SpaceX Falcon Heavy Rocket To Carry 117,000 Pound Payloads In 2013

Mobile Magazine: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Rocket To Carry 117,000 Pound Payloads In 2013
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), a private company who plans to make Space exploration commercial, recently successfully launched the Falcon 9 rocket. Their most recent plan is to build the Falcon Heavy; the world’s largest rocket ever made capable of carrying a payload of 117,000 pounds.

What does SpaceX plan to load on the rocket and blast on up to space that weighs so much? Details are slim and vague at this point, they do mention “satellites” and also that “if allowed to compete, SpaceX can help the Department of Defense save at least one billion dollars annually in space launch services, while providing a truly independent family of vehicles to help assure access to space.”

The Falcon Heavy would chime in at $80 to $125 Million per launch and could roll out in late 2012 with a first launch coming as early as 2013.

PR: Renewal of a life and physical sciences research program at NASA

Renewal of a life and physical sciences research program at NASA could facilitate longer, farther human space missions
WASHINGTON ― By elevating its life and physical sciences research program, NASA could achieve the biological understanding and technical breakthroughs needed to allow humans to be sent deeper into space, including to Mars, says a new National Research Council report. In addition, access to the space environment -- for example, on the International Space Station -- will open up further opportunities for groundbreaking research in the physical and life sciences. The report, one of a series of decadal surveys that the Research Council has completed for NASA and the first on interdisciplinary life and physical sciences for exploration missions, lays out a research agenda for the next decade that could bring about developments with substantial payoffs for human exploration of space.

Several years of budgetary challenges and priority being given to other programs at NASA have left the life and physical sciences program dramatically reduced in both scale and scope, with no clear institutional home at the space agency, according to the committee that wrote the report. As a result NASA is now poorly positioned to take full advantage of the laboratory environment offered by the International Space Station.

Strong leadership with sufficient scientific gravitas is necessary to ensure that the life and physical sciences program has a voice at the table during deliberations about NASA priorities and resources and to highlight the central role that the life and physical sciences play in human exploration missions, the report says. It concludes that re-establishing the program under a single management structure housed in an appropriate part of the agency will be key to the program's success. In addition, a stable and adequate funding base is required to support a robust research program that attracts top scientists.

"A focused life and physical sciences program can make possible the achievements that bring the space community, policymakers, and the U.S. public to a realization that we are ready for the next significant phase of human space exploration," said the committee co-chair, Elizabeth Cantwell, director of mission development, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif.

For example, effective countermeasures are needed to offset the adverse effects of the space environment on the health and performance capabilities of astronauts on prolonged missions along with a deeper understanding of how gravity affects the human body. This type of information will be essential to realize extended space voyages like Mars missions or a potential base on the moon. In addition, astronauts on long missions would require the ability to collect or produce large amounts of water. Research in the physical and life sciences that yields game-changing discoveries like regenerative power sources would also help make deep space travel feasible.

According to the report, research to allow extended human space exploration will also offer terrestrial benefits. "Research in the life and physical sciences can enable space missions and, as a unique benefit, there is critical research that can in turn be enabled on Earth by access to space," said Wendy Kohrt, professor at the University of Colorado, Denver, and co-chair of the committee. "With the advantage of the space environment, we believe there is an opportunity to significantly advance fundamental scientific understanding."

The study was sponsored by NASA. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org.

With new rocket, SpaceX is poised to make a giant leap

Los Angeles Times: With new rocket, SpaceX is poised to make a giant leap
Work is quietly underway in the South Bay on a massive 22-story rocket whose power is rivaled in the U.S. only by the mighty Saturn V rocket, which took man to the moon, in a risky private venture that could herald a new era in space flight.

Dubbed Falcon Heavy, the 27-engine booster is being assembled by rocket maker Space Exploration Technologies Corp., or SpaceX, at its sprawling complex in Hawthorne where it has about 1,100 workers.

The rocket, which has twice the lifting capability of the next largest launcher built by a U.S. company, is being announced Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington.

"We're embarking on something that's unprecedented in the space industry," Elon Musk, the company's chief executive, told The Times. "This is territory that has only belonged to the U.S. government — with its tens of billions of dollars."

Musk's company is building the 227-foot-tall Falcon Heavy even though there are no guarantees that the military or NASA will step forward to pay for the rocket to lift its payloads — or even astronauts — into space someday.

SpaceX hopes to launch it in a demonstration flight from Vandenberg Air Force Base, northwest of Santa Barbara, at the end of next year.

