SpaceX Public Relations: Secrecy is Modus Operandi

04 Thursday Apr 2019

Posted by Paul Kiser 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

commercial space, Falcon Heavy, manned space program, privatization, Public Image, Public Relations, space business, space exploration, space flight, spaceflight, SpaceX, static fire test

[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.

While a lot of people are distracted by a Raptor in Texas, 27 Merlin 1Ds are hoping to attract your attention in Florida.

KSC goes into Critical Support from 20:30 Local (March 31) to 20:30 Local (April 1), meaning rollout to 39A likely on Sunday and then Static Fire on April 1. pic.twitter.com/nXUtGIiKsJ

— Chris B – NSF (@NASASpaceflight) March 27, 2019

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.

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

31 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by Paul Kiser 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

commercial space, Dragon 2, Dragon Capsule, Elon Musk, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, International Space Station, manned space program, manned spacecraft, space business, space exploration, space flight, Space X, spaceflight, SpaceX

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 Paul Kiser 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

commercial space, Dragon 2, Dragon Capsule, Elon Musk, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, International Space Station, journalism, journalism standards, journalistic ethics, manned space program, manned spacecraft, Soviet space program, space exploration, space flight, Space.com

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:

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

Boeing, cargo, commercial space, Dragon 2, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, human-rated, International Space Station, manned space program, Russia Space Program, Soviet space program, Space, space business, space flight, Space Program, Space Station, spacecraft, SpaceX, Starliner

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 Paul Kiser 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

Block 5, booster, booster landing system, commercial space, Elon Musk, F9, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, manned space program, reusable booster, space business, space exploration, space flight, Space X, SpaceX, Starship

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.

Is Jupiter the Cause of the Solar Sunspot Cycle?

26 Tuesday Feb 2019

Posted by Paul Kiser in 1968, Astronomy, Eclipse, NASA, Science, solar, Space

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

astronomy, electromagnetic radiation, gravity, Jupiter, Jupiter Solar Cycle Precession, orbit, Solar Cycle, solar maximum, Solar Minimum

A Strange Coincidence

About every eleven years the Sun completes a sunspot cycle. Every 11.9 years Jupiter completes its orbit of the Sun. Coincidence? Maybe, but there is compelling evidence to suggest that Jupiter and the sunspot cycle are linked.

Image 1.0 Sunspots at the beginning of the 2017 Total Solar Eclipse

The Solar Sunspot Cycle

The solar maximum (the period when the Sun has the maximum sunspot count) of last six cycles occurred in 2012, 2001, 1990, 1979, 1968, and 1957. In each case, the solar maximum extended over many months, but by selecting a common date within the period, (e.g.; June 1st,) the eleven year period becomes apparent (SEE Graphic 1.0)

Graphic 1.0 The Eleven-Year Solar Cycle using a Common Date (June 1st)

It is important to note that the eleven-year cycle applies to the maximum sunspot activity. Solar minimums tend to vary significantly from cycle to cycle; however, solar maximum activity is usually reliable within plus or minus six months.

Jupiter’s Solar Cycle Precession

The question is, where is Jupiter in relation to the Sun during the solar maximums? The answer is simple. For the last six solar maximum cycles, Jupiter has been approximately twenty-five degrees (25°) further back in its orbit than the previous solar maximum.

Graphic 2.0 The position of Jupiter in its Orbit for the Recent Solar Maximum Cycles and the upcoming cycle (Planets reflect orbital positions for 25 FEB 2019)

The idea of a connection between Jupiter’s orbit and the solar cycle has been traditionally scoffed at by astrophysicists; however, as more is understood about the dynamics of the Sun’s influence beyond the visible solar atmosphere, scientists are less eager to ignore the possibility. A 2016 German study suggests Jupiter, Venus, and Earth may all play a role in sunspot activity.

If there is a connection between the position of Jupiter and the solar maximum, it raises the question of why? Is it a gravitational link, or is it an electromagnetic link? Why does the solar maximum occur when Jupiter is approximately 25° further behind its position of the last solar maximum? Answers to these questions will certainly lead to more questions.

The answers may come soon. In the meantime, Jupiter is raising some interesting questions.

