And now for something completely different: moon mining

 awesomeness, history, Hmm..., news, politics, rockets, science, spacecraft, THIS is why Trump won, wisdom  No Responses »
Apr 062020
 

Trump signs executive order to support moon mining, tap asteroid resources

Good.

I have difficulty imagining President Biden supporting something like this; I imagine a President Sanders would actively oppose it. From the White House:

Executive Order on Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources

Space Policy Directive-1 of December 11, 2017 (Reinvigorating America’s Human Space Exploration Program), provides that commercial partners will participate in an “innovative and sustainable program” headed by the United States to “lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations.” Successful long-term exploration and scientific discovery of the Moon, Mars, and other celestial bodies will require partnership with commercial entities to recover and use resources, including water and certain minerals, in outer space. …

Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space, consistent with applicable law. Outer space is a legally and physically unique domain of human activity, and the United States does not view it as a global commons. Accordingly, it shall be the policy of the United States to encourage international support for the public and private recovery and use of resources in outer space, consistent with applicable law. …

The United States is not a party to the Moon Agreement. Further, the United States does not consider the Moon Agreement to be an effective or necessary instrument to guide nation states regarding the promotion of commercial participation in the long-term exploration, scientific discovery, and use of the Moon, Mars, or other celestial bodies. Accordingly, the Secretary of State shall object to any attempt by any other state or international organization to treat the Moon Agreement as reflecting or otherwise expressing customary international law.

Overall it seems pretty good. It calls for the international recognition of economic exploitation of space resources and the repudiation of the execrable “Moon Agreement,” which the US somehow, astonishingly, failed to get sucked into. Some examples of just how bad the “agreement” is:

 

    • Provides a framework of laws to establish an international cooperation regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the responsible exploitation of natural resources of the Moon. (Article 11.5)
    • Bans altering the environmental balance of celestial bodies and requires that states take measures to prevent accidental contamination of the environments of celestial bodies, including Earth. (Article 7.1)
    • The orderly and safe use of the natural lunar resources with an equitable sharing by all state parties in the benefits derived from those resources. (Article 11.7)
    • The placement of personnel or equipment on or below the surface shall not create a right of ownership. (Article 11)
    • There shall be freedom of scientific research and exploration and use on the Moon by any party without discrimination of any kind. (Article 6) Samples obtained during research activities, are hoped to be made available to all countries and scientific communities for research. (Article 6.2)
    • Any areas or regions reported to have a special scientific interest, shall be designated as international scientific preserves. (Article 7.3)
    • State parties shall ensure that non-governmental entities under their jurisdiction shall engage in activities on the Moon only under the authority and continuing supervision of the appropriate state party. (Article 14)
    • All parties shall inform the United Nations as well as the public, of their activities concerned with the exploration and use of the Moon. (Article 5)

The Moon Agreement would, if the US signed it, mean that if SpaceX started mining asteroids for unobtainium, Venezuela gets a share… not only in the riches produced, but in the running of the operation. Nopenopenopenope.

 Posted by at 5:07 pm

APR Monthly Historical Documents Program

 aircraft, APR, art, drawings, history, Hmm..., Monthly Historical Documents Program, new products, news, Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, nukes, Patreon, projects, rockets, spacecraft  No Responses »
Apr 052020
 

Once again Patreon seems to be becoming unstable. So I’ve got an alternate: The APR Monthly Historical Documents Program

For some years I have been operating the “Aerospace Projects Review Patreon” which provides monthly rewards in the form of high resolution scans of vintage aerospace diagrams, art and documents. This has worked pretty well, but it seems that perhaps some people might prefer to sign on more directly. Fortunately, PayPal provides the option not only for one-time purchases but also monthly subscriptions. By subscribing using the drop-down menu below, you will receive the same benefits as APR Patrons, but without going through Patreon itself.



Details below.

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 9:11 am

X-15 with a hypersonic ramjet

 aircraft, drawings, projects, rockets  No Responses »
Apr 012020
 

A page from a 1962 North American presentation on the X-15, showing a preliminary design 0f an underslung rocket-boosted scramjet test vehicle. It was expected to get to a blisteringly fast 17,000 feet per second (about Mach 15), but it doubtless would not have much of a burn time. The ABLX-259 rocket booster was a solid rocket used as the “Antares II” third stage of the Scout space launcher. Note that the X-15 had an extended nozzle.

 Posted by at 12:21 am

X-34 proposals

 aircraft, drawings, history, projects, rockets  No Responses »
Mar 272020
 

The X-34 was the first aerospace project I worked on after graduation. Sadly, one week after I was hired to work on the X-34 the whole program was cancelled. “Welcome to aerospace, kid. Here’s your layoff… last one in, first one out.” Feh. Anyway, Orbital Sc iences proposed two vehicles:

1: The X-34A was a small-ish vehicle carried under the same Lockheed L-1011 jetliner that OSC used to launch the Pegasus. The X-34 needed greater volume than the Pegasus, but since there was limited clearance under the L-1011, the X-34A had a wide lifting body-like fuselage.

2: The X-34B was a larger, better optimized vehicle to be launched from atop a Shuttle-carrying 747.

