space politics Small Launch Technologies -- politics as usual in the Space Arena (or in other news, nothing ever changes)?

[Blue-Vision]

Article Link: | Ars Technica Website

 

Now this gets interesting. @DocM, @Draggendrop, @jjkusaf, @FloatingFatMan, you'll love this.  It starts off as a rant on Politics and unnecessary expenditures, but it gets into some really meaty stuff about the "Low-Weight Payload Launchers" and what's happening with them -- and the players in the game. I didn't know about some of them, and there's one in the mix who has a really interesting idea about how to go about things. Check it out ...

Quote

One small stip(ulation) for NASA, one giant burden for exploration

A Senator who dislikes SpaceX seems to find home state rockets more to his liking.

by Eric Berger - May 12, 2016 5:30pm EDT

The Super Strypi rocket blew up during its maiden launch in November, 2015. The Air Force gave up on it, but now a US Senator has told NASA to try again. Image courtesy of US Air Force.

 

Amid the vast firmament of NASA’s $19 billion portfolio, with its exploration aims spanning from planet Earth to the edge of the visible universe, $30 million may not seem like all that much money. Yet sometimes principle matters, especially when that principle illustrates the political headwinds buffeting the space agency as it seeks to push humans outward into deep space.

 

When appropriators were writing a budget for NASA last month, Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) designated $30 million in spending for “small launch technology” for the coming fiscal year. The stipulation was tucked into the space technology program, a relatively new area of NASA’s budget that President Obama created in 2010 to invest in “bold, broadly applicable, disruptive technology that industry cannot tackle today.” The central objective of this program is to bring forward advanced technologies needed to land humans on Mars.

 

But Congress has disdained the space technology program almost from its inception. During every subsequent budget cycle, the Senate and House have cut the president’s request—the money NASA says it needs that year to ensure Mars technology development is proceeding apace. The last couple of years, however, the US Senate has added a new wrinkle. Appropriators not only cut the space technology budget, they further squeezed the remainder by specifying what NASA must work on rather than leaving those decisions to the agency’s rocket scientists.

 

Parochial interests trump tech funding when it comes to reaching the Red Planet.

 

“It’s sad, because the whole space technology budget has just became an earmark haven for these guys,” said one aerospace engineer. He was one of a half-dozen engineers and space policy experts familiar with the budgeting process that Ars spoke to for this story. All were granted anonymity because Shelby, who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee over NASA’s budget, has outsized power to punish those who openly oppose him.

 

Shelby's $30 million stipulation for the coming fiscal year appears to take the insult to NASA’s technology budget a step further. The proposed law directs the agency to fund a specific type of small satellite launch technology, known as the Super Strypi, “to the maximum extent possible.” The problem with that, three separate sources confirmed to Ars, is that two companies in Huntsville, Alabama, are seeking to develop a launch system based on the Super Strypi vehicle.

 

Instead of developing technology to get humans to Mars, then, NASA is being told to support rocket development to launch small satellites. That is not such a bad thing... except more than half a dozen companies have already invested private capital in such small launchers. “Providing support for any of the small launcher developments has issues,” said one official, noting the commercial interest in this area. “Picking one that has a demonstrated poor track record seems like an even worse choice. Doing so through an earmark is just the lowest approach you can imagine.”

Now watch this ...  

Quote

Small satellites

 

There are perfectly good reasons for NASA to invest in small satellite launch technology. Weighing in the neighborhood of 50 to 400kg, small satellites have become one of the hottest areas of aerospace. Demand has increased for launch vehicles that can deliver these payloads to a Sun-synchronous orbit 400km or more above the Earth’s surface. For now, though, these smaller payloads must “ride share” with larger satellites on more powerful rockets. This can often delay their launch for a year or more.

 

Naturally the market has reacted to this, and more than half a dozen companies have been developing private launch systems to meet the demand. Proposals range from launching traditional rockets from the ground to setting them off from airplanes or balloons high in the atmosphere. It is a marketplace teeming with private capital. This seems like the opposite of what space technology, created to address areas the “industry cannot tackle today,” was intended to support.