Equinox Does NOT Mean Equal Day and Night

20 Thursday Sep 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Astronomy, Life, Panama, Reno, Science, Space

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Autumnal Equinox, Equinox

The Myths of the Equinox

This Saturday at 6:54 pm PDT the Sun will be directly over the Equator. Geographically, the event will occur over the western Pacific Ocean, north of Papua New Guinea (≅149° east longitude.) It is the Autumnal Equinox and it is the moment that summer ends and winter begins…in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere, the equinox is the end of winter and beginning of spring.

Equinoxes are ripe with myths, but probably the most common myth is that an equinox is a date of an equal day (12 hours) and night (12 hours.) It is a myth established by those who live in the mid-latitudes because, on the day of the equinox, the day and night are approximately equal. Near the equator, the length of day and night are nearly the same year-round, so the equinox has no significance.

Equal Day/Night is About Location, Location, Location

Near the equator, day and night are almost equal the entire year; however, the closer one is to either pole, the length of the day increases to the point that there is no night on the equinox. Most locations away from the poles do have a date when day and night are approximately equal, but that rarely occurs on the equinox.

In Panama City, Panama, October 6, 2018, is the date when day and night are equal. In Reno, Nevada, USA, the date is September 25th. In New York City, NY, USA the date is September 26th. In São Paulo, Brasil it is September 17th. The date occurs near the equinox, but the exact date varies depending on location.

Finding East and West on the Equinox

What is true about the equinox? The equinox is the date that an observer can determine true east and true west from her or his location if she or he has an unobstructed view of the sunrise and sunset. Why this happens is complicated, but the point on the horizon where the Sun rises is true east and where it sets is true west.

Don’t get me started about balancing an egg. Eggs are for eating regardless of the date…and that’s about it.

‘Rigor’ is About a School’s Public Image, Not Education

18 Tuesday Sep 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Business, Conservatives, Discrimination, Education, Ethics, Generational, jobs, Nevada, parenting, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, racism, Reno, Science, Taxes, United States, Universities

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Education, Education methods, learning, middle school, parents, pedagogy, public education, rigor, schools, teachers, Teaching, Teaching methods

Education 2020 Series – Part II: Rigor

Rigor: An End That Ignores the Means

Rigor is a catch phase in education. Rigor is touted by business and conservatives as preparation for college and/or the ‘working world.’ The application of rigor is often interpreted by educators as ‘making the students work hard.’ The argument is a continuation of the belief by conservatives that all the problems in the world are the fault of the individual. Schools would be great if only the students worked harder.

The irony is that the definition of rigor doesn’t match the conservative use of the word. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary uses the following words to define ‘rigor.’

“…severity, unyielding or inflexible, strictness, austerity, an act or instance severity or cruelty, a condition that makes life difficult, challenging, or uncomfortable, strict precision: exactness…”

All of these words indicate that rigor is a cruel and inflexible education system that ignores everything we have learned about best practices in teaching.

Emphasis on Test Performance

My son is in the seventh grade in the gifted and talented education (GT or GATE) program of his school district. This his third year in the GT program and he is no stranger to a heavy homework load. Prior to joining the GT program, he attended a public charter school run by a Turkish Islamic group. In that school, he was also subject to rigor in the form of hours of homework designed to facilitate high test scores on standardized test required by the State of Nevada.

The purpose of rigor at the public charter school was two-fold. First, the public charter school administration used the high test scores as a shield to protect it from scrutiny by the school district and those test scores created an image of quality education for the school. Second, rigor was used to wash out all but the best academic performers in order to retain only college-bound students. The school has been in operation for 18 years; however, since they have had a K-12 program, the school graduates less than 25% of the students that were at the school in seventh grade. The rest of the students presumably move to other schools, which allows the charter school to brag about its 100% college-bound rates.

This week I attended my son’s “Parent Open House” His instructors pointed out their elaborate ‘agenda’ boards that covered the curriculum each day of that week. The agenda detailed in-class activities as well as assigned homework. They listed the multiple websites that are primarily established for one-way communication from instructor to student. Students are expected to constantly monitor the information provided and bear the burden of being aware of all requirements made by every instructor from every class.

Corporate Job Standards For Children?

It was a display of organization of information that any middle manager or corporate executive would envy. No student could possibly say that they didn’t know what was required of them. In the corporate world, we call these type of complicated objectives “Job Standards.”