Both the A and B models had payload bays that would contain an upper stage and an orbital payload. Neither was built (apart from a full scale mockup of the A); after the program was cancelled it came back as the X-34C. the C model *was* built, but it never flew.

 Posted by at 10:20 am

United Technologies Dyna Soar booster concept

 history, projects, rockets, spacecraft  No Responses »
Mar 192020
 

United Tech was mostly interested in solid propellant boosters for the Dyna Soar program… specifically, boosters to strap to the side of the Titan II. Initially conical in shape, those early concept boosters would turn into the UA-1205 boosters fitted to the Titan IIIC booster. But UTC also studied liquid propellant boosters for the Dyna Soar, including the Saturn derived design shown below which featured a Saturn S-II stage for the first stage, an S-IV (*not* an S-IVb) for the second stage and an S-V stage (a modified Centaur) for the third. The design of the Dyan Soar is purely notional; United Tech seemingly did no design work on that and simply sketched in a spaceplane roughly along the lines of the design Boeing had.

 Posted by at 5:55 am

A month of aerospace

 aircraft, art, drawings, history, projects, rockets, spacecraft  No Responses »
Mar 182020
 

Given the craziness going on, I decided that what the world clearly needs is something consistent. Like, say, me posting one piece of aerospace diagram or art every day for a month or so. So I’m going to do that. But in order to keep people from getting too complacent, I’m posting some of them on this blog, some on the other blog. Why? Because why not, that’s why. I’m slapping the posts together now and scheduling them to show up one at a time, one a day. Given the pandemic… who knows, this little project might well outlive *me.*

So, check back in (on this blog or the other) on a daily basis. Might be something interesting.

 Posted by at 1:46 pm

SLS: Well there’s a shocker

 AARRRGH, Crazy, I'm from the government, news, projects, rockets, spacecraft, ಠ_ಠ  No Responses »
Mar 132020
 

NASA’s SLS Moon rocket is 2 years behind and billions over budget, internal report finds

Rocket surgery is hard. But for frak’s sake, it’s not *that* hard. NASA oversaw the development of the rough equivalent of the SLS in the form of the Saturn V fifty-five friggen’ years ago, on a shorter timescale and I believe at lower cost… and that was starting with prit near *nothing.* SpaceX has spent far less and achieved far more, and despite a lot of setbacks lately, I still wouldn’t put it past SpaceX to get an SLS-beater into the air before SLS.

I wonder what SpaceX could do with two billion dollars and two years. Hell, I wonder what *I* could do with that.

Hmm.

Who would I talk to about getting estimates for a mild steel circular plate twenty meters or so in diameter?

 

 Posted by at 1:51 am

Sea Dragon Operations

 art, history, Monthly Historical Documents Program, Patreon, projects, rockets, spacecraft  No Responses »
Mar 122020
 

Sea Dragon was, as is doubtless news to few around here, an early 1960’s idea at Aerojet for an extremely large, very simply two-stage pressure-fed space booster. It was meant to be as cheap to build and operate as possible with 1960’s tech, relying on scale to make it all work. Would it have worked? Maybe. Physics supports it. Would it have been cheap to operate? Hard to tell. “Simple as possible” does not equate to “simple,” and anything the size of Sea Dragon, especially screaming out of the sky to smack into the ocean while blisteringly hot… well, there are always risks.

In 1963 the idea of a pinpoint vertical landing a la the Falcon 9 would have been ridiculous, so splashdown was really the only way to go for a booster designed for simplicity. But as NASA and Thiokol found with dropping Shuttle boosters into the drink, recovery and refurbishment after salt water immersion can be a bit of a headache. The way to make a Sea Dragon truly economically competitive would be, as with Falcon 9, flight after flight after flight, often enough that it ceases to be an Amazing News Story and becomes, like the Falcon 9, seemingly dull and monotonous. But given the million-pound payload of the Sea Dragon it’s difficult to envision a space program following on the footsteps of Apollo that would have required a Sea Dragon every few weeks. It would certainly have been *nice* to have had such a program (and if the current pandemic takes down western civ it will turn out that the lack of such a program was criminally negligent) but the existence of a timeline with such a program seems a little difficult to envision.

The article, written by sea Dragon advocate Robert Truax, that the above illustration came from has been scanned and made available to above-$10 APR subscribers and Patrons.

 Posted by at 3:23 pm

“Apollo 11” in 4K… sorta?

 awesomeness, history, Hmm..., news, rockets, spacecraft  No Responses »
Mar 072020
 

I was pointed towards THIS LISTING of the “Apollo 11” documentary, available on a 4K disk:

My first reaction was “Huzzah!” followed by “About time!” followed by “Huh? Wait a minute…”

Compatibility Alert
This disk may not play on most DVD/Blu-Ray players sold in the US due to region encoding incompatibility. This item may require a region specific or multi-region DVD/Blu-Ray player and compatible TV.

It even ships from overseas… Britain, apparently.

Frak.

Anyone know if:

1) there are plans for a US release?

2) this UK release works adequately on US 4K players?

 Posted by at 12:04 am
 Older Entries  Newer Entries