Privatization of Space

Industry has been a part of space flight for quite some time. Let us not forget the big role companies such as Boeing or Lockheed Martin play in space flight since decades. I was fortunate to visit the ULA factory in Decatur, Alabama this summer and I was honestly impressed. ULA – United Launch Alliance is a joined venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and it is the manufacturer of Delta II, Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V. I witnessed the manufacturing of both Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V on the factory floor at ULA and I could say that was state of the art work. ULA’s main customers are NRO, Air Force, and NASA of course, and they were sold out seven years in advance at the time I visited the factory. From this perspective, I found privatization of space flight really useful. I will not mention SpaceX in my post for this week because I simply do not consider SpaceX to be an example of a private company, with NASA funding 80% of its endeavors ($800 million).

I would say that privatization of space can be beneficial if a couple of factors are considered into this equation. First of all, the industry will never focus on ideals such as NASA did to beat the Soviet Union to the moon in the Sixties. The industry will always focus on profit only. As long as space flight could be profitable, private companies will jump in. Since I used as an example ULA, I would mention that such an endeavor is a recipe for success: ULA makes rockets, customers buy the rockets; ULA makes money, customers fulfill their needs.

Second of all, for space flight to be profitable on a large scale, the market must be expanded. At the moment, the market offered to commercial space is only transfer to ISS. However, rational investors will not put their money into this, because the market is too small and it will not last long enough. Here is where the role of government is important. For example, if NASA goes to the moon, something that could work better in the long run for the industry would be lunar cargo. Delivering only cargo to the moon, having no crew would also mean no risk, so private companies could develop their capability to deliver. The value of payload would lay in its location (the moon) and not the content, so they can risk losing it without any serious consequences. Lunar market would be big, governable, and long-term. Once the government goes to the moon, the industry can come up with many ideas: providing electricity, habitat etc., and therefore other and larger commercial activities could happen. But it is probably only a matter of time until such enterprises will occur.

Image source: spaceflight.com

Neil Armstrong speaks at AirVenture 2003

EAS “AirVenture 2003” Program, Oshkosh, Wisconsin —  100-Year Anniversary of Powered Flight

NASA Remembers Neil Armstrong

Kennedy's 'Moon Speech' Still Resonates 50 Years Later...

Some of the early design issues with reusable vehicles

Some of the early design issues with reusable vehicles, and that shown to be enormous challenges, were stability, control, aerodynamic heating and hypersonic flow fields [1]. X-1A and X-1B proved inadequate stability at Mach 2.44. At this speed, the aircraft diverged and spun to almost the impossibility of landing safely. X-2 experienced inadequacy of aerodynamic control at 126,200 feet altitude and a speed of Mach 3. The aircraft diverged out of control and it could not be recovered [2]. These control difficulties experienced by the early X-planes later led to thruster reaction pitch, yaw and roll, while aerodynamic heating issues led to the development of new alloys to stand up to high temperatures during the high speed flights [3] With the stability issues encountered by X-1 and X-2 at lower Mach speeds than expected, NACA suggested the replacement of the supersonic airfoil with a wedge shaped vertical tail. This kind of tail would give a higher maneuverability to control the vehicle if it diverged, as well as directional stability [4]. Such design changes (thruster reaction and wedge shape tail) would be implemented in the X-15 in order to achieve a speed of over Mach 3. To deal with the heat, designers chose a hot structure and the plane was meant to fly at the maximum heat tolerance of the alloys, which was expected to be around Mach 7. Although X-15 was designed to fly “fast and hot - the faster, the hotter, the better” [5], and not necessarily high, the X-15 managed to reach above the atmosphere. It was then noticed that over 200,000 feet altitude there was no more any kind of aerodynamic reaction control [6]. Despite the fact that human space flight was not yet considered at that time, another important issue discussed was reentry, both in regard to heating and stability.

---

Notes:

[1] Armstrong, Neil A. The X-15. Next Generation Suborbital Research Conference (NSRC), 2012. YouTube (accessed September 9, 2012).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Jenkins, Dennis R. Space Shuttle - The History of the National Space Transportation System. World Print Ltd, Hong Kong, 2010, 5.

[4] Ibid, 6.

[5] Armstrong, Neil A. The X-15. Next Generation Suborbital Research Conference (NSRC), 2012. (accessed September 9, 2012).

[6] Jenkins, Dennis R. Space Shuttle - The History of the National Space Transportation System. World Print Ltd, Hong Kong, 2010, 5.

---

References

Armstrong, Neil A. The X-15. Next Generation Suborbital Research Conference (NSRC), 2012.

Jenkins, Dennis R. Space Shuttle - The History of the National Space Transportation System. World Print Ltd, Hong Kong, 2010.

Vision for Space Exploration

Humans need to learn deep space travel, as well as living in space. There is no way around this if the species is to survive. Although such endeavors may still seem to be science-fiction, the ultimate scope of all these endeavors is the survival of the species by means of colonizing other celestial bodies. Exploring the Moon and Mars are definitely the correct destinations, and explain the reasons behind Visions of Space Exploration.

