Category Archives: Exploration

Inspiration4: A Waste of Space Exploration

14 Tuesday Sep 2021

Posted by in Business, Ethics, Exploration, Politics, Public Image, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, Starlink, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I’m a supporter of space exploration. In fact, I believe that space exploration is the stimulus we need to advance our economy, our technology, and our educational systems. It’s an understatement to say I’m a fan of space exploration, but SpaceX’s latest public relations stunt, Inspiration4, is not space exploration. It’s a waste of space exploration.

A Soviet-style glorification campaign

Glorifying Them to Glorify SpaceX

One might have sympathy for the three passengers of the Inspiration4 crew that have been gifted the ride. They have had to endure countless posed photo sessions for SpaceX. They also have probably signed a confidentiality waiver that restricts them from making any statements without SpaceX’s approval.

However, they are getting a three-day joy ride in space. That is probably worth selling their souls for as a trade, but the winner in this bargain is SpaceX. 

Desperate For Attention

SpaceX has a major problem and it started in 2019. From 2012 to 2018, SpaceX was growing its customer payload business. In 2018, they had 21 launches for commercial or government customers. They also hadn’t had a failure in over two years. That changed in 2019 when they dropped to eleven customer payload launches.

SpaceX ramped up its Starlink program as customer contracts collapsed. Those launches were paid for by SpaceX but every booster landing kept them in the news. The next year they only had twelve customer-paid launches but SpaceX launched 14 Starlink missions. That gave them the appearance of being a successful for-profit company even though less than half of their launches were actually revenue-producing.

The Inspiration4 mission gives them three things they desperately need: 1) public attention, 2) another rocket launch to add to their tally and, 3) revenue.  SpaceX is playing out its role in a 70s-style movie as the dystopian corporation. It will do anything to look successful.   

Ah, Uhm,…Inspiration4 is…Ah, Important Because…

What the mission lacks is a reason to do it. Space.com writer Mike Wall wrote an article (Why SpaceX’s Inspiration4 Private Mission to Earth Orbit is so Important) this week attempting to explain the importance of the Inspiration4 mission. It was a hard sell.

Wall said that the mission hoped to raise $200 million for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. The billionaire Inspiration4 crew member Jared Isaacman has promised to put up $100 million to the charity. The rest of the money was to be raised through the raffle of two of the seats on Inspiration4 and donations. The seat raffle fell well short of its goal.

The article points out that this will be the first mission without a professional astronaut chaperoning the crew. From launch to splashdown, SpaceX will control the flight. Wall suggests that this will open the door for space tourism and then later admits:

Orbital space tourism will almost certainly be the exclusive province of the extremely wealthy for a long time to come…

He also notes that SpaceX will gain new clout as a space tourism company but in 16 paragraphs, Wall fails to make a convincing argument for the need of the mission. He suggests that we should all have a feel-good moment because of Inspiration4 and then begins his closing with a shrug:

We don’t know what our current moment will lead to.

Wall was attempting to be positive about the mission but the reality is that this mission is all about what is going on behind the curtain at SpaceX. It is a waste of space exploration.

SpaceX COO Shotwell: It’s the Fault of Those Pesky Space Lasers

27 Friday Aug 2021

Posted by in Business, Ethics, Exploration, NASA, Politicians, Public Image, Public Relations, Social Media Relations, Space, SpaceX, Starlink, Technology, US Space Program, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Shotwell and Space Lasers

On Monday, 24 August, SpaceX’s President/Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell felt the need to explain why SpaceX hasn’t had a Starlink mission since late May. Her response seemed to be taken from the playbook of Georgia’s Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene in 2018 when she suggested the cause of the wildfires in the West: It’s the fault of space lasers.

Taking a page from Marjorie Tayor Greene

Methinks the SpaceX Lady Doth Protest Too Much

At the 36th Annual Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Shotwell participated in a panel discussion about the pros and cons of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) technology. She volunteered that SpaceX has ‘paused’ the Starlink program. She said that the company has been struggling to launch Starlink missions because “…we wanted the next set to have the laser terminals on them…” 

This panel discussion was not to discuss why SpaceX has not launched a Starlink mission in three months (the last Starlink launch was 26 May) and considering the pain that the company goes through to craft their message, the acknowledgment of the problem and its cause, was not accidental. SpaceX is aware that their lack of appearance on the launch pad is not going unnoticed. 

“…Better-Than-Nothing Beta Service…”

Shotwell spent a good portion of her time on the panel offering excuses for SpaceX’s underperforming Starlink internet service. She noted that the beta program has been nothing to brag about, stating for those that hadn’t tried it, “…we’ve rolled out better-than-nothing beta service…”

Lowering expectations while patting themselves on the back is a strategy that SpaceX has developed into a fine art. The occasional self-deprecating comment to disarm any question of overstating the capabilities of their programs in the past or shortfalls in what they promised has won over many who see SpaceX as the darlings of space exploration.

Facts Ignored By Shotwell

Shotwell could have given several reasons for the three-month lag in SpaceX launches; however, her comments raise several questions about what is really happening with the company and Starlink.

One:  Lack of Flight-Ready Boosters

As of 1 July, SpaceX had eight usable boosters (1049, 1051, 1058, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, and 1067.) One of those boosters (1051) had completed the design limit of ten flights, but SpaceX mastermind Elon Musk had stated that implied that they would not refurbish boosters beyond the ten flights and would fly them until they break.

All of those boosters had flown a mission in either May or June. The average turnaround time for a Block 5 booster in 2021 is 95 days or roughly three months. Twice SpaceX’s turnaround time for a booster was 27 days; however, occurred early in the year. The turnaround time in the May and June missions all exceeded 60 days.

In addition, two of the boosters (1049 and 1051) were moved to Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) after their last flight. This added to the turnaround time.

Based on the turnaround history for SpaceX’s boosters, it would be extremely unlikely that they could have had any boosters ready for launch in July even though they tentatively scheduled booster 1049 to launch on a polar orbit launch for the Starlink satellite system.

Shotwell’s comment about the delay may be targeted toward that flight and the next polar orbit flight (Booster 1051?) from VSFB. It does not explain the total absence of all SpaceX launches in July and most of August.

Two:  Cheap Lasers Causing Problems?

In April of this year, Shotwell explained that the first prototype lasers had been too expensive and they were going with cheaper lasers for the next Starlink satellites.

The first ones that we flew were very expensive. The second round of technology that we flew was less expensive,” she said…A third generation of laser intersatellite links will start flying “in the next few months…being “much less expensive” than earlier versions.

Shotwell quoted in SpaceNews

Perhaps cheaper lasers are not a better solution?

Three:  Shotwell’s Credibility Gap

The Chief Operations Officer is either not always well informed or she is prone to exaggeration. In either case, she is not the most credible source of information on SpaceX. 

In May of 2019, she boasted that SpaceX would have three to seven Starlink missions and 18 to 21 other missions for 2019. For all of 2019, SpaceX had only two Starlink missions and eleven other missions for a total of thirteen. She projected twice the number of launches than SpaceX actually had in 2019…and she did it five months into the year.

Rocket launches are not a plan-on-a-Monday-launch-on-a-Friday type scenario. They involve years of planning and coordination with multiple players before the rocket engines ignite. Someone that is well informed should be able to know where each mission is in the process and how many of those missions will be ready for launch in the next few months. As Chief OPERATIONS Officer, it would seem her job would involve having a realistic idea of what was feasible in the current year.

In September of the same year, she said she hoped for 24 Starlink launches in 2020. SpaceX had only 14.

Four:  Starlink is a White Elephant Waiting to Die

While SpaceX continues to press the magic of Starlink’s future, the reality is that it is costing them big money to keep putting up satellites that can only be characterized as “better than nothing.”

Doing The Math

Currently, they have launched 28 missions resulting in about 1,700 Starlink satellites in orbit. The full constellation will be as many as 42,000 according to FCC documents. Each satellite has a lifespan of five years. That means that every five years SpaceX will have to replace all 42,000 satellites in the constellation.

Currently, the Falcon 9 can carry 60 satellites at a time. So, to replace the entire constellation every five years SpaceX will have to launch 700 Starlink missions every five years. That’s 140 launches every year or 11 launches per month to replace the expired satellites. 

SpaceX’s response to this is that they hope to launch as many as 400 satellites per mission on the Starship booster. That brings the numbers down but it is still will require 105 Starship missions every five years or 21 launches per year just to maintain the Starlink system. This doesn’t include the ongoing cost of the ground support systems.

The numbers just don’t add up. This is a system that will cost billions to operate and maintain even if they can improve the quality of the better than nothing service. 

To Be Fair

Shotwell didn’t necessarily lie about the reasons for the pause in Starlink launches. She mentioned lasers and a shortage of oxygen as the reasons for the three-month pause. Those excuses may be valid; however, Starlink’s problems are bigger than lasers or a lack of oxygen…but Shotwell doesn’t talk about that because it might end their flying Starlink circus.

Betelgeuse is NOT Collapsing, It’s Expanding [NOTE: THIS IS IN ERROR]

24 Friday Jan 2020

Posted by in Astronomy, Exploration, History, Photography, Science, Space, Universities

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[Author’s Note:  This article is in error. I somehow misread the information provided in the Astronomer’s Telegram post stating that the star was decreasing in size. I discovered the error a few days after I posted the article. Since the premise of the article is incorrect, the entire article can be disregarded. Rather than delete the article, I am posting this announcement and leaving the original article intact. I apologize for any confusion or misunderstanding this article may have caused.]

Betelgeuse Collapsing? Think Again

The buzz about Betelgeuse is about its sudden and historic fainting (dimming.) Those who have a knowledge of the star and of supernovas have received the news with anticipation. Is this the great moment of Betelgeuse going supernova? Many people already know that immediately before the supernova, the progenitor star (the original star before a supernova) collapses in on itself. Betelgeuse is dramatically dimming, so it must be collapsing. Not true. Betelgeuse is expanding.

Dimming and Expanding Betelgeuse on 22 January 2020

Expanding Betelgeuse

Betelgeuse is dimming, but it is also cooling. Down approximately 100°K (180°F) in the past four months. This is an issue of physics. Temperature increases with increased pressure and the temperature decreases as the pressure decreases. The collapsing mass of a star increases pressure and temperature [¹SEE:  Primer on Combined and Ideal Gas Laws below.] The expansion of a star would cause a decrease in temperature. Betelgeuse temperature is decreasing, therefore astronomers believe it is expanding, not collapsing.

…Betelgeuse is currently the coolest and least luminous yet observed. Since September 2019, the star’s temperature has decreased by ~100 K while its luminosity (inferred from the C-band/m-bol observations) has diminished by nearly 25%.

Edward F. Guinan and Richard J. Wasatonic
Posted in The Astronomer’s Telegram 20 January 2020

No Joy On A Neighborhood Supernova?

Does this mean that Betelgeuse is not about to go supernova? Nobody knows. This could be the last big push outward before the finale we’ve been anticipating. It could also be another step toward the end but not the last gasp of Betelgeuse.

Betelgeuse in the Orion constellation

It is unusual behavior and worthy of constant monitoring. This may be one part of the process that will help us understand the last days, weeks, months, and years of a supergiant red star. Stars don’t suddenly brighten or dim without reason and now we have the opportunity to discover something new and visibly intriguing about the process of a star’s death.

What’s happening? Something wonderful.

[¹Primer on Combined and Ideal Gas Laws ].]

Betelgeuse: Schrödinger’s Star

21 Tuesday Jan 2020

Posted by in Astronomy, Communication, Ethics, Exploration, Higher Education, History, Honor, Internet, Journalism, Religion, Science, Space, Technology, Universities

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Much Ado About Something

Some astronomers are taking a dim view of the fading light of Betelgeuse. Many are trying to dampen down reports of the star’s demise while not ruling out the possibility. The reality of science is that no one knows what is happening.

What are you doing, Betelgeuse?

A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to a Supernova

Betelgeuse is the hot topic in astronomy because it has been dramatically dimming or ‘fainting’ [SEE Graph 1.0.] In a period of three months, it has dropped from being the eleventh brightest star in the night sky to the twenty-third brightest. This fainting spell is significant because when a star goes supernova it rapidly collapses prior to the event.

Astronomers Edward Guinan, Richard Wasatonic (Villanova University,) and Thomas Calderwood (AAVSO) posted a notice on December 8th of the fainting of Betelgeuse that helped raise awareness of the event. The news media became aware of it and by late December the fainting of Betelgeuse was trending in public speculation of a spectacular doom for Betelgeuse.

Graph 1.0 – Betelgeuse fainting is historic (2018 to current)

A 645-Year-Old Notice

Because of the distance between Earth and Betelgeuse, we wouldn’t know of a supernova event until approximately 645 years after it happens. Our first indication would likely be through a sudden increase in neutrinos. The visual confirmation would occur a few hours later.

