The Rocket Racing League, Russian Moon Plans, NASA shuttle spending, and more NASA censorship are the talk of the community this morning.
In this morning’s The Space Review, Taylor Dinerman asks the question: Will the Rocket Racing League (described nicely over at Damn Interesting) benefit private space enterprise? He concludes that, while the RRL will not push the envelope in rocket technology, it will encourage the cheap production of reliable rocketry components. I think he fails to mention (probably because it’s speculative) that getting people excited about rockets is not that different from getting them excited about space. Therefore, if the RRL proves successful it will enhance the image of all rocketry, and therefore spaceflight. Right now, space attracts the scientists and dreamers, but were are the doers and the daredevils? Sure, there are some, but I think the RRL would do much to attract those people.
Also at TSR, Jim Oberg looks Energia’s moon base plans and concludes that the plans and the attendant coverage are a little overblown. After all, he notes that Energia is looking to sell rockets and spaceships, and what better way to do it than to claim that a functional 3He mining facility could be running by 2020. Oberg is a bit pessimistic about 3He fusion energy, though. He claims that it will be more difficult to do than conventional fusion energy, but this interview of Gerald Kulcinski (the leading proponent of 3He fusion energy) by Eric Hedman suggests otherwise. The reduction in radioactive wastes might also make 3He fusion much more economical than the tradition Deuterium-Tritium fusion being studied today.
Rob over at Out of the Cradle points out a blog entry by Clark Lindsey at Hobbyspace that notes that over the last three years, $13 billion has been spent on the shuttle for only two flights. Of course, this is not a direct comparison of the operating costs of the shuttle, but Clark does make the following important points:
* Elon Musk has spent about $100M so far on developing the line of SpaceX Falcon launchers. The first Falcon 9 launch is scheduled for 2007. He hasn’t said how much more money it will take to reach that launch but I doubt it could be more than another $100M.
* Kistler says it needs a few hundred million dollars to finish its fully reusable two stage K-1 vehicle.
* T/Space said it can build a CEV system capable of taking crews and cargo to the ISS for around $500M.
* LockMart once promised to build the VentureStar for $6B. If they had a 100% overrun that would still be less than $13B.
Yet another reason why we need to abandon the shuttle right now. We can figure out a different way to finish the ISS if need be, but the shuttle is damaging the image of manned spaceflight in this country, and sucking money from far more promising systems. Additionally, the Times has a great write up on Elon Musk and the challenges facing SpaceX in the years ahead. It also does a fine job of pointing out just how terrible Boeing and Lockheed Martin are at providing launch services.
Finally, Jeff Foust writes about the role that NASA’s Public Affairs Office is playing in writing official press releases. Apparently, the political hacks at the PAO are not only modifying press releases but falsely quoting NASA scientists as well. Here’s another reason to get some as important as manned space exploration out of the governments hands: inept political appointees. How do you know if you are inept? If you got your job with the sole qualification of raising a bunch of money for the boss, you’re probably a politically appointed hack. That means you George Deutsch. It’s time for you to resign.
Update: The FY’07 budget is out today, and preliminary details are discussed over at Space Politics. More detailed breakdowns will be out after the press conference today, but at first blush things look relatively good: big increases in exploration systems (i.e. CEV and HLV), small decreases in the Shuttle and ISS budgets (time for a more significant decrease, I think), and treading water elsewhere. In an environment of federal spending cutbacks, it looks like NASA may be spared.
