The U.S. space effort is changing course...maybe.

From an editorial at Hobbyspace:

The President signed off on a new national space transportation policy at the end of last year [summary available here, J.C.], and there's a lot to like in it. It formally gets rid of the mid-nineties division of labor that gave NASA a monopoly on reusable rocket development (which NASA proceeded to expensively botch) while confining DOD to expendables...It also mandates NASA develop new capabilities only where its needs can't be met by capabilities already in use in the defense or commercial sectors...

It says the US government "must provide sufficient and stable funding for acquisition of US space transportation capabilities in order to create a climate in which a robust space transportation industrial and technology base can flourish", and cites fundamental transformation of capabilities and capitalizing on the entrepreneurial spirit of the US private sector in that context, which implies that at least some share of the funding should go to the innovative startups.

Have we died and gone to heaven? Well, no, not exactly...But this policy allows for and by implication encourages a lot of smaller efforts, defense and commercial, outside the old-space megalith project complex. Mammals scurrying around under the dinosaurs' feet, if you will. And it does tell the dinosaurs NOT to go out of their way to step on the new arrivals...

Well, all that sounds encouraging. Government attempts to capitalize on entrepreneurial spirit are popping up all over the place.

If all goes well, we might see entities other than Boeing and Lockheed elbow their way to a place at the trough. That came out sounding harsher than I intended. I meant that smaller, more innovative firms now have more of a shot at grabbing some federal funding, allowing them to build some real, working hardware. The contenders are already jockeying for position. Let's check out a few.

First, t/space: Transformational Space Corp:

Competitive, markets-based space exploration
Transformational Space Corp. is designing for NASA a lunar exploration architecture and Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) for affordable Moon expeditions.

t/Space has gathered innovators dedicated to rapid prototyping of low-cost space vehicles, such as Gary Hudson and Bevin McKinney of AirLaunch LLC (creating a breakthrough low-cost launch vehicle for the Defense Dept.)and David Gump, former president of commercial space pioneer LunaCorp. Companies contributing to the t/Space effort include Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites.

The t/Space architecture being developed for NASA assigns all Earth-to-orbit services to the commercial sector. People, cargo and propellants for Moon expeditions will be delivered to low Earth orbit (LEO) by any company or nation with Earth-to-orbit capabilities.

Space-based CEVs will take on these payloads in LEO, and transit to the Moon accompanied by CEV-derived propellant tankers. After tanker refueling, CEVs will descend to the lunar surface, deliver their passengers and cargo, and return directly to LEO.

Warms the heart, doesn't it? I was a child of the 50's, and always feel a nagging frustration at how bloody LONG this is taking. I guess Gemini and Apollo spoiled me. The customary rocket pictures can be found here and here.

Next up, Lunar Transportation Systems:

Most of the concepts for lunar transportation architecture that are being considered today by NASA and the aerospace industry are based on decades of study of early spaceflight concepts. In our view these architectures are not an acceptable solution for a new lunar transportation system that will be required to support emerging lunar activities at reasonable cost. Genuine innovation is needed to achieve the goals of affordability and sustainability called for by the President.

LTS is developing a new lunar architecture concept that, we believe, is better suited for a state-of-the-art lunar transportation system. This architecture is characterized by modularity and extreme flexibility leading to reduced development cost and better evolvability. A hard look at this architecture will show that it enables NASA to meet its strategic objectives, including sending small payloads to the lunar surface in a few short years, sending larger payloads to the lunar surface in succeeding years, and sending crews to the Moon and back to the Earth by the middle of the next decade.

These rocket guys have such honeyed tongues. Good graphics departments, too. At age ten, I would drool over such stuff for hours. Hey, is that a tractor beam?

Sad to say, in the rocket business there's often a yawning gulf between the art department's visualizations and an actual, working vehicle. Our next contender, "Space Exploration Technologies" may not have lunar ambitions (yet), but they DO have something the others don't. Real hardware. Which will be ready to launch within months.

SpaceX is developing a family of launch vehicles intended to reduce the cost and increase the reliability of access to space ultimately by a factor of ten. The company officially began operations in June 2002 and is located in the heart of the aerospace industry in Southern California.

Our first two launch vehicle models, named Falcon I and Falcon V, are mostly reusable rockets capable of placing approximately 670 kg or 6,020 kg, respectively, into low Earth orbit. Falcon V is also capable of taking spacecraft to geosynchronous transfer orbit and escape velocity, and is unique in being the only American rocket with true engine out reliability.

The tenfold price reduction is for later. They hope to slash the price to LEO by two thirds, right out the gate. Their mantra? Reliability. In their own words....

Why do we believe Falcon is a high reliability design?

The vast majority of launch vehicle failures in the past two decades can be attributed to three causes: engine, stage separation and, to a much lesser degree, avionics failures. An analysis of launch failure history between 1980 and 1999 by Aerospace Corporation showed that 91% of known failures can be attributed to those subsystems.