If Betelgeuse has gone supernova within the past ≈645 years, then an astronomer could say that Betelgeuse has both gone supernova and has not gone supernova. The delay creates a Schrödinger’s cat scenario. The truth is unknowable.

But astronomers remind us that it may be 100,000 years of more until Betelgeuse makes a stellar spectacle of itself and then abruptly ends its role of marking Orion’s armpit. Their impreciseness of the future of the star is due to a lack of observations of the behavior of progenitor stars (stars that end their life as a supernova) in the years, months, weeks, and days just prior to a supernova.

Betelgeuse is the armpit of Orion

Why Don’t Astronomers Know?

It’s been over 400 years since a star in the Milky Way was observed after it went supernova. That event, like almost every other supernova observation, occurred after the star exploded. Rarely have astronomers been forewarned of an impending explosion and in those cases, the warning has been a matter of hours prior to the event.

To make an accurate prediction of a supernova, we must have data to create a theoretical model of behavior preceding the collapse of the star. The model must be created by using mathematical formulas based on observable data. Without the math, a prediction is just an opinion.

In science, “We don’t know,” is the motivation to discover the truth, even if the truth contradicts the desires and opinions of the majority. At the core of every legitimate scientist is an unwavering desire to offer facts and not mislead others. Astronomers can’t, and shouldn’t, attempt to predict a supernova. “We don’t know,” is the correct answer and the general public has to accept that answer.

Unfortunately, most humans don’t like not knowing. Religions like to give absolute answers to questions even if the answer is unknown or even if it is 100% wrong. A scientist and/or scholar is governed by a higher power of truth. For scientists, not knowing the answer is what makes the process discovery so satisfying. 

The End of the Faint?

In the past week observations of the fainting of Betelgeuse have leveled off. This may indicate that Betelgeuse is about to begin increasing in brightness. It may also indicate the fainting is pausing, or it may indicate that there is no pause and next week astronomers will see a continued drop in brightness. No one knows. 

Graph 2.0 – Is the dimming leveling off in mid-January? (OCT 2019 to current)

My Answer To the Question

I am not a scholar in the field of astronomy so I can state my opinion about the situation. My opinion is that at some time in the past 645 years, Betelgeuse has gone supernova…and it hasn’t.

You have to love Schrödinger.

SpaceX Booster Crisis

13 Monday Jan 2020

Posted by in Business, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Layoff, Management Practices, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Reduction in Force, Space, SpaceX, Technology, The Tipping Point, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Missing SpaceX Boosters?

A rocket is required to achieve orbit. Without it, everything else is just talk. SpaceX is dependent on the Falcon 9 Block 5 SpaceX booster, but in 2019 their launch schedule decreased dramatically, in part, because of a lack of booster inventory. Nothing has changed for 2020 and, in fact, the situation may be worse.

The decline and fall of SpaceX’s launch schedule

SpaceX will have 13 (Space Flight Now,) 22+ (Space News,) or 33 (Wikipedia) launches in 2020 depending on what source is used. SpaceX’s President, CEO, and CIC (Cheerleader in Chief) Gwynne Shotwell claimed in September that her company will likely have two Starlink launches per month in 2020. This does not include the test launches required for human spaceflight, nor the paying customers already scheduled. 

The problem is that SpaceX doesn’t have enough boosters to come anywhere near the volume they brag about to the public.

In March of 2019, it was apparent that SpaceX was facing severe financial problems. A dramatic cut in SpaceX employees at their California rocket assembly plant in January of last year resulted in a drastic downsizing of booster production and launches for 2019.

SpaceX Booster Deficit:  It’s a Math Problem

SpaceX introduced the Block 5 Falcon 9 booster in May 2018. Six Block 5 boosters were used in ten launches in 2018 and five launches in 2019. Last year, after the layoffs, SpaceX put up seven new Block 5 boosters, four of which, (B1052, B1053, B1055, and B1057,) were specifically built for use in the Falcon Heavy configuration. The Falcon Heavy boosters have never been used on single booster launches. The three non-Falcon Heavy boosters were responsible for seven of the 13 SpaceX launches in 2019.

We’re almost through the hard math.

This means SpaceX has nine Block 5 boosters available. But they don’t.

Of the nine Block 5 boosters, 3 (B1047, B1050, and B1054) have been lost (sacrificed or destroyed.) Another booster (B1046) will be destroyed in the upcoming crew capsule abort test. One booster (B1051) hasn’t been seen since it left Vandenberg Airforce Base after its flight in June of last year. Two of the remaining boosters (B1048 and B1049) have been flown four times and one (B1056) three times.

This leaves one booster (B1059) with less than three flights use and one new booster (B1058) coming on online in 2020. SpaceX doesn’t have the inventory of boosters needed to accomplish even a moderate launch schedule this year.

SpaceX Exec:  Pay No Attention To Reality

In May of last year, the top executive of SpaceX either had no understanding of the company’s launch capabilities or publicly lied about the projected launch schedule. Shotwell said that SpaceX would have a total of 18 to 21 launches in 2019, not including the Starlink satellite launches. SpaceX had 13 total launches including two Starlink launches.

SpaceX CEO Gwynne Shotwell:  Doesn’t know how many rockets her company can launch

SpaceX had no major disasters or delays that would explain how Shotwell would overestimate the number of launches by over 150% with only seven months left in the year.

Fantasyland Scenarios

Elon Musk and SpaceX’s Shotwell have been known for their boasts of SpaceX’s future. In a conference call to the news media in 2018, Musk was quoted to say that the Block 5 Falcon 9 would be “…capable of at least 100 flights…” and they would be able to launch a Block 5 booster within 24 hours of recovery. He also said that all this would happen as early as 2019.

In July, Teslarati reported that SpaceX Vice President of Commercial Sales Jonathan Hofeller announced that by the end of 2019, they would launch a Block 5 booster for a fifth or sixth time. In the same article, the Musk fansite writer Eric Ralph calculated that SpaceX would launch an additional 12 to 19 times in the second half of 2019. 

Today, only two Block 5 boosters (B1048 and B1049) have been launched more than three times (B1046 is scheduled for its fourth launch on 18 January.) The ten-week turnaround time for the Block 5 boosters has also failed to meet Musk’s predictions of a 24-hour turnaround.

What is Possible For 2020?

In the short term, SpaceX has the booster capacity to launch six times in the first quarter if boosters B1048 and B1049 can be used a fifth time and if a new booster comes online before April. If not, then SpaceX would be hardpressed to launch four missions by the end of March.

Currently, only two missions have assigned boosters (B1046 for Dragon Inflight Abort test and B1058 for Dragon crewed test flight.) Without a booster assigned, it is unlikely that any other announced mission in January or February is feasible.

Musk has also claimed that the Block 5 booster can easily perform ten launches; however, as with his other claims, there is no reason to believe the Block 5 can survive the extreme temperatures and stress of ten launches and landings without a significant overhaul.

For the remainder of the year, SpaceX depends heavily on new boosters to keep flying as the current booster supply is almost exhausted.

Is SpaceX a Dead Program Walking?

Last year’s sudden layoff of 577 SpaceX employees indicated corporate financial trauma. That event was followed by an anemic 2019 launch schedule. Nine of those launches were for commercial customers, but one was a free launch because of a previous failed launch. Two launches were for test purposes and two were for the Starlink system that will not be revenue-producing until the satellite system is established and operational.

For 2020, the first five scheduled flights consist of two test flights and three non-revenue producing Starlink launches. SpaceX does have paying customer launches during 2020, but much of the schedule consists of Starlink or small customer satellites on RideShare launches.

In 2017, Musk confidently proclaimed that SpaceX would have 30 to 40 launches per year. That number was overstated and the company seems to be ‘filling in’ their launch schedule with straw customers that may not have the deep pockets SpaceX needs. They also seem to be offering deep discounts in order to attract customers.

The January 2019 layoff, the dramatic drop in launches in 2019, and the lack of Block 5 booster inventory would seem to indicate that SpaceX is in a desperate situation. 

Astrophysics Book Review – Space: 10 Things You Should Know

11 Friday Oct 2019

Posted by in Astronomy, Book Review, Communication, Education, Entertainment, Exploration, Higher Education, Information Technology, Internet, NASA, Passionate People, Photography, Print Media, review, Science, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Space, Technology, Traditional Media, Universities, Women, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Minding the Gap of Knowledge

Sharing the knowledge of scholars (e.g.; astrophysicists) with non-scholars is difficult. Astrophysics scholars have spent years obtaining a foundational understanding of the dynamics of our universe that is not obviously known to the public. They also have a working knowledge of special terms, acronyms, and highly cited authors. This creates a chasm with scholars on one side, who are advancing human knowledge, and non-scholars on the other side, unaware of the progress and activities of those in the field.

As scholars tend to be focused on their work and the work of their peers, it is rare to have a scholar attempt to bridge the chasm and help non-scholars have access to the secrets that have been uncovered and the challenges to be overcome. 

Dr. Becky Smethurst, astrophysics researcher, educator, YouTuber, and author

Dr. Rebecca Smethurst, or Dr. Becky as she is known on her YouTube channel, is one of those rare scholars who is diligently immersed in sharing new knowledge and discoveries in astrophysics with the public as she actively participates in furthering our understanding of it. In her new book, Space:  10 Things You Should Know, (2019) Dr. Smethurst continues to inform and enlighten us about what humans know and don’t know about the development of galaxies and the stars within them.

Review – Space:  10 Things You Should Know

Category:  Nonfiction, Science, Non-Textbook

UK/Europe Release: 5 September 2019 by Seven Dials Publishing
North America Release:  Summer 2020 by Ten Speed Press

Informative  ★★★★★
Relevancy  ★★★★★
Readability  ★★★★☆
Half-Life  ★★★☆☆
Expertise  ★★★★★
Visuals  ★☆☆☆☆

[Formats: Hardcover, Audio]

Dr. Smethurst has written multiple scholarly articles; however, this is her first book. It is a short, easy-to-read work of 10 chapters. Each chapter reveals information about our universe that may not be part of public awareness. 

The book is written in conversational language, not scholar-speak. It provides a basic knowledge of what we know about the formation of the universe, galaxies, and planets (including the Earth.) Amateur astronomers likely know most of this information, but Dr. Smethurst provides nuggets of new information that make the book worthwhile to read.

She begins with a view of how gravity is critical to how the universe functions. Because her work deals with supermassive black holes, Dr. Smethurst discusses what we know about black holes and theories of how supermassive black holes impact the galaxy they’re located in.

Dr. Becky also discusses Dark Matter, why scientists believe it is real, and what it means in the grand scheme of the universe. Two other chapters talk about the hunt for planets outside of our solar system and the practicality and current limitations of human space travel.

This book could serve as a unit in a middle or high school science class, but it is just as functional as a broad-based survey of current astrophysics knowledge for adults who can read above a sixth-grade level. As a first book by a doctorate-level scholar for consumption by the general public, it is brilliant.

As one might expect with a book of this nature, the subject matter is fleeting. As Dr. Smethurst states in her preface, “…science moves quickly…” Though this is not a textbook, it encounters the same problem as most textbooks in that research and discovery move forward while the printed book remains unchanged.

My projection is that the half-life of this is about seven to ten years. After that, about half of the information will become less relevant as new discoveries push astrophysics forward. That said, this book is certainly not a wasted effort and the need to persevere with updated information is critical.

If this book were a second or third book by this author I would expect to see a more expansive book and more visually stimulating. Both Carl Sagan and Brian Cox have used television and print to ignite a passion for science in the minds of the public. Their books are filled with images that help the reader to see science as a living entity filled with wonder and adventure.

Dr. Becky uses imagery extensively on her YouTube channel so it is likely that we can expect future books to have a greater visual element.

Still, as a first book, coupled with her YouTube work, Dr. Smethurst has built an impressive bridge to reach out to the public. As an active researcher, she offers a unique opportunity for non-scholars to access scientific information from a knowledgeable source rather than the entertainment-based news media.

Dr. Rebecca Smethurst is the one to keep a telescopic eye on.

Dr. Becky’s Astrophysics Work

Understanding The Life and Times of a Galaxy

In the last 100 years, our ability to visualize the stars has vastly improved but the galaxies we see today have changed very little in the past 10,000 years. Changes in the shape and location of a galaxy take millions of years to occur so what astronomers see today isn’t that much different than what they could have seen thousands of years ago.

What astrophysicists do know is the relative age of a galaxy. When we image a galaxy that is ten million light-years away we are seeing how it looked ten million years ago. By using the relative age of a galaxy and the characteristics of that galaxy, astrophysicists can identify group traits of similar galaxies and begin to understand how galaxies develop and eventually die.