Several companies are developing small launch systems. Rocket Lab's Electron launch vehicle could fly as early as this summer.

Firefly's composite Alpha rocket could make a demonstration launch as early as this year.

Virgin Galactic plans to release its LauncherOne rocket from the Cosmic Girl aircraft to deploy satellites on demand for customers. It could fly by 2018.

PLD Space, a Spanish company, is developing the Arion 2 launch vehicle capable of delivering 150kg to low-Earth orbit. It may be ready to fly by 2021.

Zero2infinity is developing a launch system that would have rockets blast off from high-altitude balloons.

The rocket is ignited above 99 percent of the atmosphere, simplifying the launch process.

Interorbital Systems is developing a line of Neptune rockets that will start with 30kg to low-Earth orbit and scale up to 190kg.

Looking pretty snazzy.  

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

JFK said that we will have a man on the moon and we did. He is probably Rollin over in his grave what this country has done to The Space Program. Will we source the Military next?

[Jim K Global Moderator]

That Electron rocket looks slick...I'll take one and put it in my backyard for decoration.  

 

Not so sure about the Zero2infinity balloon rocket thing.  Even with a balloon it would only get about ~20 miles up ... still would need a lot of rocket to get into orbital velocity....much more than what is in their picture.  Anyway...have my serious doubts about that one.

[flyingskippy]

Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to Shelby.... 

 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

We now have numerous small sat launchers, in various stages of development. These launchers are mainly "newspace", which are smart, quick and able to innovate immediately.

 

IMHO, the days of NASA designing launchers, should be over. The bureaucratic design does not afford the levels of innovation, that a newspace venture can do. NASA is outstanding at probe design and spurring innovation in industry, which has, ironically, been responsible for the birth of newspace by giving valuable insight, knowledge and startup resources.

 

"Newspace" has a life of it's own now, and will not be stopped due to the market economy and support structures available to startups.

 

Senator Shelby can be ...well...Senator Shelby, and IMHO, is irrelevant, as much as he is. He will be taking the shame and flack for SLS down the road.

 

Karma

 

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

17 minutes ago, Draggendrop said:

We now have numerous small sat launchers, in various stages of development. These launchers are mainly "newspace", which are smart, quick and able to innovate immediately.

 

IMHO, the days of NASA designing launchers, should be over. The bureaucratic design does not afford the levels of innovation, that a newspace venture can do. NASA is outstanding at probe design and spurring innovation in industry, which has, ironically, been responsible for the birth of newspace by giving valuable insight, knowledge and startup resources.

 

"Newspace" has a life of it's own now, and will not be stopped due to the market economy and support structures available to startups.

 

Senator Shelby can be ...well...Senator Shelby, and IMHO, is irrelevant, as much as he is. He will be taking the shame and flack for SLS down the road.

 

Karma

 

 

Kind of agree.  Outside of scientific research (i.e. ISS) or missions to the ISS ... LEO/GEO probably should be handled by other launch systems like SpaceX.  NASA should start focusing more on deep exploration, as you said they are excellent at designing probes/landers/rovers.  The unfortunate side though, if their rocket systems are slashed ... you may see a further decrease in their budget which could inadvertently hamper that deep space exploration.  Also have to be somewhat careful in handing sole duties/exploration to private companies who may make their discoveries available behind a paywall (they have to fund their business somehow).  With NASA ... pretty much everything they learn, discover and innovate makes it way back to the people.  

 

Just hypothetically speaking ... let's say GPS wasn't funded by the DoD (I know taxpayer money goes towards it) ... what do you think the monthly fee would be if a civilian organization (like at&t) was running it?  I doubt it would be "free" (taxes excluded).  Anyway...that is really my only worry about private companies taking over anything other than LEO/GEO launches.  Everything outside of GEO should be Joint ventures with NASA.  It'll be an interesting next decade or so.  Just wish the USG would quit their little bureaucracy which will only stifle scientific progress (wishful thinking).

