in a year.  The launchers would need to be 1,900 metric tons for 6 launches.

Can you imagine a 2000 metric ton rocket launcher?  That's about 17 times the size of a Saturn V.  That is huge.

You might say what if we increase the number of launches a year?  Won't that decrease the size on the average launcher?  Sure it will.  Let's see....  I calculate that for 100 people that need 620 metric tons a year and 20 launches, they would need average launcher size of 510 metric tons.  That's still about 4 times the size of a Saturn V.  Now 20 launches a year is quite a hefty schedule.  I suppose  if they spread out the load over 4 companies and/or countries it's not so bad.  Though a 510 metric ton rocket is quite large, I believe it is within the realm of possibility to accomplish.

You can see how the number expand with the increase of people.

This is only to LEO.  What about the Moon and Mars?  Well the numbers get exponentially larger.  So the rockets get exponentially larger.  The ones we have now are puny by comparison. That is why people have suggested learning to 'live off the land' and reduce the need for new cargo from Earth.  Even in deep space living off of asteroids and comets will be necessary.  It's just too much for us to lift that much stuff out of the Earth's gravity well.  The other thing we can learn to do is recycle, and recycle everything.  Air, water, waste (yes No 1 and No 2), soil, plant matter, and parts are things we need to learn to recycle if we are to live in space, or on the Moon, or on Mars.  New technologies are bound to be needed to this end.  Are we up for the challenge?

Commercial 130+ Metric Tonne Rocket Competition Imagined

COTS; Courtesy of NASA

The current Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that is in development is a 70 metric tonne vehicle.  By comparison, SpaceX's Falcon Heavy is a 53 metric tonne rocket.  The Falcon Heavy is slated to make its maiden flight towards the end of 2014.  SLS is slated for a 2017 maiden flight, but that time seems to be slipping.  These dates often slip, even for commercial companies like SpaceX.  The SLS program is also slated to create a 130 metric tonne rocket to explore the solar system.  Consider that commercial space services have already been successful and saved NASA money.  Consider also that a new space services market has been created and is growing.  I do not think that SLS will survive long in a commercial space services dominant environment.  I think a competition for a 130 metric tonne rocket is in order for NASA.

In 2006 NASA's Commercial Cargo & Crew Program Office (C3PO) created the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) which was a competition for companies to create rockets and spacecraft to provide the International Space Station (ISS) with cargo.  COTS also lead to Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) which was the operational missions to supply the cargo.  While there were many entrants into COTS, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences won, and are supplying cargo today.  The CRS contracts were fixed price versus the traditional Cost Plus contracts which is how SLS is being developed.  Under CRS the companies retain ownership of their rockets and spacecraft, and also the risk associated with development and operation.  Risk is one of the potentially most costly aspect of any project or program.  By giving companies the risk, NASA has also given the companies freedom for innovation.  Essentially NASA has helped create new competition in the space launch world and has saved money at the same time.  SpaceX's Dragon first berthed with ISS in 2012.  Orbital Sciences' Cygnus first berthed with ISS in 2013.  The success of COTS is historic for the planet.  For the first time, orbital commercial services became a reality.

Think of the future where commercial space companies dominate launch and operation services. What place does a costly SLS have in this environment?  Already Falcon Heavy encroaches on the lifting capability of the 70 metric tonne SLS.  SpaceX has plans to launch cargo and people to Mars.  They will make a very large rocket that competes with 130 metric tonne SLS.  What future does SLS have?  Even is SLS functions perfectly, its cost will make it obsolete.  With a constraint budget, NASA would be tempted to launch the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) on a commercial launch service.  They might even be tempted to use a commercial capsule for missions like a new version of SpaceX's Dragon.  To me, the mighty dollar is going to doom SLS the scrap heap.