The work of Dr. Smethurst has been to increase our understanding of the role of a galaxy’s core black hole (supermassive black hole) in the development of a galaxy and of its ability to establish new generations of stars. The current theory is that as the galaxy matures the core supermassive black hole sucks much of the free hydrogen out of the galaxy. Without an adequate source of hydrogen, the fuel for the formation of new stars is depleted and the galaxy becomes inactive. 

Dr. Smethurst’s Scholarly Astrophysics Linage

Dr. Smethurst’s advising faculty for her doctorate program was Dr. Chris Lintott. Since 2013, Dr. Lintott has been a co-presenter for the BBC’s enduring documentary astronomy television program, The Sky At Night and is a co-founder of Galaxy Zoo, an online crowdsourced project to engage the public in helping to categorize millions of galaxies for research purposes. Dr. Lintott’s advising faculty included the highly published and cited cosmologist Dr. Ofer Lahav.

Dr. Becky earned her Master’s degree in Physics with Astronomy at the University of Durham and her Doctorate degree in Astrophysics at the University of Oxford. Currently, she is a Junior Research Fellow at Christ Church College at Oxford University. Her focus is on studying galaxies and their interactions with their core supermassive black hole.

In 2014, [23 April 2014] Dr. Smethhurst was asked where she saw herself in five years. Her response was, “I’d look to reach the most amount of people as possible…to spread the word about the amazing things that people have no idea about.”

…to spread the word about the amazing things that people have no idea about…

Dr. Rebecca Smethurst – 23 April 2014

Now, five years later, Dr. Smethurst is achieving that goal through her new book, her YouTube channel, and her outreach work.  

Dr. Becky Smethurst

Dr. Becky on:

Sample of co-authored published work:

 

How a Layoff in January Can Impact an April Launch

05 Friday Apr 2019

Posted by in Business, Employee Retention, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Human Resources, jobs, labor, Layoff, Management Practices, NASA, Reduction in Force, Space, SpaceX, Technology, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

SpaceX has taught us all a valuable lesson. If you need five new boosters in March and April, it’s probably best to not cut ten percent of your workers in January. Three of those boosters were needed for this week’s first Block 5 Falcon Heavy launch. At least three delays of the static fire test have now pushed the launch back to next week at the earliest.

What a January layoff looks like in April

Layoff:  Cut Their Nose Off

SpaceX announced that they were laying off ten percent of their workforce in California, primarily at the rocket manufacturing plant. This came at a time when they would also be using five new Block 5 boosters for March and April. From a strategic and logistical perspective, it was a dumb move. It also indicates how bad things are at SpaceX.

Layoffs have three primary effects. First, they demoralize the workforce. When layoffs are announced, everyone lives in fear that he or she will be the one losing their job. Low morale is not usually associated with quality work. 

Second, the survivors of a layoff typically have to take on additional responsibilities. They are expected to work harder and more efficiently to make up for the workforce lost in the layoff.

Finally, layoffs tend to reduce the knowledge and skill base of the workforce. A layoff rarely allows the opportunity for the worker to pass on her or his knowledge to the survivors. Usually, the worker is called to human resources, given the goodbye speech, handed their final check, and escorted out the door.

A layoff is a bad idea at any time, but in an industry where there is no margin for error, it’s a nightmare.

Booster Shortfall?

The first Block 5 Booster was launched eleven months ago (B 1046.) Since then only six more have been launched. Seven boosters in 13 launches. Two of those seven have been lost. SpaceX was debuting a new booster at a pace just slightly greater than one a month before the layoff.

After the layoff, they needed five new Block 5 boosters in March and April, three of them for this week’s launch. Has SpaceX has been rushing to build Block 5 boosters with a workforce injured by a recent layoff?

Enter the Falcon Heavy Static Fire Test

SpaceX is silent on the this week’s static fire delays but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to suspect something is wrong with the Falcon Heavy rocket. Knowledgable sources said that the test would occur on Monday, then Wednesday, then Thursday, Now it’s supposed to happen today (Friday.)

The delays suggest that this is why you don’t lay off your workers in January when you need new boosters in March and April.

SpaceX Public Relations: Secrecy is Modus Operandi

04 Thursday Apr 2019

Posted by in Business, Communication, Communism, Conservatives, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Government Regulation, Management Practices, Mars, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

[UPDATE:  Eric Ralph, a writer for Telsalarti, posted an article saying that the Falcon Heavy launch was likely to be delayed and that it was “OK.” Again, Ralph is a knowledgable source but not an official source, so SpaceX is not accountable for the speculation. Source:  Teslarati 4 Apr 2019.]

SpaceX is scheduled to launch the new Block 5 version of the Falcon Heavy on Sunday (7 April) sometime between 6:36 PM and 8:35 PM EDT. We know this from an official source of information that was made available on 22 March. That information was not provided by SpaceX to the directly to the public. SpaceX reported it as required; however, if not for that requirement, the public would have no information on the time or date of the launch. The public is given the silent treatment while SpaceX collects billions in taxpayer dollars.


This tweet by Michael Baylor, a managing editor for NASASpaceflight.com and considered a highly knowledgeable source, was wrong. SpaceX has remained silent.

SpaceX Public Relations:  Code of Secrecy

Because SpaceX is a private company, they’re not required to tell the public anything,…and they don’t. This leads to speculation through other sources and that speculation works to their favor. By not making announcements about time or dates, they can’t be held responsible for delays. SpaceX avoids negative publicity by not being accountable to the public. The new reality of public relations in space exploration is that everything is on a need to know basis…and the public doesn’t need to know.

Prep for Falcon Heavy Static Fire Test…in 2018

Falcon Heavy Problems?

This week’s Block 5 Falcon Heavy debut is a prime example of how SpaceX uses secrecy to their advantage. Instead of informing the public, the public relations people at SpaceX are taking a low profile prior to the launch. No announcements, no tweets.

Speculation has been made that the static fire test (a short test-firing of the engines) would occur on Monday (1 April,) Wednesday (3 April,) and now Thursday (4 April.) [Sources:  Teslarati 28 Mar 2019 – E. Ralph, Spaceflight Now 1-3 Apr 2019 – S. Clark] Again, not from official sources, but by knowledgeable sources. This type of teasing drives SpaceX fans into a feeding frenzy of speculation, but SpaceX isn’t accountable for any of the speculation, regardless of how knowledgable the source.

This allows SpaceX to miss a projected date or time for the static fire test because they never said when the test would occur. It is likely that the information in the above tweet by Michael Baylor was accurate and something has happened to cause SpaceX to push back the static fire test, but they don’t have to reveal that to the public. They can keep the public guessing until it becomes obvious that the launch date and time will not be met.

This also allows SpaceX to minimize failure while wildly pronouncing a success. If the launch is a success, SpaceX will make public announcements with video of every positive aspect of the launch. If the Falcon Heavy launch fails SpaceX will likely cut video feeds to the public and wait several hours to form a carefully crafted explanation that will suggest the failure was an expected risk of a rocket launch. Then they will go silent.

This is what SpaceX did on the first Falcon Heavy (Block 4) launch when the booster core failed to land on the drone ship. The video feed was cut when the booster crashed near the ship and damaged the engines. SpaceX then didn’t confirm or deny what happened until several hours later, even though they had a continuous video of the event. [Source:  The Verge 6 Feb 2018 – L. Grush]

Why Should the Public Know?

Roughly half of SpaceX’s revenue has come from the taxpayers pocket. According to Sam Dunkovich, $5.5 billion of SpaceX $12 billion in launch contracts are from NASA or the U.S. military [Source:  RealClear Policy 2 Feb 2018.] SpaceX wouldn’t be in the space industry if it were not for the financial revenue it gains from the U.S. taxpayer. The first launch of a Block 5 Falcon Heavy is a significant milestone of how our money is being spent by this private company.

Space exploration has been a public concern since Soviet Russia launched Sputnik on 4 October 1957. The conservatives desire to privatize space exploration is at best an experiment and certainly is a one-sided political agenda. By withholding information from the taxpayers, the effectiveness of that political agenda cannot be fairly determined.

Secrecy in public relations is a Soviet model and not acceptable in the United States. Withholding information from the public to hide the true situation is still a lie. This is why private business is incapable of overseeing themselves and should be required to inform the public of their true activities and problems.  

Musk New Plan: Space Bridge to Mars

01 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by in April Fools Day, Business, Donald Trump, Exploration, Government, Mars, NASA, Space, SpaceX, Technology, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

[1 April 2019 – Hawthorne, California] Forget rockets, Elon Musk announced a major change in his goal to colonize Mars: Build a space bridge with a 3D printer. Musk latest Tweet indicates he’s serious with a prototype by the end of this Summer.

Space Bridge Starts Twitter Storm

Reaction on Twitter was quick and enthusiastic.

But there were a few who had doubts:

But SpaceX fans quickly shot down the naysayers:

Another SpaceX fan quickly put up a professional artist’s rendering of what the space bridge and 3D printer might look like:

NASA All For Space Bridge

Coming out from an outdoor meeting with President Donald Trump at the Mar-a-Largo Club, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said,

This is exactly why we need business thinkers and wealthy people running NASA! This is the type of out-of-the-box thinking that scientists and engineers would reject before we’ve had a few billion tax dollars spent by private companies to try and make it work.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine

Bridenstine also indicated that Trump would declare a national emergency to get the funding for the space bridge. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders allegedly mumbled in the women’s bathroom at Mar-a-Largo Club that someone might, someday, issue a press briefing regarding the Space Bridge, maybe.

The online space news site, Space.com immediately posted an article praising Musk for his vision and wisdom. Space.com Senior Editor Ima Dunsel said, “We have no evidence of superior beings, but with Elon Musk, who needs them?” Other online space news sites voiced similar praises for Musk’s idea. 

It is as yet unclear as to what material would be used for the bridge, but as one SpaceX fan put it, “There is no doubt that SpaceX will get this done.” Another tweet suggested that other space corporations should, “…just die now and get it over with..,” as SpaceX has trumped them all.

No Pressure, But If the Falcon Heavy Fails, So Does SpaceX

31 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by in Business, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Human Resources, jobs, labor, Management Practices, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Science Fiction, Space, SpaceX, Technology, The Tipping Point, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SpaceX has put themselves in a corner. Next week’s launch of the new Block 5 Falcon Heavy has to go almost flawlessly or much, if not all, of what they have will go down in flames with the rocket.

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Ignition

SpaceX’s Financial State

SpaceX played a risky game last year focusing on making money in commercial launches. That should have been a big boost to their revenue stream, but in January they announced layoffs. SpaceX also announced a sudden cut in the number of launches in 2019. [Source:  Business Insider 21 Jan 2019 – Dave Mosher] That might indicate that SpaceX was offering bargain prices to its customers to land contracts but losing money in the process.

One line in a statement made to Business Insider by a SpaceX representative regarding the layoffs is telling:

This action is taken only due to the extraordinarily difficult challenges ahead and would not otherwise be necessary.

SpaceX Statement

Taken at face value, SpaceX’s rationale for the massive layoffs in its rocket manufacturing division sounds like a proactive business strategy, but why be so forceful in the justification? They insist that the “only” reason for the layoffs is for the “challenges ahead.” SpaceX then repeats itself at the end of the sentence by saying, “and would not otherwise be necessary.”

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Upper Booster Engulfed

The Organization Doth Protest Too Much

The defensiveness of the statement indicates that the layoffs are necessary because SpaceX is already in trouble. By saying the layoffs were to prepare for a grim future, they may have confirmed that they were a reactionary, not proactive move. 

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Entire Rocket/Pad Engulfed

The Falcon Heavey Gambit

Up to now, SpaceX has landed customers on bargain pricing, but it is likely that they desperately need to attract customers that can pay top dollar. Enter the U.S. military. SpaceX has yet to gain the full confidence of the U.S. Air Force for their military satellites. Elon Musk may have thought that one successful launch using the old Block 4 boosters would have the U.S. military eating out of their hand, but that didn’t happen.

Now SpaceX desperately needs another spectacular success of the Falcon Heavy to convince those with deep pockets that their bird is equal or better than the competition.

But what if the next Falcon Heavy launch is a failure?

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Upper Stage with payload fall to the ground

What’s at Risk for SpaceX

It is unlikely that SpaceX will experience the worst-case scenario of the complete loss of the Falcon Heavy and its Arabsat 6A satellite, but what would happen if the nightmare happened?

No space cred for the Falcon Heavy. The Falcon Heavy would not be in consideration for heavy-lift payloads by the military, nor private customers at any price.

