Falcon IX from SpaceX

I am really busy planning a trip to a technical Interchange Meeting in San Diego real soon, but I couldn't let this go by. Here is the announcement:

SpaceX today announced its new launch vehicle, the Falcon 9, an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class vehicle. With up to a 17 ft (5.2 m) diameter fairing, Falcon 9 is capable of launching approximately 21,000 lbs (9,500 kg) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its medium configuration and 55,000 lbs (25,000 kg) to LEO in its heavy configuration, a lift capacity greater than any other launch vehicle. In the medium configuration, Falcon 9 is priced at $27 million per flight with a 12 ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 17 ft fairing. Prices include all launch range and third party insurance costs, making Falcon 9 the most cost efficient vehicle in its class worldwide.

Now you can look at RLV & Space Transport News or Selenian Boondocks for technical and political ramifications, but what I think is cool is the reuse Elon is getting. He is taking the same engine and material structures and making a little rocket, a medium rocket, and a heavy rocket. That is agile. (Bet you knew it would come around to that -djs)

Imagine if your car could be a tiny compact that gets 80mpg but when you need the power, you drop 8 more engines in and change out the cab and you have a 4x4 2 ton pickup. That is a handy engineering feat.

Update: 10:42pm CST - Daniel Schmelzer has some thoughts on the Falcon IX as well at Carried Away.

What did he say?

Only near a NASA field center could this be thought of as a bad thing. (from spacetoday.net)

The ranks of the spaceport's 14,500 workers could be slashed one-third in the next decade as NASA makes the transition -- a transition geared to safer and more reliable rockets that are cheaper and need fewer people to fly.

SpaceDev gets Agile Development

More Agile Space Development sightings:

In his interview with MSNBC, SpaceDev CEO Jim Benson says:

So right now, SpaceDev is more on the hardware side of developing the enabling technology, in terms of extremely high-performance, low-cost satellites. We've got a project right now at the Air Force Research Laboratory, that we call SSBT, small satellite bus technology. The whole purpose of this $750,000 program is to turn us loose in defining modular, plug-and-play, hardware- and software-oriented microsatellite buses. We are not only doing that, we are actually implementing it in our three Missile Defense Agency satellites.

These are truly plug and play. The subsystems will be interconnected with industry-standard interfaces Ethernet, USB and RS422, take your choice. Guess what operating system we're running under? Linux. It's free! We're writing object-oriented software modules like device drivers.

Also in talking about his Orbitial Dream Chaser craft:

So then we looked around for another existing designed vehicle with the right shape. We haven't announced which one or ones fit those criteria, but we did find something. We came up with what we think is a very simple and practical approach that requires no new technologies whatsoever. And that’s a big problem with most of these systems, is that they do require new technology. That becomes very expensive and very risky. Schedules tend to slip when you’re developing a new technology for a specific application. So we were very careful to design SpaceDev Dream Chaser around existing technology, and we simply scaled up our rocket motors to a larger size.

Now that is Agile. Go Jim!

There's some good news and some bad news...

NASA has finally settled on the inline shuttle derived HLV. Damn.

But on a lighter note, Virgin Galactic announced the development of SpaceShip 3, a suborbital version.

Well you gotta take the good with the bad, right?

--Update Aug 23, 2005 9:41am--

According to Nasawatch.com,

It would seem that multiple offices in the executive branch simply do not agree on key elements of what Griffin wants to do - and have serious problems with certain aspects - finances being the most important point of disagreement. Stay tuned.

Let's keep our fingers crossed for a more modular solution...

Agile at work in Space

This is agile at work. Using existing UDP/IP or SMTP (store and download like email) for the communications protocols for space missions. Duh! Why create a whole new comm networks for each mission when you can by a TCP/IP stack on any cellphone.

This is my agile argument for me:

After reinventing this wheel at least four times by the early 1990s, Hogie came to understand the power of the Internet Protocol. IP is the lingua franca for data communications. It's not just the way bits are packaged for transmission on the Internet but also how they are routed from machine to machine. As happens all the time on the Internet, two computer systems using wildly different hardware a Hewlett-Packard PDA and an IBM mainframe, say can pass the data back and forth, so long as they both speak IP.

And this should tell you something. With littlforethoughtht and now extra programming:

To prove how powerful this concept of using IP in space could be, the Goddard team set up a log-in accounta user name and a password for some colleagues at the Marshall Space Flight Center, in Huntsville, Ala., so they, too, could access the ill-fated shuttle's computer. Without a standard TCP/IP connection, Marshall might have had to commission someone like Hogie to write the software that would make the connections to give access to its engineers. But with TCP/IP, accessing the shuttle was as easy as using an AOL account. Once logged on, technicians could upload or download files, check the logs to see how the onboard server was running, or do anything else the staff at Goddard could do.