In the aerospace industry, competitions is what spur innovation and development.  Charles Lindbergh won the Ortieg prize in 1927 by crossing the Atlantic Ocean in a non-stop flight with his plane the Spirit Of St Louis.  This resulted in our current transatlantic flight market.  This also resulted in round the world air commercial air travel.  Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites won the X-Prize in 2004 by flying their space craft SpaceShipOne to suborbital space twice in a two week period.  This has spurred the new commercial space market.  Now Virgin Galactic, Xcor, and others are competing for customers for their first suborbital passenger space flights.  These competitions work.  Let us go a step further and make a competition that will result in more than one commercial launch system of 130 metric tonnes or greater.

Why would we need such monster rockets you may ask.  Commercially, the bigger the rocket, the less money per kilogram is needed to launch anything.  Who would use these?  Besides NASA, there are current companies and organizations with big plans and ideas.  Bigelow Aerospace makes inflatable habitat modules for future commercial space stations/space ships/moon bases.  The Mars Society members long to get to Mars.  Google Lunar Xprize participants have big plans for the Moon. B612 is an organization with a mission to help protect Earth from asteroids. Our current rocket only can start these big ideas.  These represent many people from many countries.  They want to go to space.  They need very large rockets to get to their endgame.

As wonderful an idea SLS is, it is just not cut out for the future that is just around the corner.  If NASA is not relieved of the burden of a 130 metric tonne SLS, the agency will be bypassed by commercial companies in the field of exploration.  NASA should take the lead in exploration, not lag behind.  They should not make any more rockets.  They should hold a competition to develop 130+ metric tonne rockets.  Then they could use those commercial rockets and services to get their spacecraft out in the solar system.  Then they can make more of the wonderful discoveries they have been doing since the 1970s.  These discoveries have helped people on Earth through the decades.  New discoveries can only help those on Earth and those out in the solar system.

Congress is at it again....SLS underfunded.

Well, here we are again.  For some reason, Congress cannot fund a rocket once it demands it.  Congress should desist from demanding rockets from NASA.  Somebody please sue Congress for overstepping their constitutional bounds.

On July 23rd, 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that NASA didn't have enough money to complete the Space Launch System (SLS) in time for the 2017 first launch of the rocket according to Marcia S. Smith's of SpacePolicyOnline.com article entitled "GAO Warns NASA $400 Million Short to Finish SLS by 2017" (click here to see article).  What the hell?

The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 "required immediate development" of the SLS.  Where does it say in the Constitution that Congress can require development of anything?  Such a demand would lie in the executive branch of government, not the legislation.  Well, legally I'm sure I am wrong here, but logically I am right.  NASA, DARPA, and other government research agencies ought to be directed by the executive branch only and not by the legislative.  The reason is obvious, research drives military power and economic health of the nation.  Yes, it's national security.  See, I think economic health should be a part of national security and not just national secrets.  Yet, we have to live with these short sited authorization acts.  Ideally, any legislation authorizing money to a very large project ought to grantee funding for the projected life of the porject.  But the authorization act of 2010 only gave money to 2013. What the hell! 

 I knew this was coming, and when it came I still felt mad and betrayed.  This is exactly why we are not further in our space program as we expected to be.  This questionable way of financing large NASA projects puts into question Congress' concern for the nation's welfare.  This system is broken.  It needs to be redone, rethought over.  I think its time for the US people to start thinking of better ways to proceed in space.  The space research has expanded to a point where there is more space projects than there is available money.  There are commercial alternatives now to launching spacecraft.  There are new spacecraft designs with cost in mind.  Tell Congress to grow a brain and get smarter about space.  It's no longer about jobs in a particular state.  It's about the economy as a whole benefiting from research that is waiting to be done.

Warp Theory

We have a warp theory.  We have a warp theory.  I still can't wrap my head around it.  Thanks to Einstein, and some very intelligent Star Trek fans who became scientists, we have a warp theory. Check out the following video put out by Huffpost UK.  If your a Sci-Fi fan, a space enthusiast, a math student, science fan, or even if you have a heart beat watch this video.  Caution, your mind will be blown.




Far out, man!  What this means is that we are tinkering with the math model to find the best engineering model.  It's warp theory in the making.  

You too can tinker with the numbers.  Download Dr White's pdf document entitled Warp Field Mechanics 101.  If you don't understand it all, at least you know where you stand in learning this level of math and physics.