No human-rating cred for Block 5 redesign. NASA requires seven successful launches of the Block 5 booster without a significant redesign to gain a human rating. The 15 November 2018 launch of Booster 1047 was the first with newly designed tanks. Since then, SpaceX has had six launches with the new design. The Falcon Heavy would be the seventh launch. Failure would mean another delay in obtaining the human rating for the Block 5 booster.  

Loss of two Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters and one Block 5 core. The two side boosters would be the biggest loss. They are planned to be reused on the next Falcon Heavy flight in July. That flight would have to be delayed for months and SpaceX can’t afford that delay. Remember that layoff? That hit the rocket manufacturing plant the hardest.

More expense with no revenue. Insurance would cover most, if not all, of the loss of the vehicle, but it’s not going to provide more revenue. More cuts would have to follow, pushing back the launch schedule even farther.

Loss of pad, more delays. It would be bad if SpaceX lost the vehicle in flight, but in the worst-case scenario, the loss would occur on the pad. It could be a year or more to rebuild the launch pad. The destruction of the pad and the two side boosters would bring into question whether SpaceX could make the contracted cargo deliveries to the ISS.

Testing of the Dragon 2 crew capsule flights would be jeopardized. If the April launch of the Falcon Heavy fails, Boeing would probably be able to coast into NASA’s crew capsule contract.

Enough Pessimism, What If the Falcon Heavy Flies!

A win for SpaceX would be a successful launch and recovery of at least the two side boosters, but that only buys them three months. The April Falcon Heavy launch is Act I of a two-act play. Act II is a follow-up flight in July of the Falcon Heavy reusing the two side boosters from the April launch. Part of the show is to demonstrate that the boosters can be turned around and relaunched in a matter of weeks.

The U.S. Air Force may give SpaceX a heavy-lift contract even before the July flight of the Falcon Heavy; however, it is likely that they will negotiate a below market price and it may be contingent on both the April and July flights meeting all expectations.

False Bravado

Less than a year ago Elon Musk was boasting that in 2019, SpaceX would have a 24-hour turnaround on a Block 5 booster. [Source: NASASpaceflight.com 17 May 2018 – Michael Baylor] Eight months later SpaceX was cutting their labor force by ten percent. Rather than two launches of the same booster in 24 hours, this year SpaceX is struggling to have more than one launch per month. 

SpaceX fans worship Elon Musk’s great vision but there is a fine line between vision and false bravado. Musk is known to continually overstep that line. Now one misstep with next week’s Falcon Heavy launch and SpaceX is risking a lot more than the loss of one satellite.

Is Space.com a Soviet-Style News Agency for SpaceX

29 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Business, Communication, Communism, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, jobs, Journalism, labor, Management Practices, Marketing, Mars, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Science Fiction, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Space.com is in love. They are head-over-heels in love with SpaceX. Reading the articles posted by Space.com writers one might think that SpaceX has already landed on Mars, colonized the Moon, and cured the common cold. It’s not that Space.com writers present false information about SpaceX, it’s just that they tend to overlook…well, almost everything negative.

This style of almost compulsory cheerleading of SpaceX by an alleged news source is reminiscent of the type of reporting from the Soviet days of TASS (Telegrafnoye agentstvo Sovetskogo Soyuza,) Russia’s official news source. From 1925 to 1992, Soviet intelligence agencies often used TASS to put out positive news and disinformation, including crafted stories praising the Soviet space program. For decades, TASS was the mouthpiece for the Soviet government reminding Soviet citizens that the Soviet government was always correct even when they were wrong.

A Fake Starship Prototype?

Space.com demonstrates the Soviet-like reporting in one of its latest articles on SpaceX. Writer Lee Cavendish published an article [Space.com 29 Mar 2019] that gushed about SpaceX’s Starship Hopper. He began his piece as follows:

SpaceX continues to amaze in popularizing space exploration. Not only is it doing fantastic work in reaching and exploring space…

Lee Cavendish for Space.com

For his article, he used this artist’s rendering of the Starship…

Artists rendering of SpaceX’s Starship used by Space.com

However, this is what the actual craft looked like at the test site in January before the top blew off in the wind…

…and this is what it looked like after it fall down, go boom….

…and finally, this is what it looked like for this week’s tests:

A test of a Starship, or a silo with legs?

It’s understandable why the artist’s rendering was used and not images of the real thing. SpaceX didn’t even bother to put the top half of the Starship back on for the test.

Not an expert, but doesn’t that seem to be a wimpy propulsion system?

Close-ups of the bottom of the Starship would indicate that almost no effort was put into making this ‘prototype’ anything but a show for the public. From top to bottom this doesn’t look like anything that can get off the ground, which is may be why Space.com used an artist’s rendering.

Is Space.com Ignoring the Problems?

SpaceX has glaring problems and yet, Space.com has nothing but praise for the company. This week I wrote two articles detailing their problems (SpaceX’s Implosion and SpaceX 2019 Launch Schedule Realities] and yet, space-focused media outlets like Space.com seem to have a blind eye regarding the issues that seem to be obvious.

Among the issues that seem to be ignored are:

  • Hidden costs of relanding the boosters (30% fuel reserved for relanding reducing lift capacity, cost of boosters built for reentry and landing, cost of maintaining an ocean landing pad, costs of launch delays because of weather conditions at the ocean landing pad, cost of transportation of reused booster, costs of refurbishment of a booster, etc.)
  • Reduction of 10% of their workers when they should be expanding
  • Failure to test a Block 5 version of the Falcon Heavy before launching for a paying customer
  • A lack of progress on Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy testing for most of 2018
  • Drastic reduction in 2019 launch schedule
  • Significantly underpricing the cost of a mission while apparently in a financial crisis
  • A silly prototype test of the SpaceX Starship
  • Overhyping an unmanned test of the Dragon 2 crew capsule that was essentially a mimic of a cargo delivery to the International Space Station (ISS)

Space.com:  SpaceX’s Public Relations Team

Instead, Space.com publishes an unending series of articles that 1) sing praises of SpaceX, 2) seem to be expanded versions of a SpaceX public service announcement, and/or 3) are based on an Elon Musk Tweet. At times the articles cover the same topic as reported by another Space.com writer or sometimes the same writer will cover the same topic, only days apart.

Below is a list of articles that Space.com has published regarding SpaceX in the last 35 days:

  1. Meet SpaceX’s Starship Hopper [Space.com 29 Mar 2019 – Lee Cavendish]
  2. SpaceX’s Hexagon Tiles for Starship Heat Shield Pass Fiery Test [Space.com 22 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  3. You Can Watch SpaceX’s Starship Hopper Tests Live Via a South Texas Surf School [Space.com 22 Mar 2019 – Sarah Lewin]
  4. SpaceX Preparing to Begin Starship Hopper Tests [Space.com 18 Mar 2019 – Jeff Foust]
  5. SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Megarocket to Fly 1st Commercial Mission in April: Report [Space.com 18 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  6. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Demo-1 Test Flight in Pictures [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Hanneke Weitering]
  7. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Looks Just Like a Toasted Marshmallow After Fiery Re-Entry [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  8. SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down in Atlantic to Cap Historic Test Flight [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  9. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Success Heralds ‘New Era’ in Spaceflight [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  10. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Left Its ‘Little Earth’ Behind on Space Station [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Hanneke Weitering]
  11. SpaceX Crew Dragon Re-Entry May Be Visible Over Some of Eastern US [Space.com 7 Mar 2019 – Joe Rao]
  12. Astronauts Pack Up SpaceX’s Crew Dragon for Return to Earth [Space.com 7 Mar 2019 – Meghan Bartels]
  13. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Homecoming Friday May Be Toughest Part of Its Mission [Space.com 6 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  14. VP Mike Pence Hails SpaceX Crew Dragon Success at Space Station [Space.com 6 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  15. ‘Little Earth’ on SpaceX Crew Dragon Gives Boost to Celestial Buddies [Space.com 4 Mar 2019 – Robert Z. Pearlman]
  16. New ‘Celestial Buddies’ Earth Plush Is Even Cooler than SpaceX’s ‘Zero-G Indicator’ [Space.com 4 Mar 2019 – Kasandra Brabaw]
  17. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Docks at Space Station for First Time [Space.com 3 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  18. Trump Hails SpaceX Crew Dragon Launch, Says NASA’s ‘Rocking Again’ [Space.com 3 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  19. SpaceX Adds Adorable ‘Zero-G Indicator’ Inside the Crew Dragon [Space.com 2 Mar 2019 – Hanneke Weitering]
  20. Elon Musk Was Emotionally Wrecked by SpaceX’s 1st Crew Dragon Launch Success — But In A Good Way [Space.com 2 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  21. SpaceX Crew Dragon Launch Heralds ‘New Era in Spaceflight,’ NASA Chief Says [Space.com 2 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  22. With SpaceX and Boeing, Commercial Crew Launches Will Boost Space Station Science [Space.com 1 Mar 2019 – Meghan Bartels]
  23. It’s Just About ‘Go’ Time for SpaceX’s 1st Crew Dragon Spaceship [Space.com 28 Feb 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  24. SpaceX Is Launching a Spacesuit-Clad Dummy on 1st Crew Dragon [Space.com 27 Feb 2019 – Mike Wall]
  25. NASA, SpaceX ‘Go’ for 1st Crew Dragon Test Flight on March 2 [Space.com 23 Feb 2019 – Mike Wall]

Why?

The question is why? Why do Space.com writers seem like they are part of a Soviet-style news agency? One reason is that perhaps they are just fans of SpaceX and Space.com has become a SpaceX fansite. Another possibility is that their access to information regarding SpaceX is conditional on cooperation with the company. It may be as simple as an article that is critical of SpaceX will result in he or she being blacklisted. Maybe the writers are enamored with and afraid of SpaceX at the same time.

Regardless, it would seem that Space.com is not a reliable source of unbiased information. In 2003, Space.com won an award from the Online Journalism Association for coverage of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. That was over 15 years ago. Maybe they haven’t won another award because they actually have to do journalism to be considered.

SpaceX 2019 Launch Schedule Realities

28 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by in Communication, Communism, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Management Practices, Marketing, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, Technology, The Tipping Point, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SpaceX Retreating Launch Schedule

SpaceX has had three successful launches so far this year. The problem is that one launch per month is a major retreat from the 21 launches it had in 2018. Looking forward, SpaceX next three quarters will not improve. Based on the available information they will only attempt ten more launches before the end of the year.

[NOTE:  This is a follow-up story to Tuesday’s article – SpaceX Implosion]

The One and Only: The 1st and last Falcon Heavy launch one year ago

Soviet Style Space Program…Everything is on a Need To Know Basis

Much like to old Soviet Space program, SpaceX avoids making public announcements regarding its launch plans. On its website, SpaceX lists the contracts it has by the customer or satellite name in alphabetical order but doesn’t give a date or time for the launch. Most of the information on SpaceX launches is derived from secondary sources and legally required filings. Here is a list of what is known about the rest of the 2019 SpaceX schedule:

ªNL – Launch not likely in 2019.
¹The original target date for launch.
²Author’s best estimate of the likelihood of launch on that day, or during that time period based on multiple sources.
³Launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

[Primary Source: Spaceflight Now Secondary Sources: Wikipedia, RocketLaunch.live, NASA, Brian Webb]

Based on multiple sources, four of these launches are unlikely to occur in 2019. The Starlink flight [14 May] has disappeared from most launch schedule websites. This is a program that would seem to be the lowest priority and would add more expense to SpaceX with little or no revenue in return.

There are some reports that the late June Dragon 2 abort test flight is being pushed back and that the 25 July Dragon 2 test flight with a crew will be no earlier than November at the earliest. This would make the first Dragon 2 delivery of a crew to ISS unlikely until 2020. [Source:  TASS 22 Mar 2019] Comments from the unnamed space representative said that the Dragon 2 parachute system would have to be replaced. If true, the launch abort test in June could be significantly delayed and the crew test would hang in the balance of a completely new parachute system, making the crew test unlikely even by November. 

Finally, the Sirius Radio Satellite schedule for the 4th quarter of 2019 would seem unlikely based on the flights being pushed back or already scheduled in the 4th quarter.

Falcon Heavy Headaches

Another major issue in the SpaceX schedule is the second Falcon Heavy flight now scheduled for June. Everything would have to go perfectly on the 7 April Falcon Heavy flight for any chance of meeting the planned June flight as two of the three boosters on the April flight are to be reused for June flight. Any issues with the two side boosters in April would require SpaceX to find a replacement booster(s.) It is questionable if SpaceX has any Block 5 boosters to spare.

In addition, the launch pad has to be configured for a Falcon Heavy launch and then reconfigured for a normal Falcon 9 launch. That means weeks of extra work between launches that render the pad useless.