Job Standards in the working world are used by managers to set expectations, then allow the manager to judge an employee’s performance. It sounds great, but Job Standards fail to provide mentoring for the employee, nor do they identify the shortcomings of the manager. If an employee has not been given the necessary training or resources, Job Standards create a situation to punish the employee. If the manager is partially, or completely at fault for an employee not achieving the expectations set down in the Job Standards, the employee potentially will be penalized.

Like corporate job standards, the concept of rigor in education create a system designed to produce results regardless of the objectives are realistic or not. It puts all the pressure on the victim of rigor and absolves the one who inflicts the rigor. If the student succeeds, the instructor and school can claim victory. If the student fails, it is the fault of the student.

To Mentor Students Or Throw Them In the Deep Water?

Instead of following an educational model that is based on mentoring the student, rigor is the educational model that follows the conservative concept of ‘sink or swim,’ and if the student sinks, it’s their fault. The fact that students are overwhelmed by the hours of homework and the confused by all the information coming at them from multiple instructors is acknowledged as a fact of life, not a problem. Counselors are sympathetic but cite the problem as the student’s need to adjust, not the school overreaching.

This is not to suggest that students need to be coddled, or that a challenging curriculum is wrong….let me say that again…this is not to suggest that students need to be coddled, or that a challenging curriculum is wrong;

This is not to suggest that students need to be coddled, or that a challenging curriculum is wrong…

…however, the conservative belief that education is simply a matter of demanding a heavy workload and establishing Job Standards for students is not appropriate. Twelve, thirteen, and fourteen-year-olds are not corporate employees, nor should they be subject to extended periods of excessive heavy workloads.

The Ugly Side of Educational Rigor

It should also be noted that educational rigor benefits specific groups. Students from wealthy families have more resources for tutors, computers, etc. to help them cope with the heavy workload and digital format. Students from Caucasian or Asian families also tend to have an advantage as their cultural background has established decades of high educational expectations. This means that the students from poorer economic situations and other minorities will not have the same support and become more at-risk under the rigor model.

The failure of the rigor model is that it de-emphasizes a mentoring model and focuses on a ‘sink or swim’ model. Not only is rigor wrong for the pedagogy used in our schools, but it also is biased towards certain socioeconomic and ethnic groups. It will only be a matter of time before there is enough research to prove that schools that employ ‘rigor’ in the curriculum are discriminating against certain ethnic groups.

Educational Landmines: Questioning the Pedagogy of Your Child’s School

17 Monday Sep 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Business, College, Conservatives, Discrimination, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Higher Education, jobs, labor, Life, Nevada, parenting, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, racism, Religion, Reno, Science, Taxes, Universities, US History, Voting

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

administration, Conservatives, Education, Education methods, Management Practices, pedagogy, public education, Public Image, school boards, teachers, Washoe County School District, WCSD

Education 2020 – Part I: Criticizing Pedagogy

Dangers of Discussing Pedagogy

Before any discussion of education begins, one must accept that if a parent questions the pedagogy (the methods and practice of teaching) of their child’s school that they risk being attacked, especially by other parents. My personal experience has been that other parents may become passionate about how wonderful the school is, even if there is clear documentation of problems within the school.

Sadly, parents who do criticize their child’s school often lack the knowledge and understanding of pedagogy to intelligently discuss issues and concerns. This has created a long history of parent’s crying ‘wolf’ about problems in the school. Now, all parents are assumed to be uninformed and overprotective, and their concerns and issues to be insignificant.

However, parents do have a legitimate perspective on the education of their children. It must be assumed that the parent will be biased toward their own child, but that does not completely negate the perspective.

Who Are the Experts For Pedagogy?

Ideally, pedagogy should be influenced by people who have expertise in education. Experience and or advanced degrees in the field are factors, but should one educator’s opinions determine the pedagogy for all educators? Research is also a factor; however, simple data (graduation rates, test scores, etc.) is not research because this data is not peer-reviewed. Without peer review, critical questions are left unanswered regarding the validity of the data.

In our country’s current political climate, the idea of equal opportunity in education for all has been supplanted by education to meet the needs of corporations and religious interests. The decades-long effort of lower taxes and attacks on public schools have led conservatives to invade the school boards and districts to plant a new agenda that benefits particular groups. To support their agenda, conservatives often use single viewpoints of an expert touting his or her ‘years’ of educational experience, or advance degrees to support their political agenda.

