Oct 102016
 

Some news about Stratolaunch:

Orbital ATK and Stratolaunch partner to offer competitive launch opportunities

So far so good. But the artwork included is a little puzzling:

strato-peg-1

strato-peg-2

That’s one Stratolaunch carrier aircraft carrying three Pegasus space launch vehicles. Ummm… how often is the capacity to ripple-fire small satellites going to pop up?

In the early 1990’s, OSC looked at a launcher that was kinda-sorta three Pegasus boosters strapped side-by side, carried by a giant new aircraft designed by Scaled Composites. That made a measure of sense, but this new concept does not seem to be something that would be needed. Unless, of course, those are meant for military purposes… launching a number of small recon satellites onto similar orbits, perhaps. Or perhaps those Pegasus boosters are packing warheads of some kind…

 Posted by at 11:41 pm
Oct 092016
 

Due out in January is the film “Hidden Figures,” a fact-based look at Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughn and Mary Jackson, important but relatively little-known figures in the history of NASA. There are several obvious Social Messages in the movie, but what do *I* see? STEM, baby! The heroes of the piece rise to prominence and save the day because they can Do The Math. The three main characters are mathematicians, computer programmers and engineers.

Also note: I provided a few cyanotype blueprints to be used as props/set pieces. Based on prior experience, the chances of them actually making a recognizable appearance are pretty minimal (movies and TV shows gather a *vast* pile of stuff to use, most of which isn’t used), but you never know.

 

 Posted by at 2:06 pm
Oct 072016
 

A piece of NASA art illustrating a lunar-bound craft equipped with three relatively small nuclear thermal rockets. The payload is a lunar lander, similar in appearance to the “First Lunar Outpost” landers of the early 1990s, dating the art. To my eye this looks a bit dubious from the standpoint of nuking the crew… the reactors aren’t that far from them, what with the rather short hydrogen tank. *Perhaps* this was intended to be sent to lunar orbit unmanned, there to be met by a crew sent via chemical rockets. For lunar missions the utility of nuclear rockets would not be in getting payloads to the destination sooner; three days just isn’t that long, really. The advantage would be in sending *massive* payloads. So a small manned capsule sent chemically and a big heavily loaded lander sent via nukes might well make considerable sense.

ntr-triple

 Posted by at 4:15 pm
Oct 062016
 

Hmmm.

Matthew Blows, Part 2

The writer believes that the VAB will be stripped to the skeleton. SpaceX has three landed Falcon 9 boosters in a horizontal integration hangar at launch complex 39A; if the building is damaged, it’s a safe bet that these boosters will be trashed. The United Launch Alliance towers at pads 37 and 40 are at risk. The Rocket Garden is exceedingly vulnerable. The Visitor Center could be damaged.

This could see the effective end of much of the US space program, at least for several years. Worst comes to pass, the only good access the US will have to the ISS will be the Orbital Sciences launch facility at Wallops.  Unless permission is granted for overland flights from Vandenberg – very unlikely, but with the Falcon 9’s ability to boost back, just maybe – getting to a low inclination orbit will be *real* challenging. If the VAB is trashed, especially if it’s truly destroyed, the SLS will look even sillier than it does now.

This all depends on the track and power of the storm. It could divert away from the Cape. But then, it’s thought it’ll turn into a Category 5 by the time it gets there.

Sure would be nice if, 24 hours from now, NASA is still a functional organization.

UPDATE:

A rare bit of good news. Instead of climbing from Cat 4 to Cat 5, it decreased to Cat 3, and the eyewall missed the Cape. Damage to KSC is reportedly quite minimal.

Now that KSC has dodged that bullet, it’s time to make sure that this sort of apocalyptic disaster *doesn’t* befall the US space program. Suggestions:

Beef up the KSC infrastructure. Rebuild and reinforce the structures that are already there; build up the barrier islands and seawalls to minimize the damage from storm surges.

Build all-new launch facilities elsewhere. Expand Wallops to make it capable of launching Delta IV/Atlas V/Falcon 9 Heavy. Build launch sites in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Guantanamo Bay (use that one for Orion launches).

 Posted by at 11:11 pm
Oct 062016
 

Now this is interesting…

Hurricane Matthew Is a Nightmare Scenario for Kennedy Space Center

With such highlights as:

When Category 2 Hurricane Frances made landfall roughly 100 miles south of Kennedy in 2004, tropical storm-force winds lashed Space Coast, ripping more than a thousand panels off the Vehicle Assembly Building and resulting in 100 million worth of damage.

And…

The storm is projected to pass perilously close to Florida’s entire eastern seaboard beginning later today, with a Category 3 or 4 eye passing directly over Kennedy Space Center on Friday…

And…

Kennedy’s Orbiter Processing Facilities are rated to withstand sustained winds of 105 mph. The Vehicle Assembly Building and launchpads hold together up until about 115 mph, while newer buildings constructed after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 are designed to weather 130 mph winds.