Dragon 2 Human-Rating Race

SpaceX has had an advantage in the race to provide a human-rated space capsule. It already has a cargo capsule that is already operational for unmanned flights to and from the International Space Station (ISS.) Since the crewed Dragon 2 capsule will be under autopilot as its default, the basic spacecraft needed little conversion to fly its first test mission to ISS and back.

Dragon 2 Cargo Capsule – already flying

Many looked at this month’s [2 March 2019] Dragon 2 test flight as a major milestone; however, it really was a cargo flight with seats, a dummy, and an Earth-shaped plush toy. It really proved little about the human-rating of the capsule, but it was a big show for SpaceX.

Dragon 2 Crew Capsule – take out the cargo, add seats and touchscreens

The reason that it’s significant that Russia news agencies are reporting a major delay in Dragon 2 testing is that Russia would have to be contracted to provide ISS crew flights if the United States doesn’t have a human-rated capsule by the end of this year. Since SpaceX doesn’t usually report problems in their space program to the United States media, the first report of the schedule being significantly pushed back would likely come from Russia.

If it is true that SpaceX can’t launch the first crewed test until 2020, it would be devastating to its Dragon 2 program and open the door for Boeing’s Starliner to be tested and rated by the end of this year.

What’s SpaceX’s Problem?

SpaceX seems to be in financial trouble. The ten percent reduction in the staff indicates a severe cash flow problem. The 40% reduction in the launch schedule would indicate the financial issues are more severe than they would publicly acknowledge.

2018 was a year of primarily paying the bills with commercial launches. That may have actually cost SpaceX in the long term. Now they are in a heated race with Boeing to win the crew capsule business and because they only have one test launch of the Falcon Heavy they didn’t land the military contracts they desperately need. Now they are trying to prove that the Falcon Heavy is reliable with two launches in three months. SpaceX fans applaud the company on its brilliant strategy but this year their strategy isn’t working.

SpaceX’s Implosion

26 Tuesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Business, Communism, Crisis Management, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Management Practices, Mars, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, The Tipping Point, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SpaceX on Self Destruct

Elon Musk is the Wizard of Odd desperately telling the public to pay no attention to the SpaceX problems behind the curtain. Admittedly, the bad news at SpaceX is usually buried by Musk’s talent to distract attention by offering some new Tweet that causes his fan club and space mediaites to swoon, but even Musk is challenged by the train wreck in progress. 

SpaceX Starship Down – Image credit: Evelyn Janeidy Arevalo

Image credit: Evelyn Janeidy Arevalo

First, the Good News

SpaceX has successfully launched three rockets this year. The three bright spots of those launches are:

  • the 2 March the Dragon 2 capsule demo (no crew) flight to the International Space Station (ISS) and back
  • the 22 February, third launch of a reusable Falcon 9 (F9) Block 5 booster
  • three successful launches

Successful launches might seem to be a basic expectation but in the case of SpaceX, the lack of a launch failure is great news.

SpaceX Downsizing Nightmare

The most alarming news is that SpaceX has laid off about 10% of its employees. In an article in Business Insider, [21 Jan 2019] Dan Mosher reported the according to a notice required by California law, 93% of those jobs eliminated were front line workers and only 7% were managers or supervisors. This cuts into the core of SpaceX’s ability to put a product into space.

This also means that SpaceX’s effort to develop new technology will be impacted as experienced workers have now left the company taking their knowledge and skills with them.

2019 SpaceX Schedule in Retreat

In 2015, SpaceX had 7 attempted launches with one failure. In 2016, SpaceX had 8 attempted launches with no failures, but one rocket blew up on the pad during a static fire test. In 2017, they had 18 attempted launches and no failures. In 2018, they had 21 attempted launches and no failures. [Source:  Wikipedia – Launches]

This year SpaceX has only had three launches in the first quarter, and only 10 launches scheduled for the remainder of 2019. [Source:  Spaceflight Now 25 Mar 2019] This means that SpaceX will have no more than 13 launches this year which almost a 40% drop in launch attempts from last year. Another source lists 14 [See Wikipedia – Launches above] remaining launch attempts this year; however, SpaceX has some obvious launchpad [Source:  NASA Spaceflight.com 6 Mar 2019 – M. Baylor] and booster reuse conflicts that would make that schedule nearly impossible. 

Regardless, SpaceX 2019 launch schedule will be dramatically smaller than 2018. The reduction is because SpaceX doesn’t have the resources and/or customer orders to maintain or grow its business. Either way, SpaceX is in trouble. 

SpaceX Begging for Contracts?

The layoff notice came three months after it was reported [Source:  Space News 10 Oct 2018 – S. Erwin] that SpaceX was excluded from $2 billion worth of U.S. Air Force heavy-lift rocket contracts that went to three competitors. Within two weeks of that announcement, Eric Ralph of Musk’s fan site, Teslarati, [25 Oct 2018] reported that SpaceX had quickly landed two private satellite launches for the Falcon Heavy, but he didn’t report the value of the contracts.

Musk is known for offering below bargain prices and grand claims to his company’s customers to attract business and this sudden rebound of two heavy-lift private contracts of an undisclosed value had all the trappings of Musk offer-they-couldn’t-refuse. 

This was followed last month in a Forbes [20 Feb 2019] article by Elizabeth Howell, reporting that SpaceX and veteran military contractor United Launch Alliance (ULA) each won a three rocket contract from the Air Force. The ULA contract was for $442 million, but the SpaceX contract was essentially a buy-two-get-one-free contract of $297 million.

SpaceX can’t afford to lose money and still launch rockets. If that is what has happened it is a strategy that will eventually destroy the company from the inside out.

The Falcon Heavy Gap

SpaceX’s spectacular Falcon Heavy debut last February has been followed by a year of silence. This behavior was characteristic of Musk’s tendency to rely more on grandiosity and less on substance in his business ventures. The Falcon Heavy test flight buoyed the company’s public image, but the lack of a follow-up test left the question of whether the first Falcon Heavy was luck or skill.

Next month, SpaceX will be the second launch the Falcon Heavy, but this will be for a paying customer. Caleb Henry, reporting for Via Satellite, [18 Sep 2015] said that SpaceX won the contract for the Arabsat 6A satellite three and a half years ago. According to Spaceflight Now [25 Mar 2019], the launch was originally scheduled for the first half of 2018, then delayed multiple times to the 7 April 2019 date. Since this contract was agreed upon two and a half years before the first Falcon Heavy flew, the customer committed to SpaceX on blind trust. In business, you don’t do blind trust contracts unless you’re getting an exceptional deal.   

Sandra Erwin of Space News [25 Mar 2019] reports that the U.S. Air Force will be closely monitoring the second launch of a Falcon Heavy rocket to evaluate SpaceX’s ability to perform as promised. This indicates that customers are still not sold on the Falcon Heavy. 

Booster Hype

Emre Kelly of Florida Today [5 Aug 2018] wrote that Musk has boasted that the Falcon 9 Block 5 booster will be the ultimate in cost savings. He has said that SpaceX will be able to launch, land, and relaunch it quickly with minimal refurbishment and inspection. He also claims that each Block 5 booster will be reused a minimum of 10 times, and up to 100 with ‘moderate refurbishment.’

However, the reality of the Block 5 boosters seems to suggest they are not as reusable as stated. The next scheduled launch [7 April] will use two new Block 5 boosters and a new Block 5 core booster. After that, the launch currently scheduled for 25 April will use a new Block 5 booster. The subsequent scheduled 16 May launch will be a second-time use of a Block 5 booster first flown earlier this month. The reuse of the Block 5 boosters isn’t evident in the SpaceX schedule.

Three F9 Block boosters seem to be retired (1046, 1047, and 1049) after a handful of launches. One booster (1054) was intentionally destroyed, one booster is planned to be destroyed (1048), and another failed to reland (1050.) The question about cost savings from reuse and minimal refurbishment remain for a private space organization offering bargain prices and laying off workers.

F9 Block 5 Boosters History/Status [Source:  Wikipedia – Boosters]

      • 1046 – Successfully launched and recovered 3 times/not schedule for further service
      • 1047 – Successfully launched and recovered twice/not scheduled for further service
      • 1048 – Successfully launched and recovered 3 times/scheduled for June 2019 launch and destruction
      • 1049 – Successfully launched and recovered twice/not scheduled for further service
      • 1050 – Successfully launched once, failed to land
      • 1051 – Successfully launched and recovered once/planned for relaunch [May 2019]
      • 1052 – Planned for next two Falcon Heavy launches [April, June 2019]
      • 1053 – Planned for next two Falcon Heavy launches [April, June 2019]
      • 1054 – Successfully launched once, no recovery
      • 1055 – Planned as Falcon Heavy core launch [April 2019]
      • 1056 – Planned for launch [April 2019]
      • 1057 – Planned as Falcon Heavy core launch [June 2019]

Too Many Irons, Too Little Fire

SpaceX is a horse with many riders, each pulling in a different direction. Instead of focusing on innovative spacecraft engineering, or heavy-lift rockets, or human-rated capsules, or commercial and military satellites, or deep space exploration, SpaceX tries to have its hand in it all. The result is a chaotic mess of programs that wax and wane in priority to the management of the organization.

It is a rebirth of the Soviet-style space program of secrecy and public image stunts without the financial resources or management style that produces high quality, successful programs. Musk’s volatile leadership [Source:  Reuters 30 Oct 2018 – E. Johnson, J. Roulette] has led to a space organization coming apart at the seams.

Will SpaceX’s Implosion Cost Lives?

Elon Musk seems to follow a path of metaphorically pushing harder on the accelerator when the charge on his high tech lithium batteries are running low. Musk has a reputation of lashing out at employees, demanding long hours, and pushing for strict deadlines. [Source:  CNBC 18 Oct 2018 – R. Umoh] The problem is that Elon Musk doesn’t make the rockets, his workers do. Soviet Russia learned the hard way that high pressure in the space industry adds high risk for those depending on the workers on the ground.

After a two year delay, 2019 is the year that SpaceX is supposed to put humans in space. That is not a task for an organization in distress.

SpaceX 2018 Report Card: C+

31 Monday Dec 2018

Posted by in Business, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Mars, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Space, SpaceX, The Tipping Point, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last February I wrote that SpaceX had three “must do” things in 2018 to prove that all the self-promotion and bragging is justified. It’s time to look back and see how SpaceX did in achieving these critical milestones.

SpaceX Roadster in Space: A symbol of a company going nowhere fast

No. 1 – Consistency in SpaceX Payload Delivery:  B

SpaceX had 21 launches this year. All of them successful, meaning they didn’t blow up in the first few minutes. This was three more launches than the previous year. One of the launches was the test flight for the Falcon Heavy rocket, but the rest were largely for SpaceX customers.

There was only one payload that did not make it into orbit. The Zuma military satellite was shrouded in secrecy, which means no one had to take the blame or acknowledge the payload failure. A report indicates that SpaceX was not to blame, but there are discrepancies in the live reporting by the SpaceX Launch Announcer that indicate a failure of the SpaceX fairings to deploy on time.

That gives SpaceX a 95% success rate, which would seem to be great, but with billions of dollars invested in payloads, one failure is too many. SpaceX gets a B.

No. 2 – Prove Falcon Heavy is Reliable:  D+

SpaceX had a major publicity win with the first launch of Falcon Heavy rocket last February. The stunt of launching a Tesla Roadster was a stroke of public relations brilliance that overshadowed the fact that no additional Falcon Heavy launches followed the single success.

The next Falcon Heavy launch is scheduled for March of 2019. If all goes well, SpaceX will be one step closer to proving reliability, but SpaceX has not made its case to the people who can afford to pay SpaceX to launch their satellites.

Another Falcon Heavy rocket is scheduled to be launched in April, but those are the only two Falcon Heavy launches scheduled in 2019. The fact that the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) announced in late October that it awarded a Heavy Lift contract to SpaceX’s competitor, United Launch Alliance (ULA) indicates that SpaceX is not considered reliable and/or as economical in the heavy launch market.

If SpaceX has any issues with either of the 2019 Falcon Heavy launches, it may have to end its Falcon Heavy program for a lack of customers. SpaceX gets a D+.

No. 3 – Success of the F9 Block 5 Version:   C+

There are two primary missions of the Block 5 booster. First, it has to be proven to be safe for human flight. Second, the Block 5 booster is supposed to be the savior of space travel because of reusability and reliability. It is supposed to have a quick turnaround from launch to re-launch and it is touted as a booster that can easily be used ten times or more.

In 2018, SpaceX put up six Block 5 boosters in ten launches. One Block 5 booster has been used three times and two boosters have been used twice. Of the three Block 5 boosters that have been reused, the average turnaround time from launch to re-launch is 99 days.