Engine Reliability

It was with this in mind that we designed Falcon I to have the minimum number of engines. As a result, there is only one engine per stage and only one stage separation event – the minimum pragmatically possible number.

In the case of Falcon V, there are five first stage engines, but the vehicle is capable of sustaining an engine failure at any point in flight and still successfully completing its mission. This actually results in an even higher level of reliability than a single engine stage. The SpaceX five engine architecture is an improved version of that employed by the Saturn V Moon rocket, which had a flawless flight record despite losing an engine on two of its missions.

Another notable point is the SpaceX hold-before-release system – a capability required by commercial airplanes, but rarely seen on launch vehicles. After first stage engine start, the Falcon is held down and not released for flight until all propulsion and vehicle systems are confirmed to be operating normally. An automatic safe shut-down and unloading of propellant occurs if any off nominal conditions are detected.

Stage Separation Reliability

Here Falcon takes advantage of simplicity by having two stages and therefore only one stage separation event – the minimum practical number. There are never any strap-on boosters, which have been the root cause of many launch vehicle failures. Moreover, the stage separation bolts are all dual initiated, fully space qualified and have a zero failure track record in prior launch vehicles.

Avionics Reliability

Falcon V will have triple redundant flight computers and inertial navigation, with a GPS overlay for additional orbit insertion accuracy. We have gone the extra mile in building a first class avionics system to provide small and medium class satellites with the same avionics quality enjoyed by multi-billion dollar large satellites.

I'm not in the pay of SpaceX, honest, but I can't help getting a little of that old sense of wonder, looking at what they've accomplished. Cheap access to space is vital, not just to America, but to the world. NASA has had decades to get their act together, but persist in acting like what they are, a gigantic, spendthrift bureaucracy. It follows that we should applaud efforts to circumvent business as usual.

You may remember those wonderful old Heinlein "juvenile" novels. They were improbably good, and reading the following catapulted me right back into the mindset they fostered. I'm thinking of the first chapters of "Have Spacesuit-Will Travel" in particular.

First Stage

The primary structure is made of a space grade aluminum alloy in a patent pending, graduated monocoque, common bulkhead, flight pressure stabilized architecture developed by SpaceX. The design is a blend between a fully pressure stabilized design, such as Atlas II, and a heavier isogrid design, such as Delta II. As a result, we have been able to capture the mass efficiency of pressure stabilization, but avoid the ground handling difficulties of a structure unable to support its own weight.

Second Stage

The tank structure is made of aluminum-lithium, an alloy possessing the highest strength to weight ratio of any aluminum and currently used by the Space Shuttle External Tank. Although we intend to continue researching alternatives in the long term, for this particular application it has the lowest total system mass for any material we have examined, including liquid oxygen compatible super-alloys and composites.

The tanks are precision machined from thick plate with integral flanges and ports, minimizing the number of welds necessary. The major circumferential welds are all done by an automated welding machine, reducing the potential for error and ensuring consistent quality.

Perhaps that's more than you really wanted to know about modern boosters. A little human interest might be just the thing to provide some balance. Without further ado, we segue to an interview with Elon Musk, co-founder of Paypal and founder of SpaceX...

Hobbyspace: Can you think of any example where "standard practice" in the design and construction of launch vehicles is blatantly more expensive than the way you guys did it with the Falcon?

Musk: It's hard for me to comment definitively on "standard practice", as I have never worked for another aerospace company. However, based on stories I've heard, some of them sound like a Dilbert cartoon in real life. My approach is simply to seek out very talented people, ensure that the environment at SpaceX is as motivating & enjoyable as possible and establish clear & measurable objectives.

I think it is a mistake to hire huge numbers of people to get a complicated job done. Numbers will never compensate for talent in getting the right answer (two people who don't know something are no better than one), will tend to slow down progress and will make the task incredibly expensive. Also, a lot of aerospace senior managers seem to be really disassociated from and unable to do hard core engineering. I think that is a mistake and results in cloudy judgment on important technical issues -- they can't tell if something is really good or not, so they just do what everyone else does, assuming it to be the safe bet.

A second interview takes a stab at a more personal perspective. It's shorter too...

Native of: South Africa.

Left home: At age 17 to go to Kingston, Ontario, where he enrolled in Queen's University, "The Harvard of The North." Got by on part-time and summer jobs.

The reason: Avoid compulsory service in South Africa's apartheid army, fascist in his mind. But, "I'm very much pro-military when it is in the service of good."

Goal at the time: Come to the U.S. "It is where great things are possible. I am nauseatingly pro-American."

I'm keeping my fingers crossed. We need this technology, or something even better, and we need it yesterday.

"Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System" - Robert A. Heinlein