Spaceship Summer

America's Space Prize - Rules Announced.

2004-11-10T09:43:00.000-08:00

The long awaited rules for America's Space Prize have been announced.

The Rules (and some discussion of them):

1. The spacecraft must reach a minimum altitude of 400 kilometers approximately 250 miles);

2. The spacecraft must reach a minimum velocity sufficient to
complete two (2) full orbits at altitude before returning to Earth;

Given that Bigelow is looking to spur development of a space taxi, these are reasonable minimum specifications.

3. The spacecraft must carry no less than a crew of five (5)
people;

The key question here is how many of the 'crew' will actually be passengers when the craft transitions to revenue service. Prudence would seem to dictate two 'crew', and thus three 'passengers'. This, to me, seems too high of a crew/passenger ratio. Something else as yet unadressed is logistics management and the expected lifetime of the orbital modules.

4. The spacecraft must dock or demonstrate its ability to dock with
a Bigelow Aerospace inflatable space habitat, and be capable of
remaining on station at least six (6) months;

This rule implies to me that the station crew flies separately from the passengers, and remain on orbit between passenger visits. This rule can also be interpreted as meaning one or more vehicles will remain on orbit between visits to provide a rescue/escape capability. To my mind, these capabilities are better provided by proper station design and the ability to launch on short notice.

5. The spacecraft must perform two (2) consecutive, safe and
successful orbital missions within a period of sixty (60) calendar
days, subject to Government regulations;

Another reasonable specification. You want to fly the craft as often as possible in order to hold your total fleet size (and thus capital investment) down. (You also want a certain minimum fleet size in order to assure reliable and constant availability. See my article on standing armies for more musings on this topic.)

6. No more than twenty percent (20 percent) of the spacecraft may
be composed of expendable hardware;

A key question here is how the term 'spacecraft' is interpreted in the judging. This rule seems easy enough to meet if the term is considered to only encompass the orbital portion of the vehicle. If it is intended to encompass the launch vehicle as well, then the Prize will be much more difficult to win. In some places it has been suggested that this rule is intended to encourage SpaceX with the hoped for high and economical reuse of it's Falcon series. (The Falcon's have yet to fly however.)

7. The contestant must be domiciled in the United States of
America.

8. The contestant must have its principal place of business in the
United States of America.

These two provisions have raised a great deal on angst in certain quarters. However, given the Bigelow is operating a US based company, and that the current (and for the forseeable future) legal environment frowns on the proliferation of ICBM technology, I cannot see any way he can reasonably avoid having these provisions, and meet his goal of purchasing services from the winner of the prize.

Make no mistake, vehicles of this nature are de facto ICBM's.

9. The Competitor must not accept of utilize government development
funding related to this contest of any kind, nor shall there be any
government ownership of the competitor. Using government test
facilities shall be permitted.

An interesting provision, one whose genesis and impact eludes me at the moment.

10. The spacecraft must complete its two (2) missions safely and
successfully, with all five (5) crew members aboard for the second
qualifying flight, before the competition's deadline of Jan. 10, 2010.

Many have commented that this seems too short given that it took eight years to claim the Ansari X-Prize. On the other hand, none of the serious contenders for that prize seem to have started significant work much more than two years ago, once the Prize was fully funded.

Frankly, I don't see any but dark horses in this race. Many organizations have been working on suborbital, but orbital flight (and reentry) is a very different kettle of fish. The key to reuseablity will be the TPS, and the 20% rule (rule 6) would seem to mitigate against a replaceable ablative shield. The otherwise low performance objectives mean that a fairly simple life support system will suffice, nor does guidance, control, or power seem to hold any hidden showstoppers. The availability of an inexpensive booster however could prove to be problem. (And again, how rule 6 is interpreted affects this greatly.)

In related news, XCOR is also shopping a prize around for operational hardware. (In this instance, a 'steam engine' to operate pumps in their engines.) Dan DeLong has some interesting comments on their Prize here.

[edit 11/11/2004 12:18 PST]
There is some interesting discussion of this issue here at Transterrestrial Musings.
[/edit]
[edit 11/11/2004 13:10 PST]
Correction: The Prize is in fact fully funded, link and quote in the comments section courtesy of a reader. Thanks Neil.
[/edit]

Future perfect, past imperfect.