SpaceX had to delay the December 2018 crewed mission back to June 2019. That means they failed to prove human rating in 2018.

The reusability and reliability of the Block 5 booster are also still in question. They have to be given credit for the ten successful launches, and the turnaround time is better than the Block 4 booster turnaround time (Average 177 days.)

Still, there is not enough information to determine if the Block 5 will achieve its primary goals. SpaceX gets a C+.

SpaceX gets an A+ in generating excitement and a polished public image that invites public support; however, the public image is not what counts in the commercial space business. SpaceX is practically giving away space on some of its rockets to stay in the public spotlight with its launches. The reality is that SpaceX maintained its ability to stay in business one more year, but that was not what it needed to do. Overall grade:  C+

Murder Mystery: Did the Kremlin Kill Yuri Gagarin?

07 Saturday Apr 2018

Posted by in 1968, All Rights Reserved, Communism, Crime, Ethics, Exploration, Generational, Government, History, Honor, NASA, Politicians, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Russian influence, Soviet Russia, Space, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fifty years ago Yuri Gagarin, the first human in space and the first to orbit the Earth, died in a plane crash. Hu’s (His) body wouldn’t be found until the next day. The crash was a mystery. How did a seasoned pilot, a test pilot, and a cosmonaut crash a plane on a routine flight? Was it murder? One person had the motive and the means to kill the Soviet space hero, but was it just a strange coincidence?

Yuri Gagarin portrait

Yuri Gagarin: Soviet Hero. Brezhnev enemy?

Yuri Gagarin:  Hero of the USSR

Yuri Gagarin was a Russian hero by any standard. Hu’s parents worked on a collective farm. During World War II, Gagarin’s family was driven out of their house by German soldiers and had to live in a small mud hut for over a year. After the war, hu (he) trained at a vocational school and attended evening classes. According to the Soviet narrative, hu took every advantage to improve himself, including volunteering on weekends to learn to fly with the Soviet Air Cadets.

Gagarin was drafted and sent to Soviet flight school to learn how to fly the MiG-15 jet. In 1960, hu was one of twenty men selected to become the first Soviet cosmonauts. When it came to selecting the first person to go into space, Gagarin stood out among his peers. One evaluator wrote this about Gagarin:

Soviet Doctor’s Evaluation

Modest; embarrasses when his humor gets a little too racy; high degree of intellectual development evident in Yuriy; fantastic memory; distinguishes himself from his colleagues by his sharp and far-ranging sense of attention to his surroundings; a well-developed imagination; quick reactions; persevering, prepares himself painstakingly for his activities and training exercises, handles celestial mechanics and mathematical formulae with ease as well as excels in higher mathematics; does not feel constrained when he has to defend his point of view if he considers himself right; appears that he understands life better than a lot of his friends.

From Wikipedia on Yuri Gagarin

Gagarin stubbornness to defend hu’s point of view may have led to hu’s death.

High-Risk Gamble

The mission to be the first human in space was inherently dangerous. From the launch, a controlled, directed explosion, to entering into the unknown environment of space, to reentering the atmosphere, the journey was filled with first-time events.

In addition, the Soviets didn’t know how to land a human back on Earth. The USSR’s plan was to touchdown on land rather than water. The problem was that parachutes can’t slow a spacecraft to a speed that won’t injure or kill the crew.

The solution was to allow the capsule to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere, slow it down with parachutes, then have the cosmonaut jump out with his own personal parachute. It was risky, but it was a simple solution that allowed the Soviets to put a human in space before the United States. On 12 April 1961 Gagarin overcame the odds and made history.

Unacceptable Risk

Six years later the Soviets were still ahead in the space race. Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev wanted to keep it that way. For the 50th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, Brezhnev wanted to introduce the world to the new Soyuz capsule. He pushed to have two Soviet launches, one day apart, followed by a space rendezvous of the two spacecraft with an exchange of cosmonauts.

Soyuz 1 was to be piloted by Vladimir Komarov with Yuri Gagarin as a backup pilot. The two cosmonauts were close friends.

Months before the launch of the two rockets, the Gagarin and others inspected the Soyuz craft and found 203 structural problems. Gagarin wrote up a ten-page memo detailing the problems and demanding a delay in the program. He gave it to a friend who was a KGB agent to pass up the chain-of-command.

Allegedly, those that read memo were demoted or removed from the space program. It is unclear if Brezhnev actually saw the memo, but it was clear that no one wanted to challenge Brezhnev’s orders.

Death of a Friend

On the day of the launch, Gagarin demanded to be suited up, apparently to replace his friend, Komarov on the mission. Komarov did not want to go, but he also wasn’t willing to sacrifice Gagarin’s life. Komarov declined his friend’s offer and flew the mission.

As predicted, the spacecraft had major issues from the moment it reached orbit. After the Soyuz 2 launch was scrubbed, allegedly because of thunderstorms, Soyuz 1 was given the okay to return to Earth. Everyone knew that the capsule was unlikely to land safely. Komorov cursed his fate as his spacecraft plunged to Earth after the parachutes failed. It was a needless loss of life to satisfy the arrogance of Brezhnev.

Yuri Gagarin Poking the Bear With a Stick

Three weeks after hu’s friend’s death, Gagarin gave an interview that was published in Pravda. Hu blamed the people who allowed the launch of an unsafe capsule and indicated their complicity in Komarov’s death. Gagarin wanted to meet with Brezhnev and confront the man that everyone feared. It is unclear if this happened, but there was a rumor that Gagarin did have an encounter with the General Secretary and threw a drink in hu’s face.

It is clear that Gagarin was angry with Brezhnev, and it is also likely that Brezhnev was made aware of the situation. For Brezhnev, this had to be a potential political embarrassment and potentially dangerous to have a Russian hero question hu’s decisions.

Gagarin’s Mysterious Plane Crash

Gagarin’s anger at Brezhnev would be shortlived. About a year after Komarov’s death, Gagarin died in a mysterious plane crash. Among the odd aspects are:

  • Gagarin was a highly qualified pilot.
  • The crash was during Gagarin ‘recertification’ as a fighter pilot, deemed a formality.
  • The investigations found no exact cause for the crash.
  • Gagarin had completed the training maneuvers of the flight and had radioed that they were returning to base.
  • The plane disappeared without further contact.
  • Gagarin reported no issues of problems or crisis.
  • Searchers found the crash site later that day, but they didn’t find Gagarin’s body until the next day a short distance from the crash.
  • Another plane reportedly passed close to Gagarin’s plane before the crash.

If Brezhnev ordered Gagarin’s death it would have to look like a plausible accident. The most likely ‘accident’ for a pilot would be a plane crash. If not a deliberate act, Gagarin’s ‘accident’ benefited Brezhnev significantly by silencing a high-profile critic.

Another Coincidence

The circumstances of Yuri Gagarin’s death are strange enough, but there is one more coincidence. Gagarin’s death occurred just under two years from the release of the British movie, The Blue Max. A story about a German flying ace that had fallen out of the grace with hu’s superiors and died when flying a plane that was known to be unstable.

SpaceX’s Magical Block 5 Booster is a No Show

06 Friday Apr 2018

Posted by in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Honor, Management Practices, Mars, NASA, Nevada, Public Image, Public Relations, Reno, Science, Space, SpaceX, Technology, The Tipping Point, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Today is 6 April 2018. That deafening roar that you DIDN’T hear yesterday was the SpaceX Block 5 Falcon 9 rocket. It didn’t launch yesterday. Nor did it launch in February…nor in December. SpaceX plans fall short of reality again. The trademark of Elon Musk’s and his companies are their ability to fail to live up to their claims.

SpaceX One Trick:  Wasting Money to Reland Junk Boosters

Block 5 Falcon 9 – The Grand Promise

Block 5 is the made-up name for SpaceX’s final version of the Falcon 9. It is critical to their hope to be NASA’s go-to company for the manned space program. There is a catch. SpaceX has to fly the Block 5 booster seven times without making any upgrades or changes before NASA will put humans onboard.

There is another catch. SpaceX entire company has been built around one concept: economical space flight. Their method is reusability, and the centerpiece is the reusable booster. Musk has made grand claims that the SpaceX booster will be used ten times. In addition, some people have been suggesting that the booster will only need an inspection and will be able to be reflown in a matter of days.

To date, the maximum any booster has been reused is once (F9 Boosters B1021, B1023, B1025, B1029, B1031, B1032, B1035, B1036, B1038, B1039, B1041.) Of the eleven reflown boosters, six were relanded after the second flight, but then they were ‘retired’ or junked. The rest were ‘expended’ or destroyed. None of these boosters were Block 5 types.

The Snake Oil of Spaceflight

Any cost savings of the reusable booster have been eliminated by the waste of expending, relanding, and recovering junk boosters. The delays of the Block 5 are costing SpaceX money, and the idea that a booster can be landed, inspected, and reflown in days was the boast of NASA with the Space Shuttle. NASA found out the hard way. It is not possible without endangering lives.

The other aspect of this is that only SpaceX knows how much these launches really cost. They are not making the cost per launch available to the public. They could be charging much less than the actual cost to hide the fact that the reusable booster doesn’t actually save money.

Space Customers Are Watching

The first Block 5 flight is now scheduled for 24 April. The first SpaceX crewed flight was scheduled for December. It is improbable, and likely impossible that SpaceX will be able to have seven successful Block 5 flights in time to meet the December deadline.

This delay comes after a five-year delay in the launch of the Falcon Heavy. The first one was a spectacular success, but there are two more scheduled launches of the Falcon Heavy this year. Both have to be on time and successful, or SpaceX will face increasing doubts about its reliability.

Our Roving Intelligent Life On Mars

31 Saturday Mar 2018

Posted by in All Rights Reserved, Astronomy, China, Communism, Exploration, Government, History, Life, Mars, NASA, Photography, Pride, Science, Soviet Russia, Space, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program, Vladimir Putin

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For over 2000 Mars-days* the Curiosity Rover has been strolling across the landscape of Mars. The Mission is known as the Mars Science Laboratory and the star is Curiousity. Google defines intelligence as, “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.” Under that definition, Curiosity and its predessors certainly qualify as intelligent life on another planet.

[*Mars-day or sols = 24 hours + 37 minutes of Earth time]

Mars = Soviet Humiliation

To date, humans have attempted to send 55¹ missions to Mars and over half of them have failed. Soviet Russia tried to launch 20 missions and none of them were a complete success. Two misssion were mostly successful, and three of them were mostly failures. The other 15 missions were complete failures.

Russia seemed to give up sending missions to Mars after 1988. Since the fall of Communism, Russia has attempted two probes, both failed. Russia’s only successful probe to the Red planet is a joint orbiter mission with the European Space Agency (ESA) that is still in operation.

In comparison to Russia’s single success out of 23 attempts, India has sent one mission to Mars and the orbiter is now on an extended mission.

[¹NOTE:  An orbiter/lander mission is counted as two separate missions.]

What We Know About Mars, Thank NASA/JPL

NASA and its partners like the Joint Propulsion Lab (JPL) have been responsible for putting intelligent life on Mars. Five out of the current eight operational missions are NASA/JPL missions. The Mars Odyssey mission was launched 17 years ago (April 2001) and is expected to be operational until 2025.

The United States is the only country to successfully have a rover on Mars and it has a perfect record in four attempts (Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity.) The Opportunity rover was launched in 2003 and is still operational.

Curiosity takes a selfie on Mars

Curiouser and Couriouser

The Couriosity rover was on a two-year mission after its successful 2012 landing. It is now on an extended mission without an end date. It continues to explore and offer new insights; however, it is a mission that has almost been too successful. As it continues to wander around Gale crater, one has to wonder how much more can our rover-on-the-ground learn in one location?

As it rolls beyond 2000 sols will its constant poking, prodding, and picture-taking result in more knowledge, or bias our understanding based on the massive data from one region? Perhaps we will find out in 2020. Three new rovers are scheduled for launch that year. The United States will send Mars 2020, ESA will send ExoMars 2020, and the yet to be named 2020 Chinese Mars Mission will also be sent.

Falling Sky: China’s Tiangong 1 Space Station Last Hours

28 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by in About Reno, All Rights Reserved, Astronomy, China, Exploration, NASA, Reno, Science, Space, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Within the next 72 hours China’s first space station, the Tiangong 1, is going to end its life. It is already scraping the extreme upper atmosphere of Earth and the air resistance is slowing down the 7.7 metric tons (8.5 ton) spacecraft with every passing second. It is coming down somewhere, but scientists don’t know exactly when or where.