IXS Enterprise - artist envisioned warp ship

Things like this are reasons why we so desperately need students to go into Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) fields.  Sure, the economy doesn't look great or even good now.  But were talking the future.  We need to make the future.  The first ingredient to make a great future is always enthusiasm.

As an added bonus for the public, Dr White got together with artist Mark Rademaker to produce a pic of what a warp capable ship could look like according to the math of the warp theory.  They called the ship IXS Enterprise.  How cool is that?

Could Atlas V Days Be Numbered?

Atlas V

The Atlas V was derived from what is called the family of Atlas rockets.  This family started launching in 1957, so Atlas V has a great heritage.  It has also been the main workhorse launcher for NASA and USAF satellites for about 12 years now.  As such, it was a rocket that was built strictly on government money.  It is now under scrutiny because its main engines, RD-180, are from Russia and Putin's administration is threatening to stop providing them.  The response to this is that the US government will put up money to research a new engine.  Wow!  Taxpayers are still paying full price for this rocket system.

With the advent on NASA COTS (commercial orbital transportation services) and CRS (commercial resupply services), the taxpayer has been getting a break.  NASA invested some money for the development of two launch vehicles and spacecraft from two different companies; SpaceX and Orbital Sciences.  These companies paid the rest of the development and own the risk for each launch.  In contrast, United Launch Alliance owns no risk to the Atlas V launches.  NASA deems the COTS and CRS programs successful and successful at reducing launch costs.  Will Atlas V survive in such a stark contrasted means of doing launch business?

Now, the Antares rocket is in a similar predicament with its main engines as Atlas V, though for different reasons.  The Antares main rocket engines are from the old Russian N-1 rocket, and those are of limited supply.  So Orbital Sciences is seeking a new rocket engine as well.  The difference is that they are flipping the bill themselves.  After all, they own the rocket.

 So we can see the inconsistencies for the taxpayer.  On one hand we have the old way of paying for the rockets as in Atlas V's case (the so called Cost Plus contracts).  That is, taxpayers pay for the launcher development, the launch service, and the launch risk.  Doing things the COTS and CRS way (services contracts), taxpayers only partially paid for initial development and for each launch service.  They don't pay for further development nor for the launch risk.

If the USAF got on board with paying only for launch services, they could save a lot of money, have companies competing for launches, and have national security all at the same time.  Sounds like the holy grail for the Department of Defense.  In my opinion, this would require a major change to EELV or even a replacement.  My reasoning is that the word 'expendable' might become a thing of the past since SpaceX is actively developing reusable multistage rockets.

I highly doubt that Atlas V could be converted to take on contracts for launch services only.  The reason is that it was developed under the attitude of limited savings as opposed to the drastic savings now sought after by the US.  No, Atlas V would have to be retired.  Of course engineers are pretty crafty guys.  If, by chance, Atlas V becomes reusable then I will rethink my position.  Otherwise, you really need to design a rocket with cost effectiveness in mind like Falcon 9 and Antares.

Now, SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Orbital Sciences' Antares do not have the lifting capabilities on Atlas V.  So for now, the USAF and NASA needs Atlas V.  Future developments from SpaceX and Orbital Sciences could change all that.  SpaceX is planning to make the Falcon Heavy which will eclipse the Atlas V by a factor of __ in launch capability.  Orbital Sciences is creating the rocket for Startolaunch that will go after the Delta II payload market.  Could there be any more developments in affordable launch vehicles?  I would say yes as long as the market holds up and funds become available.  In such a case, we may see the end of the Atlas family.  Atlas V still needs to get over a couple of hurdles.  One is, as mentioned before, getting new main rocket engines made in the United States.  Another hurdle is the Commercial Crew Development for NASA.  Atlas V is slated to carry one of two crewed vehicles to space: Dream Chaser lifting body by Sierra Nevada, and CST-100 capsule by Boeing.  What would the pricing be to take these to orbit by Atlas V?  Will such pricing be competitive?  Will such pricing be acceptable by NASA?  In other words, can Atlas V compete with Falcon 9 in the market?