The undertaking to be announced by Musk was hyped all last week on the Internet with a video laden with fiery blast-offs proclaiming "Something new is coming. 4.5.11." The 30-second clip highlighted SpaceX's recent launches, boasted that the work was done "at a fraction of the cost" and asked "What's next?"

The video and Tuesday's announcement underscored the unique role that SpaceX hopes to play in shaping the nation's future in space. Launches on the Falcon Heavy would cost from $80 million to $125 million. The company is paying for development costs of the rocket, Musk said, in anticipation that if it builds it, customers will come.

In December, SpaceX became the first private company to blast a spacecraft into Earth's orbit and have it return intact.

The unmanned flight was intended to show NASA that SpaceX could handle the task of carrying cargo into space.

With federal money in short supply, the U.S. government is expected to turn to private industry to play a bigger role in building rockets, carrying cargo, running space missions and possibly carrying astronauts to the International Space Station.

SpaceX's selling point is its low price per launch.

The approach has worked. NASA has already invested $298 million in seed money to help SpaceX develop and build its smaller nine-engine Falcon 9 rocket and its Dragon space capsule. The space agency has awarded the company a $1.6-billion contract to have SpaceX's Dragon transport cargo to the space station — with trips possibly starting later this year.

SpaceX has also signed lucrative deals with commercial satellite makers to lift their precious hardware into space. The company's backlog includes the largest commercial deal of its kind: a $492-million contract with telecommunications company Iridium Communications Inc. of McLean, Va.

"SpaceX has established credibility in the commercial market and with NASA," said Tim Farrar, president of consulting and research firm Telecom, Media & Finance Associates. "The Falcon Heavy is going to open more markets."

SpaceX does not have a contract with the Air Force, which handles communications and spy satellites launches, or the National Reconnaissance Office, the secretive federal umbrella agency that operates spy satellites.

Musk said the Falcon Heavy will change that.

"The Air Force has expressed interest," he said. "I'm very confident that we will have a deal by the time of the Falcon Heavy demo flight."

The Pentagon currently has only has one launch provider, United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co. The company's Delta IV Heavy is the vehicle that lifts its $1-billion satellites into space. It is the nation's largest unmanned rocket, capable of lifting a maximum payload of about 50,000 pounds into low earth orbit. Each rocket costs up to $275 million, the Federal Aviation Administration estimated.

The Falcon Heavy will give the Pentagon another option, Musk said, by being able to lift 117,000 pounds to low Earth orbit and sell for a fraction of the price, Musk said.

"There's no point in matching the competition," he said. "We want to steamroll them. We're trying to make this a complete no-brainer."

SpaceX said it can keep its costs down because it manufacturers almost all of its parts in-house, mostly in a complex in Hawthorne where fuselages for Boeing's 747 jumbo jet were once assembled.

Much like the early days of NASA, the company has a cadre of young engineers — the average age is in the early 30s — who work for a fraction of the salary they could make at larger aerospace companies. They work for SpaceX because it operates more like a Silicon Valley start-up than an entrenched rocket builder.

Visitors at SpaceX headquarters are more likely to see an engineer wearing a hoodie or a baseball cap than sporting horn-rimmed glasses and a crew cut.

That's by design. Musk, 39, came from the Silicon Valley. He started SpaceX after making a fortune when he sold online payment business PayPal Inc. in 2002. Armed with his personal fortune and venture capitalist contacts, he started SpaceX.

"The best and brightest want to work for them right out of school," said Jay Gullish, a space and telecommunications analyst at Futron Corp., a Bethesda, Md., firm. "They're doing things that in the private sector has never been done before."

Indeed. The last U.S.-built rocket more powerful than the Falcon Heavy was the Saturn V. At the time, rocket pioneer Wernher von Braun oversaw the development of NASA's Apollo missions. That rocket was 350 feet tall and had twice the lifting power of the Falcon Heavy.

Musk envisions a day when the Falcon Heavy not only launches satellites but also carries robots and astronauts to Mars.

"Other than the Saturn V, this is the most capable launcher in history," Musk said. "When this thing goes off, it will be pretty epic."

EU wants better space cooperation with China

EU wants better space cooperation with China
The European Union announced Monday that it wants to improve cooperation with China on space exploration and technology.

But one expert in the field said China is catching up quickly with the EU and should be regarded as an ever-stronger competitor in the field.

EU Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani said the space initiatives should become an integral part of EU foreign policy, making it all the more important to improve cooperation with China, which has a rapidly developing space policy.

Advertisement: Story continues below The EU said it wants to develop its links in the field of satellite navigation.