Tiangong altitude

The rapid altitude decline (in km) of Tiangong 1

Current Stats of Tiangong 1

The current speed of the Tiangong 1 (27 March 2018 at 12 noon PDT) is at 28,000 km/hr (17,400 mph) and it is at an altitude of just under 200 km (125 mi) at the lowest point in its orbit. Its orbit has lowered by over 60 km in the last two months. As Tiangong 1 approaches 160 km the air resistance will be too much for it to maintain orbit.

Statistically, Tiangong 1 will most likely fall into an ocean; however, there is a possibility that it could fall on southern Europe, southern Asia, Africa, Austrailia, South America, Central America, or the United States.

Lost Contact

Normally, objects like this are brought down in a controlled fall using thrusters to slow the craft down at a specific time and location. In the case of Tiangong 1, the Chinese engineers had planned to bring it down in a controlled reentry until they mysteriously lost contact with it two years ago.

China said they had shut down telemetry with Tiangong 1 in March of 2016. They didn’t admit they had lost control of it until amateur astronomers had confirmed the space station was tumbling in space a few months later. Without the ability to communicate with the space station, there is no way to command the thrusters for a controlled reentry.

Best Guess?

The experts are currently estimating that Tiangong 1 will come down on Easter Sunday (1 April.) Since Earth’s atmosphere expands and contracts with solar activity, the air resistance is not consistent. There is a critical point when the air resistance will win its battle with the space station and the orbit will decay exponentially. At that point, the spacecraft will begin a rapid breakup as it descends through the thicker atmosphere.

For what it’s worth, my guess is 7:42 am PDT on Saturday, 31 March.

Trump’s Tariffs Are For Putin

25 Sunday Mar 2018

Posted by in 1968, All Rights Reserved, Apollo, Business, College, Conservatives, Donald Trump, Economy, Ethics, Exploration, Government, History, Honor, labor, NASA, Politicians, Politics, Pride, Russian influence, Saturn V, Space, Trade deficit, United States, US History, US Space Program, Vladimir Putin

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Everyday Donald Trump proves his actions are guided by, or primarily for, Vladimir Putin. Anyone asking why is Trump pushing for tariffs on steel and aluminum against China should really be asking, “What’s in it for Putin?”

Vladimir Putin’s Trump Card

It should be noted that Vladimir Putin’s motivations are better understood if a person understands his background.

Vladimir Putin:  A Soviet KGB Agent With A Grudge

Space Race

The USSR launched Sputnik 1 three days before Putin’s fifth birthday. He was six when Luna 1 became the first human object to leave Earth’s orbit. On his seventh birthday, Luna 3 transmitted the first images that human’s had ever seen of the far side of the Moon. He was almost eight when the Soviets put the first animals into space and safely returned them on Korabl-Sputnik 2 (known as Sputnik 5 in the USA.) He was eight when the Soviets sent Venera 1 to Venus followed by the first man in space on Vostok 1, followed by the first human to spend over 24 hours in space on Vostok 2.

From age nine to age fifteen, Putin saw his country continue to beat that United States in space with the following achievements:  [Source:  Wikipedia]

USSR Space Race Achievements

It was the Golden Age of the USSR.

When Putin turned sixteen his country’s leadership in space was suddenly lost to the United States. The world cheered as Apollo 8 took the first men around the Moon in December of 1968. Then the world held it’s breath as Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon in July of 1969. Everything Putin’s country had accomplished in space exploration in a decade was eclipsed by the United States of America in less than a year.

Vladimir Putin’s 1975 Thesis

Vladimir Putin studied law in college, but his thesis was focused on economics. The title of his thesis was, “The Most Favored Nation Trading Principle in International Law.” In his thesis, Putin clearly establishes the importance of USSR’s raw materials:

Mineral and raw materials represent the most important potential for the economic development of the country.

Translated from Vladimir Putin’s 1975 Thesis

He noted the need for Soviet extraction industries to compete with the Western world:

…which could compete as equals with the transnational corporations of the West.

Translated from Vladimir Putin’s 1975 Thesis

And the need for the government to do everything necessary to help the extraction industries compete:

…the state must assist the development of processing industries based upon the extraction industries in every way.

Translated from Vladimir Putin’s 1975 Thesis

Putin knew in 1975 the critical role the Soviet natural resources would play in the advancement of the USSR. The world trade of raw material is central to Putin’s plan for his country.

KGB For Life

Vladimir Putin KGB

Putin:  KGB for Life

Immediately after he graduated, Putin joined the KGB. He was taught German and his cover was to be an interpreter. Putin had a front row seat to the fall of Communism from his station in East Germany. For the second time in his life, he watched his country be humiliated while the West celebrated.

He continued to work as a KGB agent after the fall of the Berlin Wall. He moved back to Russian and joined the University he graduated from to scout for new KGB recruits. While he claims to have resigned his position in the KGB, he has never done anything in his life that hasn’t been directed in some way to defeating his enemies. Putin is not a politician, he is a tactician.

Trump’s Tariff Fixation

It is clear that Donald Trump is under the influence of Vladimir Putin. Putin groomed Trump for decades and now it’s paying off. Russia cannot compete with its raw materials in the world market unless something drastic happens, such as a major trade war. Trump’s behavior on tariffs is leading to exactly what Putin desires. 

For Putin, it’s a perfectly staged economic and political win for Russia. It advances the sale of Russia raw materials and humiliates his arch enemy, the United States. It is payback for the space race and the fall of the USSR. All thanks to Donald Trump. 

Saturn V’s F-1 Engine: The Monster That Made USSR Cry

24 Saturday Mar 2018

Posted by in 1968, About Reno, Aging, All Rights Reserved, Exploration, Generational, Government, History, Honor, NASA, Nevada, Politics, Pride, Relationships, Reno, Saturn V, Science, Space, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Vladimir Putin was a young man he was witness to his country’s space program being eclipsed by the United States. There are many reasons that the United States won the space race with the USSR, but Rocketdyne’s Saturn V F-1 engine was the element that the Soviet space program couldn’t replicate. It was a rocket engine that has no practical use for piddling around in Earth orbit. The F-1 is the top shelf engine of space exploration.

Apollo Saturn V

The massive F-1 engines of the Apollo Saturn V first stage booster.

Who Are Those Guys?

If there was a moment when the Soviet engineers said in wonder, “Who are those guys?,” it was when they saw the first massive Saturn V blast off using only five engines. They were working on a heavy-lift rocket that used 30 rocket engines in the booster phase. The idea that a Moon rocket could be designed using only five engines was laughable.

The USSR attempted four launches with their version of the Saturn V rocket called the N1 rocket. All four attempts failed. The Saturn V rocket had 13 successful launches in 13 attempts. One rocket (unmanned Apollo 6) had vibration issues and failed to make the desired orbit, but the launch was successful. NASA and its contractors crushed the Soviet Moon rocket in performance and reliability.

Comparing Watermelons To Sour Grapes

The Soviet N1 Moon rocket used the NK-15 engines on the first, or booster stage. Compared to the Apollo Saturn V F-1 engines, the USSR effort was similar to strapping a bunch of bottle rockets together to lift a person off the ground.

Each of the 30 NK-15 engines could lift about 1,500 kilonewtons or kN (1 kilonewton equals 224.81 pounds of force) compared to a single F-1 engine thrust of 7,000 kN. The total thrust of the first stage of the Soviet N1 Moon rocket was 45,400 kN, which was significantly greater than the Saturn V’s booster thrust of 35,100 kN and the N1 Moon rocket was 215,000 kg (480,000 lbs.) lighter.

USSR N1 Moon Rocket

The USSR 30 NK-15 engine design

However, the N1 required four stages compared to the Saturn V’s three-stage rocket, and the N1 booster stage could only burn for 125 seconds, while’s United States booster stage burned for 168 seconds. The big difference was the size of payload that the Saturn V could deliver to the Moon. USSR’s N1 could only put a 23,500 kg payload (51,800 lbs.) out of Earth orbit to the Moon, while the Saturn V could send a 48,600 kg (107,100 lbs.) payload.

The Rocketdyne F-1 engine was responsible for powering everything needed for a Moon landing and safe return off the surface of the Earth and it did it better than any other rocket engine in the history of space exploration.

Ten Reasons There is Life on Earth

21 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by in All Rights Reserved, Astronomy, Exploration, Global warming, Green, History, Life, NASA, Nevada, Reno, Science, Space, US Space Program, Water, Weather

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As scientists are finding more planets orbiting other stars it is becoming more of a reality that we are not alone in the universe. We may never be able to contact or observe life on other planets, but no one can deny the possibility that life might take root these islands in space. Still, it is important to remember that life on Earth is due to special circumstances.

Ten Factors Required For Life On Earth

A planet orbiting a star does not necessarily result in the development of life. On our planet, we have at least ten factors that allowed life to develop.

1. Not Too Close to Other Stars (Location, location, location)

If our solar system was located near the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, life probably would not have been able to develop on Earth. Stars are dangerous. They do bad things including spitting out radiation that destroys the basic structures of complex life. A planet in a solar system with other stars in the neighborhood is asking for trouble.

2. Our Sun is Special

Life on any planet requires a star, but not just any star will do. Size matters in the development of life. So do the qualities of the star. Our Sun is bigger than most, but still it is a relatively small, stable star and it’s been that way for over four and a half billion years. It will be stable for about another 5 billion years. It also has a treasure of heavy elements that are necessary for planet formation. Without planets, there is no life.

Life around stars of different sizes are possible, but our Sun seems to be about the perfect size for the development of life. In addition, our Sun is 85% brighter than the rest of the stars in the Milky Way, which has been vital in ‘powering’ our planet.

3. A Star’s Habitable Zone

Planet hunters and the media have made a major issue out of the concept of the ‘Goldilocks Zone.’ This is the area around a Sun where a planet is not too close, nor too far away. It is an important aspect of the potential for development of life on a planet, but it is only one factor of many. For Earth, we are resting in the orbit that is just right.

4. Moon

It’s hard to overstate the importance of the Moon for the development of life on Earth. First, the Moon was likely formed in a collision when a small planet-sized object hit Earth and tilted our axis (more on this later.) In addition, the Moon has slowed the Earth’s rotation down (more on this later,) and helped enhance the tidal movement of the Earth’s oceans. The Moon has played an important role in human activity, but just as an important role for all our planet’s species.

5. Size of the Planet

Again, size matters. If a planet is too big and the gravity will inhibit the formation of larger, more complex molecular organic structures. Too small and there can be no atmosphere. Earth is in the zone.

6. Axial Tilt

If Earth’s axis was perpendicular to the plane of the solar system the Sun would heat up the equator creating a zone too hot for most life forms. The poles would have minimal solar heating and would be extremely cold. In between would be the combat zone between hot and cold. Constant violent storms and wind would batter the mid-latitudes.

The tilt of the Earth causes solar heating to warm one hemisphere and allows the other to cool down. Every six months the warm/cool cycle swaps hemispheres. This creates storm systems in both hemispheres, but they act to distribute the warmth more evenly. The tilt of Earth’s axis is almost perfect for nurturing life.

7. Length of Day (spin)

We take the 24 hour day for granted. We shouldn’t. Last year Takanori Sasaki, a planetary scientist with Kyoto University, pointed out that the Earth originally spun so fast that its ‘day’ was only four hours long. Multicellular life didn’t develop on Earth until the day was 23 hours long. It’s is not clear at what point a planet’s rotation makes it habitable, but it seems obvious that a planet’s spin is a factor in the possibility of life formation.

8. Atmosphere

It may be obvious that an atmosphere is required for the development of life, but there are qualities to an atmosphere that are also required. The atmosphere cannot be too thick or too thin. It has to consist of an oxidizer, such as oxygen, to promote chemical reactions in cell structures. There is more to Earth’s air than just air.

9. Liquid Water

Water is necessary for all life that we are aware of, even though it is more important to some species than others. Liquid water is even more important to life than water vapor or ice. It is not an accident that the development of life happened on a planet where 71% of the surface is covered with liquid water.

10. Continent to Ocean Ratio

It’s not obvious, but life on Earth has been helped by the ratio of land to ocean. Land tends to have more temperature variance than the oceans between summer and winter. Land that is not covered in ice or vegetation absorbs much more heat in the summer. If most of our planet consisted of continents, the temperature change from summer to winter would be more dramatic, and less friendly to life.

Earth is Unique, Not Rare

Life on Earth was not an accident, nor is it divine. The conditions that led to the development of life here must exist on millions of planets, but there are an estimated 100 billion planets in the Milky Way Galaxy alone. We are unique, but we cannot be alone. Give life an opportunity and it will seize it.

Magnetic Pole Reversal: Will It Turn Our World Upside Down?