2004-10-22T08:28:00.000-07:00

CNN is reporting that William Shatner, among others, have already signed up to ride aboard Branson's VSS Enterprise (Spaceship Two). Sir Richard also announced that nearly $2 billion has already been pledged for tickets on the craft, scheduled to be ready to fly in 2008. (The question is as always, how many of those pledges will turn into real people when the time comes.)

MSNBC is carrying an interesting article by James Oberg on the loss of the Genesis probe and some of the recent problems associated with NASA. (A Slashdot discussion of this story can be found here.)

From the sea to the sky... And now beyond.

2004-10-11T10:58:00.000-07:00

Famed spacecraft designer and pioneer Max Faget has died.

While others have covered his contributions to space flight, I'd like to cover other elements of his career, ones no less important. Max Faget is member of a generation rapidly slipping these surly bonds... He served in WWII as an officer in the Submarine Service, which brought the forces of Japan to their knees. He, and thousands more like him, not only contributed incalculably to winning the war, but forged the traditions that shape the Service even today.

Lord God, our power evermore,
Whose arm doth reach the ocean floor,
Dive with our men beneath the sea;
Traverse the depths protectively.
O hear us when we pray, and keep
Them safe from peril in the deep.

From the Navy Hymn.

Upwards and onwards.

2004-10-05T11:06:00.000-07:00

After yesterday, the alt-space movement branches out onto a variety of paths and possibilities. There's a lot here today because there are many different things going on. The regular season is over, but the post-season is in full swing, and there are a lot of wildcards still in the running. The completion of the Ansari X-Prize race was but a single step on a long ladder, the end of the beginning if you will.

What's next?

For Paul Allen and Scaled composites, yesterday's flight appears to have been but a single step in a much longer business plan. This is a Good Thing. Our future in space depends on business, not stunts or amusement park rides.

Scaled Composites
In addition to design work on SpaceShip Two (VSS Enterprise), Scaled has a contract to use White Knight as the carrier vehicle for drop tests of the X-37. (NASA Watch also has a brief article on this.)
My recommendation? Don't get too exited about this one folks. Contrary to popular belief, the government does business with small firms all the time.
Virgin Galactic
MSNBC has an article with a picture of Richard Branson holding a model of the proposed VSS Enterprise. (Is the proposed name a surprise to anyone?) Overall the new craft appears to be a slightly stretched and enlarged version of SpaceShip One.
De Doc surmises that Sir Richard may have his eye on intercontinental package and passenger delivery. Many have surmised that intercontinental vehicles may be the next logical step between the sub orbital X-Prize and a full orbital craft, I agree with that philosophy.

The first to market isn't always the winner, let alone a survivor of the inevitable shakeout. They do however influence investors and Wall Street's view of the market. We don't need a dot-bomb or a trophy here, but a viable and visible business.

Let's not scoff at big business and dinosaurs. Building a commercial space venture takes real money and business acumen. It's not an accident that the names most associated with commercial space development today, Branson, Musk, Carmack, and Bezos, all have bank accounts with lots of zero's behind the numbers. When Disney builds a suborbital ride, or a transport in brown livery departs these green hills, then the race is over.

More prizes, more goals.

There is more than one race on the schedule, and more than one prize to be won.

The X-Prize Cup (an annual race) will be hosted by New Mexico, possibly at the historic White Sands Missile Range.
Myself, I look forward to the day when such races (and prizes) are the province of the well-to-do or the garage tinkerers, and no longer have a bearing on the workaday world of space travel.
Bigelow Aerospace
This is the Big One folks. Bigelow has announced a $50 million dollar prize for a capsule that can carry 5-7 passengers to Bigelow's proposed space hotel by the end of the decade. Unlike the X-Prize, the America's Prize isn't for prototypes that may or may not be able to be upgraded to be viable in commercial service, but is a direct request for a demonstrated operational technology.
I've seen it suggested that the Falcon V is a logical candidate for the booster, but the prize rules do not require a US booster. (And the Falcon I has yet to fly.)

And then there were many.