China launched its first manned flight in 2003 and plans an unmanned moon landing next year and a space station later. Within years, it has become a major player in space technology, while the EU has lost some its edge over protracted political haggling related to its Galileo satellite navigation system.

Now the European Commission wants to boost the industry again to increase economic output.

"Space is strategic for Europe's independence, job creation and competitiveness," Tajani said in Frascati, Italy. In his outline for the 27 EU member states, he called for outreach programs with "emerging space powers," specifically China.

After being an investment partner in Galileo, China has developed its own Beidou, or "Compass," navigation system and has been in conflict with the EU over radio frequency overlap. It is increasingly seen as a test of wills.

"We have had more competition than cooperation," said Jonathan Holslag, a research fellow at the Institute for Contemporary China Studies at the University of Brussels. "The Beidou initiative is extremely important. Their development is extremely fast, while the EU has been bogged down in administration and political games."

The EU does not want to back down though. Both the EU and France came out in defense of maintaining the European system and set it as a priority for the next years.

Even though Europe still has an edge in many areas, it also shows that international cooperation is necessary to secure its own future.

Currently, the EU space industry has euro5.4 billion ($7.7 billion) in revenue. The EU expects that the market for global satellite navigation systems will reach an annual global turnover of euro240 billion ($342 billion) in 10 years.

John Kelly: Set budget before criticism

John Kelly: Set budget before criticism

Congress is getting antsy about the future of human space exploration.

Some members, like our own Republican Congressman Bill Posey, are worried that the lack of clear guidance and funding for NASA is setting the United States' space program up to be a second-class organization in the world.

Consider what Posey had to say at a House subcommittee hearing last week in Washington:

"Our nation is critically near the tipping point of ceding our leadership in space exploration for our future generations, as many of you already know," Posey argued, according to a written transcript of his remarks to the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.

"Direction from NASA administration has been seriously lacking with respect to their goals. By failing to set priorities within NASA's budget, the administration has left NASA with no priorities.

"As a result, human spaceflight and exploration are suffering and the U.S. will be ceding its leadership in space to China and Russia.

"Should Congress fail to step in where the administration has left a leadership void we will be making an unacceptable compromise in our national security and lose economic and intangible benefits from our space program."

Hyperbole? Perhaps.

Overly dramatic? Maybe.

However, the continued lack of direction and specific funding attached to that direction is a major problem. It's not the White House's fault alone. Indeed, the White House has put forth a national space policy and proposed a budget for the nation's space agency. The Congress has since adopted a national space policy, which deviates from the White House's original proposal, but apparently in ways that President Barack Obama is on the record supporting in the interest of compromise.

NASA has not begun implementing the national space policy outlined in last fall's NASA Authorization Act for one specific reason -- it's not funded.

Congress has not set a federal budget. Language in the existing budget that continues being extended a little at a time actually directly contradicts guidance outlined in the space policy passed by Congress.

The questions for NASA leadership become: Which law are we to follow? The NASA Authorization Act or the federal budget? If NASA leaders opted to begin implementing the space policy Congress endorsed last fall would they be breaking the law by spending money outside what's approved in the federal budget?

The agency remains partly paralyzed by a lack of action by Congress, as much as anything else. Posey was trying to raise that concern with the members of the committee -- and the concerns are on the mark. NASA needs direction and a budget. Other members of Congress joined in the expression of outrage, pointing fingers at NASA leadership and the White House for not implementing the new space policy.

Why isn't NASA hurrying up to build the super-sized rocket that Congress wants developed? Why isn't NASA moving ahead with important decisions about how to achieve the goals it's been assigned? The chief reason is that Congress hasn't done its job and passed a federal budget to fund the policy put in place.

Fallen giant: The Soviet space industry

Ria Novosti, Features & Opinion Page: Fallen giant: The Soviet space industry

Ordinary Russians see little connection between space exploration and economics. If anything, they see expensive space programs as a permanent drain on the nation’s resources. Some are inclined to take it personally, as if the dark vacuum of space somehow sucked the money right out of their pockets.

Space is beyond the realm of the rational and, therefore, beyond the realm of economics. But Russia’s space program was built, in part, by ordinary Russians using ordinary steel. Space exploration was considered a national priority in the Soviet Union, with the funding to match. Elaborate production chains were set up, the necessary infrastructure was built, and state-of-the-art technologies were developed virtually from scratch. Aerospace specialists were paid stable salaries and received good housing, both of which were in short supply in the command economy of the Soviet Union. But it wasn’t just about the money for them. By their own account, they worked to experience the thrill of creative endeavor and to feel a sense of confidence about the future.