Who Speaks For the Children?

Is there a legitimate voice in determining the pedagogy of our schools? Yes and no. Teachers and students are the core of education of our youth. Mentoring, not rigor should be the core of pedagogy in any legitimate school. Pedagogy should not be guided by what will make a student a better worker, but by what will develop the skills and ability of the student to make them a better person. Parents are biased, but parents should serve as an assistant to teachers regarding their child’s education.

Most administrators and politicians should not have a significant role in pedagogy simply because they may have a corrupted interest in what is best for the student. Cutting costs, serving political and/or religious interests, etc. should not be part of the teacher/student interaction.

Finally, research, not data, should be at the core of pedagogy. The research should be unbiased for gender, race, and/or socioeconomic status. Graduation rates are meaningless unless there it can be documented that graduating from high school has led to personal, economic, and social success in adult life after graduation. College-bound rates are meaningless unless the student actually succeeds in college and completes a degree. Test scores and standardized tests are meaningless unless it can be proven that high test scores relate to success in adult life.

The Education 2020

It is dangerous territory to initiate a discussion on pedagogy and education in the United States of America; however, it is absolutely necessary. The future is determined by the wisdom of the present. Now is the time to discuss and correct the derailment of pedagogy in our schools.

The purpose of the Education 2020 series is to continue the discussion, identify the problems, and seek solutions.

Did F-117 Nighthawk Defeat USSR?

12 Thursday Apr 2018

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Air Force, Communism, F-117, Fall of USSR, fighter jet, military, Nighthawk, Russia, SAMs, Soviet Russia, surface to air missiles, U.S. Air Force, USSR

On 25 December 1991, Soviet Russia ended in a relative peaceful exchange of power. There were many reasons for the fall of communism, but one plane may have put the final stamp on the Soviet fate. Eleven months prior, the F-117 Nighthawk flew 1,300 sorties (missions) over Iraq during the Gulf War and proved it was almost invincible to modern air defenses. No one even knew about the plane three years prior to the Gulf War and with its domination over Iraq, the Soviets had lost the Cold War.

F-117 Nighthawk: The SciFi plane that won the Cold War?

F-117 Nighthawk: Plane of Science Fiction

A crazy idea. An invisible plane, at least invisible to radar. A plane that could sneak in and out of enemy airspace undetected. It was so crazy, no one thought it could be done…except Lockheed Martin. The absurdity of a stealth plane that could avoid radar detection helped keep it a secret until after it was already a reality.

The one problem was that a human couldn’t fly it. The aerodynamics of the odd surface angles changed the airflow around the plane and a pilot didn’t have the reflexes to respond fast enough before the plane was out of control. The pilot had to be assisted by a computer that interpreted the commands. It was the computer that managed the control surfaces to keep the Nighthawk from crashing.

The handling characteristics of the plane were a trade-off to the possibility of having a bomber that could breach enemy airspace undetected. A bomber that could hit targets with almost perfect accuracy. Soviet Russia had poured its technology into surface-to-air missiles (SAMs.) Those missiles could track down U.S. military jets and blow them out of the sky. Their effectiveness; however, depended on radar locating the jet. Without radar detection, Soviet SAMs could not be launched.

A New Reality

Once the Soviets learned of the F-117 Nighthawk, they knew that the United States could launch a first strike on Russia. An attack that they wouldn’t know about it until the first bomb hit the target. At the time, the Cold War had died down, but the Nighthawk made the idea of a war with the United States unwinnable. After the F-117 was revealed to the world, all of the military might of Soviet Russia became vulnerable to a handful of invisible planes.

In truth, there were many reasons that Soviet Russia fell. The decline of communism happened over decades. The economic and social issues were the prime causes of the USSR, but the F-117 created a new reality that Soviet Russia had not anticipated, nor could they overcome.

Breathe: Inhale to Breakdown Fat, Exhale To Lose It

09 Monday Apr 2018

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Anna Nalick, breathe, Breathe (2AM), breathing, exercise, fat, fat cells, health, weight, weight loss

Fat is not all bad. In fact, it is absolutely necessary as a body regulator and protects the body from injury and heat loss. It is basically an organic, cushy, multiuse storage unit in the body. The problem is that most of us don’t need all that storage, so we attempt to rid ourselves of it. To accomplish that we need to remember to breathe.

