I wholeheartedly agree with Peter Diamandis here:
Diamandis said that the wealth of individuals is rapidly increasing thanks to the evolving power of the Internet, and very shortly through breakthroughs in nanotechnology. Billionaires and multi-billionaires are making their own future happen, he said.
I’m still getting ready for a last-minute trip across the Atlantic, but Thomas James has a restorative tonic for Helen Caldicott’s ongoing idiocy about “militarizing space,” and Clark Lindsey has a lot of good stuff on the recent International Space Development Conference in Washington, DC.
Clark Lindsey has a good rundown of yesterday’s meeting in Washington on space policy.
A couple of strong impressions came through. Firstly, the end of the Shuttle in 2010 is now taken for granted by everyone. Weldon wants NASA to assign a manager full-time to monitor the transition so that the community disruptions as happened after the end of the Apollo program don’t hit the KSC area again.
I also noticed a widespread awareness of the existence of an entrepreneurial space industry and that it is becoming a force to reckon with.
That’s the title of my piece over at TechCentralStation today on big changes at NASA per its new administrator.
Taylor Dinerman says that the administration has to start getting serious about space weapons. I agree.
[Update late afternoon]
There are several good critiques of the piece in comments, that I don’t necessarily disagree with. My only point was that I agree with his bottom line.
Lots of good stuff over at Clark Lindsey’s site yesterday, including a tribute to the failed space entrepreneurs of the past that laid so much of the groundwork for today’s burgeoning industry. He also has some parting thoughts on last weekend’s Space Access Conference, with a link-rich summary of many of the talks.
Over at The Space Review, Jeff Foust takes my “hangover” metaphor and runs with it in describing the state of the industry as represented by the conference (first of two parts–presumably the second will be next Monday).
In response to my previous post citing Orson Scott Card’s Star Trek critique, Tobias Buckell takes issue with my comment (and Jim Oberg’s concurrence) about Trekkers’ interest in space:
Boy, I’d have to quibble with that. I recall ST folk being excited enough to beg NASA to rename the first shuttle Enterprise. That hardly smacks of ‘not being interested in space activities.’
This little episode, dating back to the late 1970s, actually makes my point, not his. OV-101, the test article for the Approach and Landing Tests (ALT), was originally supposed to be called the Constitution, but the Star Trek fans were mobilized to rename it the Enterprise, despite the fact that it would never actually fly in space. Many (including me) attempted to make them aware of this, but they didn’t seem to care, and pressed on regardless.
It was kind of a drive-by interest, and whether or not the vehicle they were attempting to rename would actually be a space vehicle seemed to be of much less importance to them than that it be named after the Enterprise. If they thought that they could have pulled it off, they’d have probably signed a petition and sent in letters demanding that the astronaut uniforms be bell bottoms with boots, a la STTOS. If Mr. Buckell has any other data to indicate interest by Trekkers in space, or reality, I’d be interested to hear it, because this sure isn’t it.
Here’s more description of last weekend’s Space Access Conference with pictures (albeit insufficiently lit ones). There doesn’t seem to be very good navigation to previous posts, but if you’re checking this out in the future, check the later April and early May archives.
The most interesting talk at Space Access was a fill-in that was not blogged by Rand, but was by Clark Lindsey:
a CEV concept [was presented] that Boeing is investigating that involves commercial delivery of fuel to orbiting depots. This so-called “dry launch” approach would mean that vehicles for in-space and lunar transport could be launched without fuel and so, being lighter, they would not need new heavy lifters. This would open a great opportunity for the new launch companies to provide fuel to the depots.
It involves an alternative concept (see page 32) from Boeing. The idea is to launch the lunar transfer vehicle dry and provide commercial propellant delivery. This could result in thousands of metric tons of fuel needing to be delivered to LEO. This might bootstrap the commercial launch industry. There are also opportunities for “the last mile” because some launcher companies will not want to have to figure out how to dock with a fuel depot.
1000 metric tons of fuel would be a cool $3 billion unless someone can undercut Elon Musk. 9000 metric tons through 2030 would be $27 billion at current prices, but would likely spur a tech drive and a bidding war to compete prices down to $1000/kg or less.
I just got an interesting note from Popular Mechanics:
At 12:01 a.m. EST, Popular Mechanics will unveil on its Web site an early look at Lockheed Martin’s proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle — one of two major proposals submitted today to NASA to replace the Space Shuttle and eventually carry us to Mars. We’ll be including images and specs. A larger piece will run in our June issue.
I don’t know if I’ll stay up for it (I’m still recovering from the Space Access Conference sleep deprivation), but comments here are open for anyone who does. I’ll take a look in the morning. I am curious to see what Lockmart will propose, particularly now that the competition has gotten more heated with the apparent decision to only award a single contract.
[Tuesday morning update]
The biggest obvious difference between it and the Boeing concept (at least the Boeing concept that has been on display in the exploration studies–I can’t speak to what was actually proposed) is that it’s got wings. Or at least a body with a lot more lift than a capsule, with supersonic drogues. Despite that, it still lands with chutes and bags, so it’s not clear why they want such a high L/D, except for more cross range and landing site flexibility, and reduced entry gees. What NASA has been calling a Service Module they seem to be calling a Propulsion Stage. It’s not clear whether it also contains life support consumables (as the Apollo Service Module did), though it does mention that the crew module itself has a LOX supply and fuel cells.
It definitely looks more sexy than Boeing’s design–they may be hoping that will help them as it did in X-33, but having that much L/D is a problem for the launch vehicle, because it will impart bending loads (for which it’s not designed) on it from the side force of the lift. It will be interesting to see how they explain this.