Three megaprojects, in particular, made an enormous contribution to the development of Soviet production and technical expertise. They were the three horses that pulled the Soviet troika into the future.

The nuclear project was managed by Igor Kurchatov, Igor Tamm and Yuly Khariton. The space rocket project was led by Sergei Korolyov, Valentin Glushko, Vladimir Chelomei and Mikhail Yangel. The aerospace defense project utilized surface-to-air missile systems developed by Pyotr Grushin and Lev Lyulyev, under the supervision of Alexander Raspletin. Anatoly Basistov and Grigory Kisunko helped create a missile-defense system around Moscow. Moreover, Aksel Berg and Alexander Mints contributed to the creation of over-the-horizon radar.

By the late 1940s, thirty years had passed since the Bolsheviks took power and set about transforming a largely agrarian country into an industrial power. Moreover, the Soviet Union had just emerged victorious from the most destructive war in history. But the three horses of the Soviet troika galloped ahead so fast that here was hardly any time to stop and admire the results. Enormous challenges were laid before Soviet scientists, and they proved themselves up to the task.

The existence of nuclear physicists in the Soviet Union was an open secret, but no one knew about the missile-defense specialists who had worked in secret since the 1950s until the collapse of the Soviet Union. In recent years, publications about their herculean efforts have begun to appear.
The Soviet space program symbolized the victory of brains and willpower over a seemingly insurmountable legacy of technical and economic backwardness under the tsars.

Last train to the sky
The Soviet space program was immensely popular. People followed news of new launches with rapt attention. Cosmonauts could not go anywhere without being recognized. Rocket and spacecraft designers were supposed to keep a low profile and inhabit their own private world. They even used pseudonyms to join the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

But the results of their work were hard not to notice. They merged technologies and established production chains at countless plants, research institutes, design bureaus and scientific associations. Affiliated companies sprung up all across the nation, from the Baltic republics to Russia’s Far East. Leading research and production facilities came and went, establishing various co-production arrangements in their own interests. Enterprises were built and commissioned, matter-of-factly manufacturing products unheard of only five years ago.

The government lavished money on the space industry. In return, it was supposed to stun the world with tangible results, regardless of the price.
As the years went by, this young and vibrant industry grew ossified. Its intellectual centers were covered over with a crust of “specialized agencies.” These centers fenced themselves off from rivals with “planned research subjects” and fancy titles like “lead project manager.” Designers were given state awards and prizes, while rank-and-file employees were rewarded with quarterly and annual bonuses. Intrigues were commonplace, causing heart attacks for the people involved. The entire design and production process involved hundreds of thousands of people operating machine-tools and working at drawing boards for decades on end. Everything changed, except that the Soviet state invariably paid for results, allowing people to devote themselves entirely to their work.

Anatoly Basistov, the father of the A-135 missile-defense system around Moscow, rebelled against the bureaucratic logic of the late 1970s. At the time, the general contractor was expected to request the maximum possible resources for its subordinate science-and-production agencies. Basistov told the Soviet leadership that he was unable to develop a system that would completely shield Moscow from nuclear warheads. Basistov was horrified to realize that if he said he could do it, the Politburo would provide him with however many billions from the budget, without giving second thought to what else the money could be used for.

Rocket-and-missile experts, radio electronic system designers and nuclear physicists lived in a world of unlimited responsibility for unlimited results, to be obtained using limited resources and under tough deadlines. They lived that way for decades, growing accustomed to walls separating them from the rest of the country. It would be blasphemy to say that they lived and worked in ideal conditions. It would be double blasphemy to claim that they did not realize that such work deprived the entire nation of something highly important. And it would be naïve to believe that this situation could continue indefinitely.

Much has already been said about the economic implications of the U.S. space program. There is no need to go into details here. Suffice it to recall Teflon and Velcro, which became household names. Both were by-products of the Apollo lunar program. The Soviet Union, in contrast, was capable of coming up with fantastic engineering solutions but cared little about their consumer value and possible civilian applications.

The Soviet Union turned its hi-tech industry into a deadly “blade” to accomplish just one objective. But the “blade” did not always serve as the extension of the economic “hand,” except when it was needed to create another defense-industry miracle.

Its capacity for working miracles disappeared in the 1990s when the colossal monolith crumbled along with the system that had spawned it, leaving a sea of bitterness and grudges in its wake, as well as nostalgia for a lost paradise for engineers and technicians.