10 Saturday Mar 2018

Posted by in Astronomy, Education, Exploration, Generational, History, NASA, Science, solar, Space, Technology, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The magnetic north and south poles are up to something. It looks like Earth’s magnetic poles are about to swap. It usually happens every 300,000 years or so but it’s been 780,000 years since it last happened. What does it mean for humans? Is this the end of human civilization?

Earth magnetic normal magnetic field (left) and during a swap (right)

Pole Reversal:  Another Y2K?

To answer this question let’s go back to 1984. That is the year that Jerome and Marilyn Murray published a book called Computers in Crisis, changed to The Year 2000 Computing Crisis in 1996. They laid out a problem of computer code that handled dates using only the last two digits of the year. The crisis was that at the moment the year 2000 began, they said all the computer networks around the world would crash. This was known as the Y2K problem.

The Y2K problem was a significant issue; however, because computer codes are constantly being changed, updated, and replaced, it probably would have been resolved without the hyper-scare stories in the media. Computer codes were changed and Y2K came and passed without incident.

That Y2K problem is a good comparison to the North/South magnetic pole reversal issue. There is a problem, but it is a problem that will unfold over hundreds to thousands of years. Most will not notice the effect in the next decade, but there is a significant change coming as soon as the next solar minimum.

Your Magnetic Field is Temporarily Out of Order

The problem is not about the reversal of the magnetic poles. The problem is about the process of the reversal. The magnetic field around Earth deflects cosmic and solar radiation from reaching Earth’s surface. Without this field (or shield) life, as we know it on Earth, would not be possible.

As the poles begin the process of swapping the magnetic field it becomes less organized. This results in the magnetic north and south pole fading and that causes cosmic radiation to come closer to Earth’s surface.

In addition, the magnetic field becomes weaker during solar sunspot minimums. This is when the Sun has few, if any, sunspots and generates less solar flares. This lull in solar activity approximately every eleven years is matched with a similar lull in the strength of Earth’s magnetic field.

Captain! Our Shields Are Down!

Scientists have discovered that the magnetic field is weakening much faster now than in the past. They believe the process of pole reversal, which is overdue by about 400,000 years, has now begun. We are also in the beginning stages of the solar minimum, which will result in an anemic magnetic field for the next two to three years.

Projections of the radiation dosage for this upcoming solar minimum were about 20% above the last solar minimum; however, actual rates are closer to 30% so far.  This is not a major concern, but it does mean that satellites may encounter more radiation that could damage or disable them. It also means that an astronaut only can spend about 700 days in space now than the 1,000 days they could spend in the 1990’s.

Oh Where, Oh Where Will Our North Pole Go?

The poles are on the move thanks to a liquid layer of iron in Earth’s Core.  Earth is already experiencing a strange phenomenon of magnetic weakening across the South Atlantic stretching from Africa to South America. Since we have not experienced this change before, no one can be absolutely sure what odd side effects may occur during the process; however, the only significant concern is increased radiation in Earth’s atmosphere and in orbit.

It’s important to remember that in geologic time frames we are the equivalent of lightning. As problems develop we’re pretty good at responding.

Pence’s White Greed National Space Council

06 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by in Aging, Business, Discrimination, Ethics, Exploration, Generational, Government, NASA, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, racism, Science, Space, SpaceX, Taxes, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program, Women

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mike Pence, who is Donald Trump’s Number 1, but acts like he’s a Number 2, has recreated the National Space Council in his own image. The purpose of the group of is to channel taxpayers money out of government space program projects and give to the wealthy corporations. He seems blissfully unaware that the 29 member Council has the scientific qualifications, and diversity of race and political ideology of Republican fundraiser in Mississippi.

Pence’s Space Council of Non-Diversity

Mike Pence:  The No Science Guy

Pence, who has less charisma and intelligence than former VP Dan Quayle, has put together a Council of primarily investor-owned corporations. No current NASA staff is included, and the former NASA employees on the Council have been retired from the agency an average of over 19 years.

In order to make sure the Council does not get caught up in any science issues, Pence has added five people who were selected because of their politically conservative resume, but devoid of any scientific qualifications.

However, there is one science teacher on the Council. No one seems to know who she is or what her qualifications are, but she is a “Board Certified Science Teacher.” 

The National Space Kangaroo Council 

The qualifications and interests of the National Space Council members are as follows:

Current NASA Staff (0)

None included

Current FAA Staff (0)

None included

Former NASA Staff (7)

Buzz Aldrin, (Retired from NASA 46 years ago)

Walked on the Moon in 1969, retired from NASA 1971, retired from Air Force 1972, a proponent of space exploration, punched faked-Moon-landing-conspiracist Bart Sibrel in the face (Sibrel had it coming.)

Eileen Collins, (Retired from NASA 12 years ago in May)

Flew Space Shuttle four times, speaker at 2016 Republican National Convention

Homer Hickam, (Retired from NASA 20 years ago)

Former NASA engineer and author

Pam Melroy, (Retired from NASA 9 years ago)

Space Shuttle astronaut, former Lockheed Martin staff, former FAA staff, former DARPA staff.

Harrison ‘Jack’ Schmitt, (Retired from NASA 42 years ago)

Apollo 17 Astronaut and former conservative U.S. Senator. Believes climate change is natural, not human-caused

David Wolf, (Retired from NASA 5 years ago)

Space Shuttle astronaut and physician

Pete Worden, (Retired from NASA 2 years ago)

Former Air Force General and NASA Ames Center Director

Minor Space Background (1)

G.P. Bud Peterson, Served as a visiting research scientist for NASA during summers of 1981 and 1982. Chairperson of the National Science Council and President of the Georgia Institute of Technology

Private Corporations Seeking Taxpayer Money (15)

Conservatives Appointed For Their Political Ideology (No space industry qualifications) (5 + 2 Former NASA)

  • Dean Cheng, Political conservative working for the Heritage Foundation, a politically conservative organization
  • Eileen Collins, (See former NASA staff)
  • Steve Crisafulli, Former conservative politician, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives
  • Newt Gingrich,  conservative politician and former Speaker of the House
  • Governor Kay Ivey, Conservative Governor of Alabama
  • Fred Klipsch, Conservative promoting the defunding of public schools, Founder and Chairman of Hoosiers for Quality Education
  • Harrison ‘Jack’ Schmitt, (See former NASA staff)

Unknown (1)

  • Pamela Vaughan, Science Teacher

Maybe we didn’t win the space race after all.

Is There a Planet Nine or Not?

03 Saturday Mar 2018

Posted by in Astronomy, Exploration, NASA, Science, solar, Space, Technology, US Space Program

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Is there a Planet Nine in our solar system? After Pluto got kicked out of the planet club most of us woke up to the reality that there were only eight planets. There was no reason to believe that some mysterious Planet Nine out there that met the requirements of the club. We would have seen by now, correct?

Planet Nine and other orbits looking from above the solar ecliptic

Nothing New In Planet Discovery

All the planets except Uranus and Neptune were discovered by Babylonian astronomers, although the six innermost planets were most likely noted by humans before writing was invented. Uranus was discovered in 1781, and Neptune was found in 1846. Despite all the advances in telescopes and space exploration no other ‘planet’ has been discovered in our solar system. So, why would anyone think another planet might exist?

Odd Ducks Out There

If the Sun and the planets were formed from a disk of debris, then most objects would be aligned in that disk or solar ecliptic plane, or the plane that the major planets are on as they orbit the Sun. Collisions between asteroids can send them off in unusual orbits that don’t align with the solar ecliptic.

However, there are a group of objects beyond Neptune that have unusual orbits. These objects are called trans-Neptunian objects. These are on a different plane and defy easy explanation. In addition, the Sun itself is a bit odd in its rotation. The Sun seems to rotate slightly off the ecliptic plane that all the planets follow.

Doing the Math

Two astronomers, Chad Trujillo and Scott S. Sheppard, tackled the odd orbits of the trans-Neptunian objects and discovered that some of the orbits of the objects could be explained if there were a large planet farther out in the solar system. That didn’t sit well with other astronomers so they decided to prove them wrong.

Planet Nine’s likely orbit and the orbits of trans-Neptunian objects

Konstantin Batygin and Michael E. Brown from CalTech decided to re-do the calculations of Trujillo and Shepard. They eliminated some of the objects studied because they might be influenced by Neptune’s gravity. That left six objects to study. To their surprise, they discovered that a planet ten times the size of Earth in an off-plane orbit much farther out than Neptune explained the orbits of the six objects to a 99% degree of certainty.

Is There a Ninth Planet?

Despite the mathematical support, there is no Planet Nine…yet. An analogy would be that if someone picked a date ten years in the future, say 3 March 2028, and was asked if that day would fall on a weekday. Without a calendar to look at it would be hard to say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is very likely, but it is not certain until there is proof.

We currently have no proof of another planet, and spotting Planet Nine will be difficult at best. It would be a relatively small target with almost no sunlight reflecting off of it. It couldn’t be seen with today’s telescopes in either the visible or infrared spectrums. Even if we could determine where it is in its orbit, it would take a probe as many as twenty years to get into the Planet Nine neighborhood.

So the answer remains ‘no.’ There is no Planet Nine…but stay tuned.

Pigs In Space: Discrimination on the ISS

01 Thursday Mar 2018

Posted by in Discrimination, Ethics, Exploration, Government, History, Honor, Management Practices, NASA, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Russian influence, Science, Space, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For the last 17 years, the International Space Station (ISS) has been the great achievement of the United States, Russia, and other nations working together to maintain a human presence in space. People around the world can look up and see the shining star of the ISS crossing the evening or predawn sky. Yet, ISS has a dark shadow that NASA and the other nations involved don’t talk about publicly. Space has a glass ceiling.

International Space Station not above discrimination

Man Cave In Space

Women have spent less than ten percent of the cumulative days on the ISS since the first crew came on board in October of 2000. In over 17 years, only 12 women have served on an expedition crew. One woman, Sunita L. Williams, served twice, and one, Peggy A. Whitson, served three times.

As of today, (1 March 2018,) women have logged only 2,527 days on the International Space Station compared to 23,493 days served by men. Most of those women have been from the United States with only two women serving from other countries. The problem of discrimination against women is bigger with Russia, as cosmonauts have spent the most time on ISS (47% Russia versus 40% USA) but only have allowed one woman to be part of the crew.

The irony is that women make up 63% of the population of Russia and yet women have had less than 7% of the days served on ISS compared to their male counterparts. The United States has also failed to utilize women as crew members, but at least in the case of the U.S., women have been 21% of the Expedition crew.

Discrimination Station

Jeanette Epps barred from ISS

The problem with the crew discrimination goes beyond gender. ISS has yet to have an African American crew member. Last year NASA announced that Dr. Jeanette Epps would be the first African American crew member before Donald Trump was sworn into office. This January NASA rescinded that decision without explanation. They replaced her with another woman, Serena Auñón-Chancellor, who was scheduled to fly in November.

Epps has been completely removed from the ISS crew rotation even though NASA claims she is still under consideration. It has been confirmed that she was not ill, nor were family issues a reason for removal. NASA has not explained whether Trump’s administration was involved in the decision, nor whether Russia has demanded that the African American woman be barred from serving as a crew member.

However, it is clear that women and minorities are shockingly underrepresented on the space station. The unexplained removal of the first African American crewmember, who also is a woman, reflects a continuation of the ongoing discriminatory behavior of the program.

Gender-Based Crew Selection

NASA has demonstrated that it has a plan for the crew assignment based on gender assignment. Jeannette Epps has a Ph.D in engineering. She was replaced by Serena Auñón-Chancellor who is a physician. Dr. Aunon-Chancellor was pulled off an ISS Expedition scheduled to begin in November 2018, and she was replaced by Anne  McClain who is a West Point graduate, Major in the Army, and a pilot with Master’s degrees in Aerospace Engineering and International Relations.

It is obvious that these three women were not shuffled around on the basis of skills, education, nor experience. Epps, and Dr. Aunon-Chancellor were selected to be an astronaut in 2009. McClain was selected in 2013, and completed her training in 2015. None of them have been in space. The only rational explanation is that NASA was replacing a woman with another woman. NASA’s 90% male to 10% female crew assignment is intentional.

Five Versus One

Another issue is the male dominated crew Expeditions. Typically only one woman is assigned to be with five men for six months on ISS. Only twice have two women served at the same time on ISS. For three months in 2010, and three and a half months in 2014-5, two women were on board at the same time. For the rest of the 200 months of occupation, ISS has either had an all-male crew, or only one woman on board.

Lack of Qualified People?

Is it possible that NASA can’t find enough qualified women or minorities? The number of people who dream to be an astronaut may have diminished since Apollo, but the dream hasn’t died.

When less than ten percent of the ISS crew time is served by women, and no African Americans have served in over 17 years of operation it’s clear there is a problem. ISS shouldn’t be the icon of white male discrimination.