Visions of Space Exploration came in a moment of stagnation in the U.S. space program, with the goal to advance the scientific, security, and economic interests of the United States by the means of space exploration. [1] With the space shuttle fleet grounded for almost a year by the time Visions of Space Exploration was proposed, its immediate scope was to encourage the return of the STS to flight, complete the building of the ISS, and then retire the fleet. The larger scope of the President’s Vision was to propose the extension of robotic exploration in the solar system, but also extending human space flight by eventually returning to the Moon in 2015, and no later than 2020, and use the knowledge gained during the lunar missions to further travel to Mars and beyond. [2]

The main event that caused this aggressive and audacious change in the U.S. space policy was the Columbia accident in February of 2003. After this unfortunate event, some people suggested grounding the shuttle fleet until the fall of the same year. At that time, the lengthy grounding after the Challenger disaster was discussed, and NASA, underlined that a second suspension for a long period of time was not desirable. However the accident raised serious doubts about the viability of the shuttle, and some people asked for a definitive STS retirement. The President’s Visions of Space Exploration came as an encouragement to get going, and restart using the fleet. With an unfinished ISS in orbit and no spectacular plans for the space program, this vision was a necessary push. However, the shuttle remained initially grounded until 2005, and since problems occurred again during STS-114, the shuttle was grounded until 2006. [3]

Let us all remember the Sixties, and the impact that the short presidential deadline for landing a man on the moon and returning him safe to Earth had on the U.S. space program. Such pushes have proved to be very fruitful, and this is why the aggressive change intended by Visions of Space Exploration was necessary in times of stagnation. Crisis was overwhelming NASA in 2004. Having to deal with the aftermath of the Shuttle Columbia’s accident, with the only means to reach LEO grounded for unlimited time, unfinished business left in orbit with no means to reach it, and no plans for the future, the entire space program was in free fall. It seems to me that by proposing Visions of Space Exploration, the President hoped for a reinvigoration of the space program, and tried to re-bring the spirit of the Apollo program upfront. 

---

Notes:

[1] NASA. 2004. The Vision for Space Exploration, 5.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Launius, Roger, D. Frontiers of Space Exploration. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004, 55-56.

---

References

Launius, Roger, D. Frontiers of Space Exploration. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004.

NASA. 2004. The Vision for Space Exploration. https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/178054/Readings/NASAVisionforSpaceExploration.pdf (accessed April 5, 2012).

Launch Vehicles

The Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program was established in 1994 with the objective to lower the costs for payload deliveries, and contribute to the commercial launch systems. [1] X-33, developed by Lockheed Martin, and X-34, developed by Orbital Sciences Corporation were part of this initial program. However, they failed to meet both the financial and performance expectations. At that time, the program’s goal was to reduce the payload costs. The cost of a pound of payload on the STS was $10,000, and the new RLV’s were supposed to be able to carry a payload at $1000 per pound. [2] The RLV’s feature of caring out more missions is the low cost aspect of the program, since the same vehicle can perform multiple trips to the LEO and back to Earth. However, a vehicle capable to return to Earth and perform multiple missions is of course more expensive to build. RLVs can feature: full reusability of one stage and partial reusability of another stage (X-33, X-34), full reusability of one stage and expendable other stages (X-38), and partial reusability of one stage. [3] The Space Shuttle has been the most distinguished RLV. Its design phase began in the Sixties and it successfully operated for about thirty years. [4] Recently SpaceX has announced the attempt to produce a new RLV. SpaceX’s RLV will display a first burning stage that will detach and return to Earth by restarting the engines and landing vertically on the launch pad, as well as a second stage that will deliver the payload, and then return for a vertical landing. [5]

Expendable launch vehicles such as Lockheed Martin‘s Atlas, Boeing’s Delta IV, or Proton have no reusable components. The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) program was also designed to make space launch more affordable and reliable. [6] Delta IV is the most advanced rocket developed by Boeing, with capabilities to transport one or more payloads weighting from 9,480 to 28,620 lbs to GTOs, and over 50,000 lbs to LEOs, and can also launch to polar, sun-synchronous orbits, geosynchronous and geosynchronous orbits. The cost of one Delta IV launch is between $140 million and $170 million. [7] Falcon 9 is also a low cost expendable launch vehicle designed by SpaceX, and a much more cost-effective one. The $1.6 billion contract between NASA and SpaceX covers a minimum of 12 flights to the ISS. [8] The launch vehicles developed by SpaceX seem to have increased reliability and performance, and reduced cost by a factor of ten.  Falcon 9 is estimated to cost between 54 and 59.5 million dollars per flight. [9]

The U.S. space program should probably use the EELVs during this decade, mainly because they seem more reliable, and although the RLV’s may be lower cost in the long run, for the time being using the EELVs would be more cost-effective. An excellent RLV with an outstanding performance and profitable financially is yet to be designed, and while engineers and designers work on this, it is best to rely on expendable launch vehicles

---

Notes:

[1] NASA. Reusable LaunchVehicle. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1996/14.html (accessed March 29, 2012), para. 1

[2] GlobalSecurity.org. Reusable Launch Vehicle Program. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/rlv.htm (accessed March 28, 2012), para. 5-6.