BEAR: Do I look fat to you? Think before you answer.

[NOTE: This article is based on an article from Live Science, “What’s in a Fat Cell?”]

Fat Has a Purpose, Many Actually

If we ate the same food, and the same amount on a consistent schedule, fat would be less relevant. Fat is a buffer, retaining surplus compounds and releasing them when the body lacks those compounds.

Most people know fat is storage unit, but it is also a hazmat locker when the bloodstream has can’t process toxins in the blood. Fat also is necessary to process certain vitamins so the cells can use them. In addition, fat has two functions that many people overlook. Fat cells are a shock absorber for the body, and certain fat cells break down and generate heat to help regulate the body temperature.

The Big Three of Fat

Fat has three main elements. Carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. When fat is ‘burned’ it is a chemical process caused by oxygen interacting with the carbon and hydrogen. The outcome is water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2.) The water is removed from the body through sweat or the digestive tract (urine and feces,) but the carbon dioxide is expelled when we exhale.

This makes the respiratory system critical in the elimination of fat cells. The oxygen inhaled is the oxidizer needed to break down the fat cell, and the carbon dioxide is exhaled. When we lose weight, the waste product is liquid and gas, not solid.

So, just breathe…and exercise…and eat healthily.

SpaceX’s Magical Block 5 Booster is a No Show

06 Friday Apr 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser 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

Block 5, booster, delays, F9, Falcon 9, first stage, promises, SpaceX

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 Paul Kiser 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

China, Curiosity, ESA, intelligent life, Joint Propulsion Laboratory, JPL, life, Mars, NASA, Pathfinder, Rovers, roving, Russia, Russia Space Program, Sojourner, Soviet Russia

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

atmosphere, China, Chinese Space Agency, deorbit, ISS, orbit, Skylab, Space Station, Tiangong 1

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.

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.

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

24 Saturday Mar 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser 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

booster, F-1 engine, Moon, Moon landings, Moon rocket, N1, NASA, NK-15 engine, Rocketdyne F-1 engine, Saturn V, Soviet Union, Soviets, space race, USSR

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.

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.

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

axial tilt, conditions for life, Earth, exoplanets, Goldilocks Zone, habitability, habitable planets, life, life on earth, Milky Way galaxy, Moon, planet, planets, Sun, temperature, water

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.

First Day of Spring is Fake News

20 Tuesday Mar 2018

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

cold, fake news, first day of Spring, northern hemisphere, Spring, tornados, Vernal Equinox, warm air, Weather, weather people, winter

Today at 9:15 am Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) the Sun will be directly over the equator. For this reason, the news media will relentlessly remind us that Spring is here. They will tell us it is the return of warm weather! Yea! But, don’t be fooled by their fake news.

Springtime in the Northern Hemisphere. Bah!

You Call This Spring?

The Vernal equinox may be the date that the Sun comes back over to our side of the equator, but let’s be real, warm weather doesn’t rush back the northern hemisphere. At least not to those over 35° north latitude. Some of us will be lucky to see our shadow on the first day of Spring. Forget about the stupid groundhog that never, ever is correct.

The northern hemisphere will continue to be smothered in cold air masses and bring snow down across much of the lower 48 states. (Don’t get smug Hawai’i. You can have snowstorms after the Vernal equinox, too. You just have to climb a really tall volcano to get to it.) The media calls them ‘Spring snowstorms’ as if that is supposed to make us feel better about them. News flash: It doesn’t.

And don’t get me started on those people who like to slip down a snow-covered slope while trying to stand on bent slats of fiberglass. They are all smiles when a new storm dumps more solid water in the mountains. After the third week in March, skiing and snowboarding should be done on ice and melting snow, as God intended. None of this ‘fresh powder’ crap.

Spring Reality Check

For the next three months, the axis tilt of the Earth will increasingly favor the Sun in the northern hemisphere. For those of us that are done with cold weather, we have to remember that warm and cold are like new lovers can’t get enough of each other.