Let's not forget however that there are other companies in the wings with future plans as well.

Armadillo Aerospace has long since announced they intend to continue development of their craft. John Carmack discusses their current status here.
Da Vinci has vowed they will overcome their difficulties and is pressing on with plans for an October 2004 launch.
SpaceX is reported to be on pace for a November launch of the first Falcon I vehicle. In addition, Bigelow hopes to use the Falcon V for tests of his inflatable modules.
And them there is the ever mysterious Blue Origin...

Formal word hasn't emerged from the other X-Prize teams, but I have little doubt that more than a few intend to push ahead. There is potentially a big market out there, and competition is a Good Thing. We no more need a single company, or a small group of companies, to dominate this emerging industry than we need a few governmental organizations to dominate.

As 'Crash' Davis said; "the moment is over", time to look forward and put shoulders back to the grindstone. While keeping our eyes on the stars...

Another era passes.

2004-10-04T17:42:00.000-07:00

CNN is reporting that 'Gordo' Cooper, pilot of Faith 7 (MA-9), has died at his home in California.

The finish line is reached... And the race begins.

2004-10-04T09:01:00.000-07:00

The Ansari X-prize site is announcing that SpaceShip One has won the Prize. (No links as the announcement is in Flash presentation (I.E. likely to vanish) on the intro and main page. I'll be watching the site too see when they post a press release.)

Congratulations to Burt, Mike, Brian, et al.

[Update: 1042]
The release such as it is, can be found here.

[Update: 1309] - Some thoughts on the flight.
Overall the flight looked smooth, some slight rolling a few seconds after ignition but these were quickly smoothed out by pilot. The peak of the trajectory was at 367,442 feet, handily passing the Prize altitude, and the previous altitude record held by the X-15.

Game, set...

2004-10-04T07:34:00.003-07:00

Today is the day. Within the hour Spaceship one will make it's third attempt to fly to space, and this one is for the money.

For my part, this is how I prefer to witness history; In my own chair with a nice cup of coffee and a remote control. (It is however an ungodly hour for those of us on the left coast who prefer to keep vampire hours.)

[Edit: 0749]
SS1 dropped, and ignition! Some slight roll.
[0751]
Shutdown good burn, passing through 100Km and still climbing.
[0753]
Peak altitude, coming down.

[0813]
Touchdown! Now we await the official word.

One down, one to go.

2004-10-01T11:20:00.000-07:00

According to the Ansari X-prize site, Wednesdays flight reached (indeed exceeded) the target altitude and thus meets the requirements for a Prize flight. The next flight is now scheduled for Monday, Oct 4th. (Given Burt's penchant for interesting dates, I was betting on Oct 11th, the date Columbus landed in the New World. On the other hand, that left him vulnerable to a problem and the window closing without a second sucessful flight.)

[Update 15:33]
Andrew points out to me that the 4th is the anniversary of Sputnik 1. Mea Culpa.
[/Update]

(A rumor from a usually reliable source has reached my ears that Paul Allen and Burt Rutan may ride the next flight as passengers.)

Rand Simberg has an interesting discussion on the roll control problems experienced on the two high altitude flights to date. Not mentioned there is a theory Craig Fink posted on the internet, that since the rudders are asymmetrical, they may contribute to the onset of the roll. Burt Rutan has stated that the roll problems are a known problem and that the design of SpaceShip Two will correct the problem.

Not with a bang, but a yawn?

2004-09-29T10:48:00.000-07:00

A quick thought before dashing out the door to help a friend move...

For SpaceShip One's first flight, the space community migrated en masse to Mojave. For today's flight, nobody seems to have gone, preferring instead the virtual experience of webcasts and CNN. In the first hours after that flight, the sci.space.* newsgroups, the and the blogosphere comment pages were filled with exuberant postings.

After today's flight, the atmosphere seems much more subdued. Is this because of the (pilot induced we know now) roll problems? Is it because the recent announcement of Virgin Galactic creates a feeling that the deal is done?

In the past various writers on space issues have made much of the fact that media coverage of space flights, and the apparent public interest, dropped after Apollo 11. (The 'live' TV broadcast from Odyssey during Apollo 13 is often cited as the poster child of this effect.) Yet here we have seemingly the same effect with commercial space flight... Among the various folks that have in the past professed the most interest.