 

Little late ... and I'm tired ... sorry if it doesn't make sense.  What I'm trying to say sounds great in my head ... reading it ... not so much.  haha 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

1 minute ago, jjkusaf said:

Kind of agree.  Outside of scientific research (i.e. ISS) or missions to the ISS ... LEO/GEO probably should be handled by other launch systems like SpaceX.  NASA should start focusing more on deep exploration, as you said they are excellent at designing probes/landers/rovers.  The unfortunate side though, if their rocket systems are slashed ... you may see a further decrease in their budget which could inadvertently hamper that deep space exploration.  Also have to be somewhat careful in handing sole duties/exploration to private companies who may make their discoveries available behind a paywall (they have to fund their business somehow).  With NASA ... pretty much everything they learn, discover and innovate makes it way back to the people.  

 

Just hypothetically speaking ... let's say GPS wasn't funded by the DoD (I know taxpayer money goes towards it) ... what do you think the monthly fee would be if a civilian organization (like at&t) was running it?  I doubt it would be "free" (taxes excluded).  Anyway...that is really my only worry about private companies taking over anything other than LEO/GEO launches.  Everything outside of GEO should be Joint ventures with NASA.  It'll be an interesting next decade or so.  Just wish the USG would quit their little bureaucracy which will only stifle scientific progress (wishful thinking).

 

Little late ... and I'm tired ... sorry if it doesn't make sense.

Makes perfect sense. NASA in control with private companies as a service to NASA. I too, am a firm believer in information to all...no paywalls as it creates a multi tear learning system, which is not acceptable.

 

ie: NASA designs/builds a probe, puts out competition for a launcher, then pick the cost effective solution. Portions of the probe can be done this way as well.

 

[DocM]

2 hours ago, jjkusaf said:

>

Not so sure about the Zero2infinity balloon rocket thing.

>

Very similar to the very well funded World View, which has done subscale tests and is ramping up to rides. They'll also be flying near-space experiments.

 

http://worldview.space

 

 

 

[FloatingFatMan]

So... Just how big a kickback do you guys reckon Shelby is getting out of this?

[DocM]

Actually, this one makes sense.

 

Aiding smallest launchers helps commercial and university payloads, and both NASA and DoD, and a new pad for them has already been built at KSC LC-39C. This is a fast growing need.

 

Other programs are either behind and unexpectedly in need of funds, NASA having to fix the InSight mission ESA dropped the ball on, or the Low Density Supersonic Decelerator (LDSD) for Mars reentry whose precursor Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) program failed miserably in a 2014 test.

 

The HIAD/LDSD were intended to develop a way to land a 20 tonne payload on Mars, but besides the 2014 failure events caught up with it: Red Dragon, which uses SpaceX's Supersonic RetroPropulsion (SRP) technologies to land up to 13.5 tonnes on Mars, and needless to say BFS could land hundreds of tonnes. 

 

This redirects some monies from a failed Mars tech to worthwhile programs, the Insight fix and the smallsat programs.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

7 hours ago, DocM said:

Very similar to the very well funded World View, which has done subscale tests and is ramping up to rides. They'll also be flying near-space experiments.

 

http://worldview.space

 

...but that is just a fancy balloon ... no?  It is just up there in the stratosphere (though I'm curious how they're getting it back down..haha...assuming "pop" and then parachute)  

 

soooo.... I dunno.

 

Just curious what this

 

 

... will be used for.  On a balloon ... you're only getting to 1/3 the distance to "space" .... but starting out at zero velocity.  Certainly could not be for putting things in orbit.  Once the fuel runs out ... it is coming back down.  /shrug

 

Mind you...nothing against balloons...I would love to see the earth from 20 miles up.   Just not understanding their usefulness as a launch platform.  Still need a lot of rocket to get from 20 miles up to orbital velocity/altitude .... that weight alone would make such a balloon platform unfeasible.  Anyway...could be reading it all wrong ... and that is not its intended purpose ... just that one image bugs me. 

[DocM]

Not a new concept, AKA "Rockoon" and usually a sounding rocket. JP Aerospace is also doing a rockoon small launcher.