[3] Federal Aviation Administration. REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS. http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/commercial_space/dev_concepts/media/98rlv.pdf (accessed March 28, 2012), 1.

[4] Ibid, 6.

[5] Rosenberg, Zach. SpaceX to build reusable launch vehicle. FlightGlobal. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/spacex-to-build-reusable-launch-vehicle-362729/ (accessed March 28, 2012), para. 2.

[6] Air Force Space Command. EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE. http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3643 (accessed March 28, 2012), para. 1.

[7] Boeing. Delta IV Overview. http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/delta4/delta4.htm (accessed March 28, 2012).

[8] SpaceX, Falcon 9 Overview, 2011. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php#falcon9_overview (accessed March 28, 2012).

[9] ORBCOMM, I. c., ORBCOMM and SpaceX Set Plans to Launch Satellites on Next Falcon 9 Launch. Business Wire. EBSCOhost (accessed March 28, 2012).

---

 References

Air Force Space Command. EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE. http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3643 (accessed March 28, 2012).

Boeing. Delta IV Overview. http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/delta4/delta4.htm (accessed March 28, 2012).

Federal Aviation Administration. REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS. http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/commercial_space/dev_concepts/media/98rlv.pdf (accessed March 28, 2012).

GlobalSecurity.org. Reusable Launch Vehicle Program. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/rlv.htm (accessed March 28, 2012).

NASA. Reusable Launch Vehicle. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1996/14.html (accessed March 29, 2012).

ORBCOMM, I. c., ORBCOMM and SpaceX Set Plans to Launch Satellites on Next Falcon 9 Launch. Business Wire. EBSCOhost (accessed March 28, 2012).

Competition and NASA

NASA was created due to the pressure of national defense, which in turn was generated by the tensions of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Simply put, the National Aeronautics and Space Act was a political maneuver and a power display in order to assure national security, and to demonstrate to the Soviets and the entire world the strength that lies behind the American spirit. [1] Tension increased in 1957 when the Russians launched Sputnik 1 to be the first man-made object to orbit the planet. This event generated a strong and acerb competition later known as the “space race”. The impact that Sputnik had on the American civilization was compared to the one of the Pearl Harbor disaster. Everything that came after the Sputnik event led to the formation of NASA. [2] Having the Russians starting the space race by being the first to launch was immediately seen as a catastrophe and failure of the entire nation. It created a feeling of inferiority and mediocrity, but it also stirred up ambition and perseverance. Besides this, having the Soviets up in the air, with reconnaissance capabilities, had thrown the American Administration into a state of paranoia. Despite the fact that national prestige was at stake, national security was even more important. With the Cold War involving all resources, from industry to military, and including space exploration, the launch of Sputnik represented a defeat. And to make things even worse, the American space program failed to launch Vanguard live in TV. This is the environment in which NASA was born. It could have been a panic reaction from President Eisenhower, but also an obvious desire to not only be a part of space exploration, but the a leader in the field. This kind of feeling is usually the foundation of a strong competition, and this is exactly what the space race turned out to be. It was the beginning of a long series of “firsts” in regard to space activities. Project Mercury was designed precisely to accomplish such “firsts”, making beating the Russians in the space race a national priority. In turn, the competition had a variety of benefits for the industry and the general public.

During the space race, defense-related industries, science and research in aviation and space experienced a significant development, creating a lot of jobs. At that time, one worker in seven owed his job to the military industry. The 1950s economic growth and prosperity in the United States was owed primarily to the fact that the Cold War brought a state of permanent mobilization, and therefore the necessity of increasing national security and defense. Federal money covered most of the research costs, offering corporations like IBM the possibility of researching the integrated circuits which brought the computer revolution, and later the high definition television, audio-video players and many other electronic gadgets. The United States’ GPD more than doubled during the 1950s, bringing a 25 percent rise in the individual income of the working Americans. [3] It is therefore fair to say that the Cold War has greatly helped the U.S. space industry.

---

Notes:

[1] NASA. 2005. "A Brief History of NASA," NASA online. Home page on-line. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/factsheet.htm (accessed March 22, 2012), para. 1.

[2] Kay, W.D. Defining NASA: The Historical Debate over the Agency's Mission. State University of New York Press, Albany, 2005, 44.

[3] Henretta, James A, and David Brody. “America: A Concise History, Volume II: Since 1877.” 4th ed., Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2010, 797.

---

References

Kay, W.D. Defining NASA: The Historical Debate over the Agency's Mission. State University of New York Press, Albany, 2005.

Henretta, James A, and David Brody. “America: A Concise History, Volume II: Since 1877.” 4th ed., Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2010.

NASA. 2005. "A Brief History of NASA," NASA online. Home page on-line. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/factsheet.htm (accessed March 22, 2012).