First Prize flight - early impressions

2004-09-29T08:20:00.000-07:00

Early results indicate that the 100 kilometer was reach, and passed, by SpaceShip One. However, the roll control problems experiences on the earlier altitude flight appear to have returned with a vengance.

[Update 08:37]
The craft is safe and on the ground.

[Update 08:52]
Watching CNN's coverage, it appears that the roll problems were at the end of the burn, rather than beginning as on the previous flight. They were however far more severe. I await the debrief and the results of the Prize commitee with bated breath.

Team Arca flies.

2004-09-10T10:35:00.000-07:00

A report was sighted on sci.space.policy and in the Ansari X-Prize forums that ARCA Space has sucessfully tested their Demonstrator 2B vehicle.

It's interesting to see the other teams continuing to forge ahead despite the race being seemingly a done deal.

Three launch announcements.

2004-08-17T09:19:00.000-07:00

In the past few days, three 'launches' have been announced;

SpaceX

Space News is reporting that SpaceX is preparing for a possible November launch for the Falcon I.

Armadillo Aerospace

Congratulations are in order for John & Anna Carmack on the birth of their son Christopher Ryan Carmack.

Masten Space Systems

MSS has announced that it is open for business. They are concentrating on VTVL craft starting with a sounding rocket class launcher and plan to expand into the suborbital tourism market. They maintain a news/blog page here

An Arrow flies through the air...

2004-08-16T01:19:00.000-07:00

Canadian News is reporting that the Canadian Arrow completed a successful drop test of their crew cabin Saturday. Further tests are planned, including a test of the launch escape system, and no launch date has yet been set. It's nice to see other teams forging ahead despite the wide lead currently enjoyed by Scaled Composites and their SpaceShip One.

Equally interesting is that Estes Rockets is coming out with a line of models based on the competitors for the X-Prize, including a model of the Arrow, and of the Rubicon. (From the link, click on 'new' to see a clickable list of models. Warning, the site is based on (quite annoying) Flash.)

Update: 10:30AM PST

This one has been kicking around in my bookmarks for a couple of weeks, and it's a good place to drop it in;

Just as Estes inspired many a budding rocketeer, so did the Tom Swift and Tom Swift Jr. books across the decades. Here Jim Lileks gives his own sarcastic spin to the cover art of those books. It's worth remembering that our common dream isn't always widely held or regarded one.
A Slashdot discussion of the Canadian Arrow project.

Weekend Update

2004-08-12T12:43:00.000-07:00

More accurately, some updates on the events of last weekend.

Armadillo Aerospace

Alan Boyle interviewed John Carmack via email regarding last weekends problems and the future of Armadillo Aerospace. (Summary, "we had some problems, learned some lessons, and are moving forward".)
John and I are also having a discussion on these issues on sci.space.policy.

Space Transport Corp

Eric Meier is reporting that potential investors are stepping forward in the wake of Rubicon 1's failure.

Designing a spaceship.

2004-08-12T11:54:00.000-07:00

Wandering about the web today I found this basic (very basic) NASA-Langley guide to designing a spaceship. Well worth a quick read.

Two strikes.

2004-08-10T16:07:00.000-07:00

Following up on yesterday's article on the problems with Armadillo and Space Transport's tests over the weekend, I came across an even more chilling report. According to an article on MSNBC, Space Transport also launched with a known anomalous condition.

To quote from the article:

Back at the launch site, Storm said the malfunction appeared to have been caused by a manufacturing flaw in the errant engine. Even before blastoff, he could feel a "bubble," or imperfection, in the shape of the solid propellant packed within the engine tube. Both of the engines were manufactured at Space Transport's shop in Forks, Wash., up the road from Queets.

"I had identified this problem before the launch," he said. "We were somewhat sure that it was going to work well, but it turns out that we need to isolate that problem and fix it."

Huh? I thought it was basic rocketeering that a 'funny' in a solid fuel grain was a warning not to launch.

Two up, two down (in pieces).

2004-08-09T10:50:00.000-07:00

This was not a good weekend for two X-Prize contenders.