A bad hangover
Imagine the shock when two or three generations of specialists, who were convinced that that they are the best of the best in the most advanced fields, suddenly see their situation change 180 degrees overnight.

After Russia embarked on the road to a market economy, these specialists were told that the country no longer needed their work, that too much had already been spent on them. They were also told that they had to adapt to the market system in the next five years, including by selling their products wherever they could.

You can turn a blind eye to technology, but you can’t abolish it completely. In 1993, the national aerospace industry asserted itself on the commercial space-launch market. It took the industry a lot of time and effort to adapt to the realities of the market economy, losing human resources, production facilities, experience, knowledge and hope in the process.

These strong and proud people had flown too close to the Sun, or rather they had brought the Sun too close to their pedestrian and sinful fellow humans. The fall of the aerospace industry was cruelly sobering after several decades of intoxication with the limitless possibilities afforded under the Soviet space program.

The seeds of the Soviet space industry’s tragic downfall had been sown in its very creation. It could not have been otherwise. Without those fatal flaws it would have never emerged, and would have failed to accomplish all those stunning feats that won respect world over.

Even the Soviet Union, with its supposedly developed socialist society, could not escape the Darwinist dialectic. Highly specialized “species” are unavoidably doomed to a bright, albeit brief, existence when the environment to which they were so perfectly adapted vanishes in an instant.

Brussels on mission to boost EU's role in space exploration

EurActiv: Brussels on mission to boost EU's role in space exploration
The European Commission will propose on Monday (4 April) to strengthen the EU's space policy with the aim of increasing the bloc's capability "to pursue independent missions".

Europe has already carried out autonomous exploration missions, such as Mars Express, which was launched in 2003 and is currently monitoring the Red Planet.

However, the EU's potential in this field is yet to be fully exploited, "because its actions are too piecemeal and because of the lack of linkage between space exploration and the political, economic and social challenges," according to draft Commission proposals obtained by EurActiv.

The document, approved this week by the College of the Commissioners, will be officially presented by EU Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani during a visit to the earth observation centre ESRIN, located near Rome.

Do what the Americans do

The EU's renewed interest in space will be pursued through "the development of essential technologies for exploration," in a bid to apply the benefits of technological development acquired from space projects to society as a whole, as the Americans usually do.

Energy, health and recycling are the sectors which the EU will identify as essential in exploration missions. Research in these fields will be carried out within the space industry but also by other relevant actors.

"Cross-fertilisation should be promoted with other sectors in order to benefit [...] citizens directly," the Commission paper reads, underscoring the benefits that such developments would bring in terms of EU industrial competitiveness.

EU's strategic expedition

Brussels also aims to widen European participation in the International Space Station, where a range of strategic experiments and observations are conducted.

Such a move would prompt increases in the number of people sent to the space station and generally herald more "independent access to space" for the EU. Ultimately, there will be an "increased European capability to pursue independent missions from Europe's space-port in Kourou," French Guyana, reads the Commission document.

Europe plays already a leading role in the strategic sector of satellite communication technologies, but in order to maintain this lead and to expand it to other space sub-sectors, research and industrial policy will have to be carefully developed.

Brussels wants to have an autonomous role in the key sector of launching technologies, both for manned and robotic missions, especially after the withdrawal of the US shuttle programme.

An entire market for space products should also be developed in the EU with the widespread participation of different actors, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), according to the Commission's plans.

Galileo and GMES

The Commission will present in 2011 a new legislative proposal on the EU's flagship space programme for satellite navigation, Galileo, and another on the satellite navigation project EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service), with the aim of ensuring that "the satellite constellation required to pursue these programmes is put in place in a reasonable amount of time".

EU transport ministers, gathered yesterday (31 March) in Brussels, underlined that Galileo's initial operational capability should begin in 2014 or 2015.

The GMES programme for monitoring the sea, land and air environment should also become "fully operational by 2014". "The overall aim is to strengthen the climate change component of the GMES programme," the Commission will say.

Space observation indeed plays a key role in analysing how the climate is evolving, allowing scientists to better adapt to predicted changes.

Security issue

The Commission will underline that the GMES programme for earth observation is also crucial for security purposes.

"This component must be enhanced," it will announce. The importance of such an instrument is particularly clear at a time when Europe is facing serious humanitarian emergencies at its borders.

GMES could indeed play a key role in monitoring borders, maritime surveillance, humanitarian aid, civil protection and offering wider support for the EU's external action.

Brussels is also offering to step up the role it plays in the overall security dimension of space policy, particularly by contributing to the development of new infrastructure.