And…

If the storm does hit at high tide, the NHC warns of surges as high as 9 feet from central Florida all the way up into southern Georgia. Most of Kennedy’s infrastructure sits between five and ten feet above sea level.

Ruh-roh…

So, let’s say Canaveral gets well and truly trashed. Winds rip the buildings apart, a storm surge sloshes over the facilities and washes ’em out to sea. What to do?

This would argue for some diversity in not only launch vehicles, but launch sites and launch *modes.* I’m not a terribly big fan of air-launched systems like Pegasus or Stratolaunch, but the availability of such systems would allow for the important bits to be locate much further inland. You could in principle base such a system in, say, Utah and fly down to the Gulf for an easterly launch. Systems that launch from the decks of ships would be less sensitive to this, as they could steam out ahead of the storms. Systems that launch from the surface of the ocean itself would also be insensitive to storms.

One of the potential problems with systems like these is that they tend to be smaller. An aircraft could maybe carry a Falcon 9, but good luck horsing a Falcon 9 Heavy into the sky. Or launching one from a ship smaller than a supertanker. Launching directly from the ocean made sense for vehicles as vast as the Sea Dragon, but it gets less sensible as the vehicle gets smaller. And I’m uncertain how well this would work out for a thin-walled eggshell design like the SpaceX Mars booster.

There is another solution: launch from inland. Works well for the Russians; having booster stages crash down into Kazakhstan apparently doesn’t cause trouble for anyone who matters. This would be trickier in he CONUS, though. However, there is already a solution to this problem, detailed on this very blog nearly 8 years ago: buy a strip of northern Mexico. The original idea was to turn that strip into a new nation, Neuvo Israel. But turning it into a Federal reserve would work too. Make it a wildlife refuge, off limits to settlements and urban developments; but a dandy place to locate the launch and impact sites, along with a few dozen terawatt-class breeder and thorium salt reactors.

 Posted by at 4:47 pm
Oct 022016
 

The HSV-2 Swift was a slick catamaran built in 2002 by an Australian shipbuilder to compete in a US Navy program. It did not win, and while it was leased to the US Navy for a number of years it remained a privately owned vessel, and in 2015 was leased to the UAE’s National Marine Dredging Company.

And then in late September, some jackhole in Yemen with an anti-ship missile turned it into a flaming pile of floating aluminum rubble.

Was:

Is:

Note the repeated use of the ever present Phrase That Pays (to duck when you hear it) during the early shots of the ship on fire.

 Posted by at 3:44 pm
Oct 012016
 

SpaceX knows that the helium system was responsible for the explosion. But what caused the helium system to fail? It’s a well know, quite robust, nearly off-the-shelf system. So, they’re running down all leads. Including…

Implication of Sabotage Adds Intrigue To SpaceX Investigation

To be clear, there is (at least publicly) no real evidence of sabotage. But it’s a logical thing to look for at *all* times when you have a high-tech, high-dollar-value system. And it’s especially important to look for if your system is kicking over the established order. There would be a *lot* of suspects, from direct competitors such as ULA, to less direct competitors such as the Chinese, Russians and Europeans, to those who are opposed to the companies long-term goals of mankind (and more specifically, Americans) conquering the universe. And that last one there is probably a pretty long list and would include groups as varied as Greenpeace, PETA, the IRS, various religious organizations (especially Peaceful Religious groups) to just about every government on the planet.

Most likely the failure was due to somebody screwing something up. Maybe a nut didn’t get tightened sufficiently. But when you’re dealing with billions of dollars and the future course of history, it pays to be a little paranoid.

 Posted by at 8:40 pm
Sep 272016
 

Some images copied out of the presentations today. It clearly has some heritage back to the Delta Clipper, at least in inspiration. I’m unconvinced, though, that this is a completely serious engineering concept. At the very least it seems to be jazzed up for some wow-factor; that huge window, for example, is a structural nightmare and the passenger compartment seems to be one breachable pressurized volume. Blow out one window and the whole thing will depressurize.

Still, it’s good to see big-thinkin’. But I really wish they would have somehow vetted some of the questioners after Elon’s presentation… about a third of ’em were either idiots or just there to flack some product or other.

2016-09-27-203311 2016-09-27-202604 2016-09-27-203642 spacex-interplanetary-07 spacex-interplanetary-05

 Posted by at 8:13 pm
Sep 272016
 

Yeah, we’ve all seen videos of ICBM launches. But how many videos have you seen of the *other* end of the flight, with the RV’s smacking into the target zone? This video documents a launch of a Minuteman III from Vandenberg AFB in California to the impact of the three warheads (w/o nukes) in Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands.

It’s just plain impressive to see those RVs come screaming in, glowing so hot that they light up the clouds.

 Posted by at 2:49 pm