Space Transport's Rubicon 1 exploded shortly after liftoff.
Armadillo Aerospace's large test vehicle was destroyed due to engine problems

Armadillo's failure is particularly disheartening. Their engine was showing problems during setup for a hovering test, catalyst rings fell out during setup, and the proceeded with the tests anyhow. (On the basis that such problems had occurred before, and had not caused a failure. Sound familiar?) After a 'successful' hovering test, they proceeded with a flight test on the next day. While warming the engine up as part of the flight test, the engine behaved in an anomalous fashion (it warmed up slowly and 'blew' raw propellant from the nozzle), and they proceeded with the test anyhow. During flight, problems were encountered with the engine's throttle controls (the write-up is unclear on whether or not those problems were related to the engine failure), and it ran out of fuel in-flight, resulting in a crash rather than the planned landing under thrust.

John lists some valuable lessons learned during the flight and subsequent failure, but somehow misses the big one; when you have a test anomaly, stop and find out why.

(Slashdot discussion of these problems here .)

May the best team win.

2004-08-05T16:04:00.000-07:00

As expected, the da Vinci team have announced that their first flight will be 2 October, four days after the first planned flight for SpaceShip 1. If the da Vinci team hopes to win however, they will have only two days to turn around their craft and make a second flight before Rutan's second flight. The da Vinci Project has also announced that they will launch from the Kindersley Municipal Airport in Saskatchewan, Canada.

Sources and further information:

Kindersley Information:
- Homepage for the town of Kindersley
- Mapquest link.
Press Releases:
- From the Golden Palace Casino, team sponsor.
- An article at CTV news showing a small picture of the craft.
- An article at Space.com with pictures of the roll out.
(Links courtesy of Hobby Space.)
Further Reading:
- discussion of this news at Transterrestrial Musings.
- Slashdot discussion of the announcement.

da Vinci's Wildfire IV is even further out the Rube Goldberg scale than SpaceShip 1, yet it does not have the ability for much in the way of incremental testing. Frankly this announcement concerns me, sixty days from roll out to the first operational flight leaves little time for testing and bug stomping.

On a side note; am I the only one that has noticed that the two top contenders have both chosen the same basic scheme (air launch)? Yet that is the very scheme that is often (that I have seen) derided as the least likely to yield affordable, scaleable, space access. This is a little discussed side effect of prizes; the temptation for entrants to seek solutions that will win the prize, yet may not be optimal for the notional goal of the contest.

The die is cast...

2004-07-27T16:24:00.000-07:00

Burt Rutan has given the required 60 day notice and announced that Sept 29, 2004 will be the date of his first X-Prize attempt. (Earlier reports indicate that they plan to fly not twice, but three times within the requisite three week period, thus allowing some margin for problems.) The countdown begins....

Also, the Da Vinci Project has announced they will roll out their craft on August 5th, and will make their own attempt at the Prize 'sometime in the fall'. (Some sites are reporting this announcement as a challenge to SpaceShip One. I don't see how that can be given that the DaVinci folks have not announced a launch date.)

Sources:

Space.com story.
Ansari X-Prize press release.

Poets and Popularity.

2004-07-26T14:38:00.000-07:00

In this weeks Space Review Dwayne Day argues that space exploration needs a new poet to replace Carl Sagan. Dwayne misses the point slightly, Sagan was not only a poet of space exploration, but something far more vital; he made science popular and accessible in the same way the Isaac Asimov did before him. If science in general becomes a topic for the average man, then the boat of space science rises on that same tide. With the loss of Sagan, Asimov, and Stephen Gould, science no longer has a public face, a public advocate, or a public voice. (The closest thing we have now to a national science spokesfigure is John Pike, and as near as I can tell his main activities are more in the realm of politics and naysaying.)

On the same note; commercial space development needs a spokesman of equal stature and gifts to these giants. Great things are coming and the space access community has difficulty in getting it's message across to the general public.

[Transterrestrial Musings has some interesting comments on my article of yesterday "Can we get there from here".]

Can we get there from here?