This is what agile (and common sense) can do for you.

Remembereber, the best solution is sometimes the hardest, but it is never the stupidest. (you can quote me on that :)

Thanks to Nasawatch.com and Keith Cowling for pointing out this article...

Happy Birthday to Me!

To anyone who is interested, today is my 30th birthday. So I will have chocolate cake with lemon icing, get a Ben Bova novel from my wife, and keep working on my article on Agile space development.

Agile Space Mission Development Part 1 - Quality Infrastructure

After my last post on Agile Space, I got to thinking, 'This could be more closely related that I originally thought" So, if my readers would indulge me, I would like to explore the usefulness of Agile Development in space. Comments are encouraged and appreciated.

In part one we are going to explore some of the tenets of what being Agile means. In the OO coding world, quality code has a number of attributes.

• Strong cohesion
• Loose Coupling
• Non-redundant
• Readable
• Correct

Great. So how does this affect space development. Well I think correct goes without saying. You mission has to be correct. Trajectories, thrust, weight, distance all has to be right. So move on to the less obvious mappings.

Cohesion is defined as how “closely the operations in a routine are related.”(1) Well, lets paraphrase that to “how closely the operations of a single module in a mission are related.” We will defer defining what is meant by a module until later. So clearly a module of a Lunar mission who's purpose was to send men into LEO would have strong cohesion. As oppose to one who's purpose was to transport people, cargo, and be a floating laboratory would have weak cohesion (djs: heard of a system like that :) . Based on my experience with software systems, Strong cohesion almost always makes software more flexible, as it is a more atomic unit. Just as a CXV type vehicle could be used in many types of missions, from ISS transport to docking with a deep space colony transport. So, I conclude that strong cohesion is useful to both software and space development.

Okay, what about loose coupling. coupling is defined as “the strength of a connection between two routines.” or put more simply, “Coupling describes how strongly a routine is related to other routines.” (1) So, to paraphrase, “the strength of a connection between two modules.” Hmm, so we want internal integrity with flexible relations between modules. Well that sounds good, but what does it mean for space.

If a module, such as an orbiting refuel tank, requires a module it interfaces with, such as a Lunar transport system, to have a certain way it stores the fuel it has tight coupling (bad). It means it would place detailed requirements of how any module who need to be refueled processed the fuel, thus limiting innovation. What we want is two modules who interface and don't “care” what the other module does with the “thing” that is transferred. That is loose coupling and it allows a module to be used with many different modules. Everyone just has to understand the interface. So again, I conclude that loose coupling is useful for both software and space development.

Non-redundancy may seem like a no brainier, but let's example it like good philosophers. Redundancy means more that one routine performing the same function. So in our Agile space world, more than one module performing the same function. That is a little harder, because we want some redundancy. We want more than one company offering launch services. We want more than one way to get to the moon. It's cheaper that way. But within a specific mission, what you don't want is a requirement for the modules to interface with different modules that do the same thing. If you have a refueling tank in LEO, why have a different one in Lunar orbit. If you can reuse a module, use it. This is the heart of Agile space development.

Let me know what you think so far. Part 2 coming later...

---------------------------------------------
1. McConnell, S., Code Complete: A Practical Handbook of Software Construction, Redmon: Microsoft Press, 1993.

SpaceDev continues to make money...

In case you missed it, SpaceDev just posted there second consecutive quarter of profits.

According to there Form 10-QSB filed August 15, 2005, SpaceDev make a net income of $110,938 or 5.8% margin. That makes $212,962 for the year.

Just FYI stock is spdv.ob and is sitting at around $1.50

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Agile Space Mission Development

Sorry I haven't been blogging for a while. No, I am not dead or in jail or anything bad. I got promoted and we hired a lot of new guys I had to bring up to speed this month, so what are you going to do. On to the subject at hand....

Jonathan Goff on his blog Silenian Boondocks, has a new post out on how NASA could do a moon mission in an open architecture, commercially supported fashion. As a quasi-libertarian (at least economically) I agree with his ideas. After reading his post, though, I see another reason for the light-launch, re-fuel in orbit, option.


Let me discuss software development methodologies for a moment. (All non-software engineering geeks bear with me). In the last decade or two, object-oriented development has brought for many ideas on how to create good software systems. First with Design Patterns based on Christopher Alexdander's brilliant "A Timeless Way of Building" which first proposed patterns in architecture. The "Gang of Four" as they are so affectionately referred to took that idea and wrote the foundation of OOD in the last decade, "Design
Pattern, Elements of Reusable-Object Oriented Software.”