As the lower latitudes of the northern hemisphere heat up, the cold air in the higher latitudes rushes down to embrace the warmth. Tornados in northern Florida are an indication that the Sun is heating up the northern hemisphere and the winter cold is rushing down to meet it. As we move from March to April to May to June, tornados will show up farther and farther north.

The Script

News media will still try to convince us that the weather significantly changes on 20 March. I’ve stolen an advance copy of the script that is to be used by local television weather people across the northern United States:

Weatherperson:

(Try to sound homey) Well, it looks like Spring is here, but we still have some Spring snowstorms hanging around for the next few days, weeks, or possibly months. These storms are Spring storms so the temperature will be one half a degree warmer than during the Winter. We should see only a trace of snow, up to two meters if your house is located within the area of snowfall. It will quickly melt off in May, so get out there and enjoy the Spring weather!

Why Are There 360 Degrees in a Circle?

19 Monday Mar 2018

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

360°, astronomy, Base 60 Babylonians, circles, degrees, Greeks, math, mathematicians, metric, orbit, year

Everyone knows there are 360 degrees in a circle. Why? A circle could have a 1,000° which would make a half circle equal 500° and a quarter circle 250°. Who chose the number 360? Was there a vote? Who do we blame? Inquiring minds want to know!

2017 Total Solar Eclipse from Canyon City, OR

As it turns out there are at least two reasons we use 360° as the number to define a complete circle. One reason has to do with astronomy and the other with mathematics.

360 Degrees? Blame the Babylonians

The Greeks are partly responsible for defining the numerical value for a circle, but really it was the Babylonians. It may even be farther back than the Babylonians, but someone erased their hard drive and now we will never know.

Apparently, the Babylonians loved the number ’60.’ They created a number system using Base 60 (we use Base 10.) The number 60 is amazing because it can be divided into so many factors. 60 can be divided evenly by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60. Since the Babylonians loved 60, the fact that a circle can be divided into six equilateral triangles made 360 the best option for defining the numerical value of a circle.

We don’t actually know if it was the Babylonians, but we do know that several prominent Greek mathematicians used 360° as the numerical value for a circle. It is written…in Greek of course.

Star Gazers In a 360 Days

But long before the Babylonians, it was obvious to anyone who looked up at the sky at night that the stars followed a circular pattern through the year. If one noted the position of a star or constellation on a particular night and time, next year that star would be in the same place on the same day and time.

The elapsed number of nights for a full circle? About 360. Anyone who tracked the stars would have noted that the circular pattern of the stars resumed after about 360 days.

The reason we have 360° is most likely because of the speed at which the Earth rotates, (once every 24 hours,) and there are approximately 360 rotations (days) in a year.

Metric Circles?

Believe it or not, there were attempts to make circles metric. It didn’t take. There are some uses for it, but the 360° value is more accepted ‘around’ (that’s a joke) the world.

The Ides of March is Really About the Moon

15 Thursday Mar 2018

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

15th, Antony, calendar, Full Moon, Half Moon, ides, ides of March, Julius Caesar, kalends, month, New Moon, nones, Octavius, Roman, Rome, Senate, William Shakespeare, year

Thanks to William Shakespeare, the Ides of March is associated with the assassination of Julius Caesar (15 March 44 B.C.) Most people know the Ides of March to be on the 15th. The Ides of a month is often referred to as the middle of the month, which is true, but there is more. The Ides of March is about the Moon, not Caesar.

The Greek and early Roman calendar: New Moon began each month (kalends) and the Full Moon was the middle (ides)

The Growing Pains of the Months and Years Concept

The concept of a month and a year was in a transitional phase during the rule of the Romans. Early calendars simply followed the phases of the Moon. A New Moon started each month and the Full Moon was the middle. This meant that the cycle of the seasons and the months were not in synch.

Each month included three reference points associated with the phases of the Moon. They were the kalends (New Moon), nones (first half Moon,) and ides (Full Moon.) Every other day of the month was a number based on how long before the next named phase of the Moon (March 12 would be ‘3 days before ides.’)

However, there were only ten months in a year so they added Winter as an unnamed time period between the years to match the Spring, Summer, and Autumn. The New Moon prior to the Vernal Equinox would begin the new year. March was the first month of a new year and celebrations were held between the kalends and ides of March. For example, in 2018 the New Year (kalends of March) would be 17 March so the ides of March would be 31 March.