2004-07-23T13:14:00.000-07:00

[Note: The genesis of this article is my experience last week with an MRI machine. Being a former submariner, I thought I was essentially immune to the effect of claustrophobia. Once I was inside the machine, I found out very differently. Maybe it was the pain I was in, but once in I just *had* to get out. Oddly enough, when they put me in a different machine a couple of days later, I had no problems at all. The only real differences between them was the tunnel was slightly shorter (thus the rim was just at brow level rather than 'above' my head), and slightly wider (while my shoulders touched the sides, they were no longer 'cramped').]

I find myself musing on the question, "what follows suborbital tourism?". I don't think there is any doubt that high flights will have a customer base, between the various existing aircraft and amusement rides, the interest of the public in such extreme experiences is well demonstrated. (And if you expect to make money there had better be public interest.) The hard part is following that act, and providing something more than just a transitory experience. (I.E. actual CATS.)

Just how uncomfortable is the paying public willing to be? On this simple question hinges the near term future of space tourism. So far as suborbital flights are concerned, this does not seem to be a great issue. The flights are short, and as various aircraft and amusement park rides abundantly demonstrate, folks are willing to pay to be in a state of discomfort that 'normal' people will go to great lengths to avoid. Arguably, this is even more extremely illustrated by the fitness and dieting craze. Folks will willingly endure pain and deprivation to attain what is, to them, a desirable goal.

Interestingly the mounting consumer credit problem shows that they are not willing to endure financial pain and deprivation for the sake of future goals. And as individuals go, so do investors and institutions. Nowadays the watchword is day trading, not blue chips, so much so that Microsoft paying a dividend is big news. Long term investments are out of fashion, replaced by short term gratification. (This has implications for financing the space revolution, but that's a matter for a different day.)

Tito et al. have shown that a market exists for floating around in a cramped space for a while. The question is, who builds and operates that cramped space? How do the paying customers get there? Bigelow is proceeding with the development of space structures, but leaves the question of access to them seemingly open. Destinations are important, as the vast majority of tourist dollars are spent on going someplace, not doing doing something. Even though they do something at the place they've gone, the emphasis for most people is on 'going to Disneyworld', not 'riding the $SUPER_RIDE'. For ride enthusiasts the emphasis is reversed, but that merely emphasizes the difference between the larger and smaller groups over the similarities.

The end result is the chicken-and-egg problem so familiar to those interested in space access. There is a market for destinations, but no clear market for access. Yet, without access the destinations are pointless. Who bells the cat? Is it healthy from a competition and economic point of view to have destination and access provided by the same company. (Not to mention the implications of the large amounts of capital required.)

While access, in the form of a private Apollo/Soyuz, is a reasonable extrapolation of near term capabilities, does there exist a large enough market willing to endure those privations for the experience of being in space? Here existing tourist experience seems silent. Ice hotels and underwater hotels aside, there seems to be no existing analog. Jeff Findley on sci.space.policy suggests that the answer is to seek aggressive reductions in the cost of cramped spaces (I.E. capsules) in the hope that people are willing to pay to endure them for short periods and once their operation is proven, that destinations will follow as a matter of course.

Unexpected absence / About News

2004-07-13T09:32:00.000-07:00

My apologies for my extended absence; My computer's motherboard ate itself and it took a while to get a functional replacement. I've got houseguests for a day or two, and need to catch up on the news before I get back to regular postings.

It's interesting how little space news makes it to the mass media. The last two weeks have truly made me appreciate the web.

Copyright & other misc.

2004-06-26T12:45:00.000-07:00

Alert readers will note that I've now released the contents of this website under a Creative Commons license. I feel that this issue is every bit as important as CATS. (Don't worry about your comments though, they remain your property.)

As this weblog leans more towards analysis than news, there may or may not be daily updates and changes, I will however keep the non-space material to a minimum.

Don't fear the standing army.

2004-06-25T10:21:00.000-07:00

One of the central articles of the CATS faith is to 'avoid having a standing army'. One suspects this emerges mostly from the 'NASA does this, and to be CATS one must not do what NASA does' portion of the creed. This attitude however is, as Miracle Max might say, only mostly right. How to, and not to, do things should emerge from experience and be based on first principles not on dogma. Some of these first principles however are things that don't usually get much credit in the engineering oriented community that is CATS, namely PHB's and bean counters.