Now, I don't know about your field, but in software development there is one constant, change. Requirements change, tests change, platforms change, even customers change. The traditional “Waterfall” method of development does not allow for change without a lot of gnashing of teeth. So various methods over the years have tried to retrofit the waterfall model with flexibility. Some of the more famous are spiral development, rapid prototyping, and the Rational Unified Process (or RUP). None of these expected change to happen, they just tried to make it easier to handle.

Then came Agile development. Agile development was the created with the idea that change isn't bad. It isn't good, it just is. It will happen, so why no design your system from the begging to be fast, light, and flexible.

Now I am not a rocket scientist, but I have noticed a lot of the same problems in rocketry as in software. Missions are planned years in advance with very little flexibility for future discoveries or technologies. Missions are designed for a specific goal with specific technologies for that mission.

How does agile affect this? I am advocating an Agile Space Mission methodology. What Johnathan proposes goes a long way towards that. Whether it is libertarian or not, it s flexible. Re-fueling in space is not limited to the Moon. Mars missions, asteroid missions, Europa missions, could all use this technology. Orbit assembly with light rockets would work with many different mission goals. But the important thing is, it is flexible and scalable enough to work with situations we haven't even though of yet. That is the beauty of Agile, change is built into the entire process.

Don't get me wrong, we need to have goals. Going somewhere is important, but don't limit your mission architecture when you know you are going somewhere else later on. Plan for change...

Manifesto for Agile Software Development

We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.

So it Begins (We hope)

Apparently, Mike Griffin's comments on buying ISS cargo service from a private enterprise has had some effect. According to the Press release, SpaceHAB is beginning development of a fully commercial roundtrip delivery service to LEO. This system will be called Apex. According to Michael E. Bain, COO of SpaceHAB,

"Not only is Apex a viable option for commercially re-supplying the International Space Station, . . . It is also a flexible system that can act as an in-space resource module providing power, data, and thermal support or serve as an unmanned orbiting laboratory that brings experiment results safely back to earth."

Well they may have had this in mind before Mr Griffin, but it couldn't have hurt.

SpaceHAB, for those of you who don't know, are known mainly for their pressurized modules that have flown on numerous NASA Shuttle flights. They don't currently have any information other than the press release on their website, but I will keep looking and let everyone know.

Just waiting to buy my ticket.

The Self-Esteem of Scientist

The AAS Statement on the Vision for Space explorationn is a lovely paper on how science needs to be at the center of the Vision. However they make a statement that makes my eyes cross.

Exploration without science is tourism.

So let us look at a list of "tourists" in the past.

• Lewis & Clark
• Christopher Columbus
  
• Neil Armstrong
• Ferdinand Magellan
• David Livingstone
• Vasco da Gama
• Marco Polo
• Ernest Shackleton

I find it interesting that Astronomers are telling us all what exploration is. Don't get me wrong, I love astronomy. It is not exploration, however. It is study, research, even just plain fun, but it is not exploration.


Scientist in general kept saying how important science is to any space exploration we do (or don't do). I am starting to think they have low self-esteem. Are they worried we are going off to other planets without them?

"NASA" Mars base in Utah

Is it just me, or does that "NASA" base in Utah look a lot like the Mars Societie's base. I mean If you run the video, take a look at the name on the Hab Module. It says "Mars Society Mars Base."

Either VOA is losing it, or NASA is claiming something not their own. More likely VOA is losing it.

NASA Creates Simulated Mars Base In Utah Desert Voice of America

Edurance Destiny

Space exploration isn't about science. (Let me repeat this for those of you who may be hyperventilating) Space Exploration/Colonization isn't about science.

Jonathan Goff has a new blog, Selenian Boondocks. He is giving Mike Griffin some tips with Your Focus Determines Your Path - SB - June.16.05

If you think that having a small McMurdo-on-the-Moon style lunar science base is space development, then your opinion on what is an ideal method to accomplish that will differ quite a bit from someone like me who doesn't see the moon as settled until there are dozens of settlements and hundreds of thousands of people living and working there.

Not bad. I have to go along with his position. I have heard it proposed to build an international science station on the Moon like Antarctica. Two words in that idea cause me heartburn, science and international.

Space Exploration/Colonization isn't about science. Exploring the new world wasn't about science. Opening the west wasn't about science. Marco Polo wasn't about science. Science is wonderful. Engineering is even better. Giving us room to roam is the best of all.