One of the most derided standing armies is the one supporting the Space Shuttle at Cape Canaveral, thousands of people supporting a small handful of vehicles flying a few missions a year. Somehow the equally large armies maintained by US Air, Southwest Airlines, etc. go unnoticed or at least unmentioned. Yet, the fact that they exist indicates that they cannot be dispensed with. (This should be obvious from first principles; if you are operating a vehicle, someone needs to kick the tires and check the oil level now and again.)

The key difference between the two armies is this; while those at the Cape support a few flights a year, those with the airlines support hundreds if not thousands of flights a day. There are two terms to the equation that determines how ground personnel affect your total costs, the first is their gross numbers of personnel, the second (and often ignored by the CATS folks) is how many flights per diem or per annum that they support. The bottom line of a tourist or transport operation is affected by both terms. One ignores this at peril.

Another issue, well known in many engineering and accounting communities, is that turn around time isn't the only criteria. Any vehicle participating in extended operations will also require both occasional repairs and routine periodic maintenance. Engineering cleverness that reduces weight, construction costs and turn around times must be balanced against its impact on day to day safety, maintenance, and operations. The key is to reduce the total cost of ownership not just the daily and per flight costs of operation.

Don't fear the standing army. Fear the impulse to concentrate on one facet of an issue while ignoring other aspects. A startup tourist or transport company would do well to hire an engineer and a CPA who aren't dreamers about space and who can serve to provide balance to the corporate viewpoint.

The Meaning of Monday

2004-06-24T09:55:00.000-07:00

Jeff Foust in the Space Review writes SpaceShipOne makes history — barely, an issue that's sometimes lost in the (rightful) hoopla surrounding Monday's flight. While the all-important goal of 100km was reached, the flight was not without problems.

However, the flight also demonstrates the reason why incremental testing is viewed as a requirement by the space access community. Monday's goal was 107km to meet the record previously established by the X-15), without carrying the ballast required to meet the X-Prize requirements. This would have established that Spaceship One had sufficient performance to reach the required altitude in an actual X-prize attempt. They fell short of this goal because of control system problems of currently unknown origins. Had this been an actual Prize attempt (as many believed it should have been) the attempt would likely have failed, doing significant damage to the reputation of the Prize. However, the emphasis on reusability inherent in the Prize saved the day, Astronaut Mike Melvill was able to continue the flight and land safely. SpaceShip One will fly another day once the issues from Monday's flight are resolved and once the system is proven functional, take a shot at the Prize.

Monday's flight has also obscured another important point; the real goal of Cheap Acess to Space lies much higher - in low earth orbit. As Robert Heinlein wrote "If you can get into orbit, then you're halfway to anywhere".

Starship Summer / Seti@Home

2004-06-24T09:46:00.000-07:00

I've started a Seti@Home team named Starship Summer. I invite all readers of this weblog to join the team!.

SpaceShip One - More on the June 21st flight.

2004-06-22T16:04:00.000-07:00

Some quick links to further information and resources concerning the June 21st flight of SpaceShip One.

Alan's Mojave Airport Weblog has a page of photographs taken on the day of the flight.
Slashdot.org is carrying a discussion of an article in the New Scientist regarding the performance of Spaceship One in flight.
Messages of congratulations to pilot Mike Melville may be left at www.mikemelvill.com.

About Spaceship Summer

2004-06-22T15:52:00.000-07:00

This weblog is dedicated to information about space tourism, the X-Prize, and CATS (Cheap Acess to Space). Submissions may be made by email to fairwater AT gmail DOT com, or to the usenet newsgroup sci.space.policy, please put [Spaceship Summer] in the subject line. Essays, comments, pictures, or anything else related to the topic are gladly accepted.

The name Spaceship Summer comes from several sources. It's in honor of the first manned civilian spaceflight on the first day of summer 2004, as well as the classic science fiction short story 'Rocket Summer' by Ray Bradbury. It's also an allusion to the eternal sunshine of outer space.

As this weblog leans more towards analysis than news, there may or may not be daily updates and changes, I will however keep the non-space material to a minimum.