I know a lot people (particularly at the Planetary Society) are big on international cooperation. But I am here to tell you, international control of the Moon is a bad idea. Lets say the USA, Russia, and the EU jointly build a nice Moon base. John Q. Entrepreneur wants to move up and start a Helium-3 mining station. Well Russia & the EU don't want American industry to get defacto control over the Moon's Helium-3 mining so they block the proposal. Then the US retaliates when a Japanese company wants to do the same. Nothing would ever get done.

Now, with there three separate bases, when the US mining company sets up shop, Russia & Japan would simply send there own miners up there and compete. Now that sounds like a recipe for human (& capitalist) expansion.

How many people would give up the modern conveniences we are so proud of to work as a miner on the moon. I sure would. Most people I know would. Not everyone, but a lot of people. What does that tell you about priorities. How many people in the 18th and 19th century gave up the conveniences of the east coast to break new ground out west?

Manifest Destiny was a nineteenth century belief that the United States had a divinely-inspired mission to expand, particularly across the North American frontier towards the Pacific Ocean.

I propose we have a Manifest Destiny to live and adapt to every environment accessible to us. Whatever my old history professor said about Manifest Destiny, without it, would we have Silicon Valley? I don't know what effect solar system colonization will have on our society, but I have an unquenchable desire to find out, for better or worse.

Even more than that. This isn't just about nationalism, freedom, and capitalism expanding through the solar system, it is about survival. The most basic need of all humanity. This is Endurance Destiny. Humanity must endure. Why, you may ask. Because we will it to be so, and God wills it to be so, and we have the tools to make it happen.

"NASA is not about the 'Adventure of Human Space Exploration,' we are in the deadly serious business of saving the species. All Human Exploration's bottom line is about preserving our species over the long haul."
Astronaut John Young,"The Big Picture"

Oh My! This is a whole new industry

Some people at Florida may be getting it, I hope. I think private space is going to have a bigger economic impact than NASA in a shorter amount of time than many people think. An article in the Florida Today says:

And a flurry of private firms are on the verge of fielding rocket ships to take tourists on expensive joy rides that could be economic boons for the communities chosen to be their home ports.

They go on to quote Pam Dana, the Director of Florida's Department of Economic Development:

The state "wants to get beyond just a heavy reliance upon launches, but to capture a lot of the new [Private Space] activity,"

I hope it isn't just talk, since the more competition for all aspects of personal space flight, the cheaper and better it becomes. One thing is for damn sure,

"If we're going to add the unnecessary regulation and red tape to commercial launches, we're not getting any of them," said Bill Posey, a state senator from Rockledge.

T/Space Drop Test

T/Space and Scaled composites had a drop test of a scale Crew Transfer Vehicle (CXV).

The great thing about this is that it came from a mere $3M study contract from NASA. The T/Space team went from nothing to a scaled dropped test (which worked perfectly as far as I can tell) for 3 million dollars. Hello? Sadly, NASA would have spent $3M figuring out the name of the ship. (Thanks to HobbySpace-RLV)

Some hope from NASA

NASA has decided to buy parabolic flights from Zero-G corporation rather than running their own "Vomit Comet." I think this is a good sign. I wonder if I can buy a ticket for one of the astronauts flights...

Associate Space Press

Clark Lindsey has proposed a space syndicated press. I like it. Count Space Pragmatism in. Since UPI is dropping Robert Zimmerman and Irene Mona Klotz's columns, we need a space focus press. It would also keep me from having to search through countless web sites every morning for new stories. The Space Wire.

As Rand Simberg says, though, can we make money at it? Ain't that always the question...

Startup Rocket Companies

As a public service (and frankly just because I want to) I am going to start listing startup rocket companies I am contacted by. So starting with the one I am involved with.

Solar Skiff :

Solar Skiff is a company, a craft, and a concept. It is a simple idea to explore the Solar System with reusable spaceships manned by explorers and colonists from the planet Earth. The company, Solar Skiff, will help make this happen by building reusable single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) spaceplanes. The long-term goal is to develop versatile spaceships and associated mission architectures enabling routine manned spaceflight throughout the Solar System. You can take part in this adventure.

Microlaunachers:

The Wright Brothers were not at first trying to set up a business. They were trying to build an airplane.

Microlaunchers is an attempt at a third approach to developing space access: to, with miniature size and budget, develop a vertically integrated spacecraft launch/deployment system.

NASA and SpaceX

From SpaceX

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) today announced the signing of a Space Act Agreement with NASA regarding development of human spaceflight hardware. SpaceX and Johnson Space Center (JSC) will identify joint opportunities in pursuit of cost effective human spaceflight systems.

Lets hope for more fixed priced rides like the XCOR contract. Let's cross our fingers. Maybe Mike Griffin is going to get it after all...