Back to J.C. …Julius Caesar

Cavete Idibus Martiis

Beware the Ides of March (in Latin)

The situation of Caesar’s death is interesting considering the current political environment of the United States. Caesar had won the support of the lower Roman classes and was named dictator for life. His assassination threatened the rise of a civil war led by the lower class. Antony used this threat in an attempt to take Julius Caesar’s place, but Caesar had named his 18-year-old son, Octavius, as his successor. In the end, the conspirators in the Senate were all killed and Octavius ruled Rome.

Time To Stop Changing Time? Why We Need Daylight Saving Time All Year

11 Sunday Mar 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Aging, All Rights Reserved, Astronomy, Daylight Saving Time, Economy, Generational, Government, habits, Health, History, Lessons of Life, Mental Health, Recreation, Reno, Science, solar, Space, Technology, Travel, United States, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

clock, Daylight Saving Time, DST, Standard Time, time change, Year Round

Many people dislike the two days of the year we go to or revert from Daylight Saving Time (DST.) It requires changing the clocks and adjusting to the new rhythm of our activity related to the rise and set of the Sun. It is annoying and, as a species, annoyance is a prompt for finding a solution. Perhaps it is time to stop changing time.

A Problem of Degrees

We should recognize that the length of day is only an issue for those living between 30° and 70° latitude. The length of day within 30° of the equator doesn’t radically change from summer to winter. Above 70° latitude, the Sun sets for weeks or months during the winter and there are not many people living that close to the poles.

For those living between 30° and 70° latitude, there is an undeniable problem. Reno, Nevada, USA is at 39° north latitude. At the summer solstice, the day is almost 15 hours long and sunrise is at 5:30 am under Daylight Saving Time. If we did not have DST, the sun would rise at 4:30 am.

A Diurnal Vespertine-Adapted Species

In an agrarian economy, working in the field is easier during daylight hours. In that situation, time is relative to a solar schedule; however, in an interactive urban economy, working in shops and offices is more suitable for a common clock schedule.

After artificial electric light became the standard, and after the population moved into cities, we became a diurnal, vespertine-adapted species. Most of our country’s population works during the daylight hours and participates in non-work activities in the evenings. Today, most people are not active before six in the morning, but they remain active until 10 pm or later.

Sunrise before 6 am disturbs the typical sleep patterns of humans, and light later into the evening is more suitable for evening activities. Daylight Saving Time creates a favorable environment for a later sunrise and more sun in the evening.

Daylight Saving Time Year Round

Standard Time was traditionally based on the position of the Sun at High Noon. That approximately divided the daylight into Morning and Afternoon. We no longer use High Noon as the foundation of Standard Time; however, it is an artifact of a primarily agrarian economy. Daylight Saving Time was used to adapt the clock to human behavior as we moved from the farms to more urban living.

Time is a human invention. It should serve the needs of humans. It would seem it is time to stop punishing humans with Standard Time and remain on Daylight Savings Time for the entire year.

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

10 Saturday Mar 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

cosmic radiation, cosmic rays, Curious Droid, Earth, flip, Liquid core, magnetic pole reversal, magnetic poles, North Pole reversal, solar radiation, South Pole reversal, sunspot cycle, sunspot maximum, sunspot minimum, swap

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 Paul Kiser 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

bigotry, Board certified, Buzz Aldrin, Conservatives, Donald Trump, Eileen Collins, FAA, Mike Pence, NASA, National Space Council, racism, science teacher, SpaceX

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)

Tory Bruno, Formerly with Lockheed Martin. President and CEO of United Launch Alliance
Wes Bush, CEO of Northrop Grumman
Mary Lynne Dittmar, Former Boeing employee and NASA advisor, currently President, and CEO of the private space industry advocacy group Coalition for Deep Space Exploration
Former Admiral Jim Ellis, Board of Directors Lockheed Martin, Retired 4-star Admiral, former head of STRATCOM, and member of the Space Foundation Board of Directors
Tim Ellis, CEO of Relativity Space, a corporation seeking to build rockets with 3D printers and using no labor or astronauts
Marillyn Hewson, CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation
Les Lyles, Only African American on Council, Director for multiple corporations, retired Air Force in 2003 after a long history of working in various military defense missile capacities.
Dennis Muilenburg, CEO of the Boeing Company
Fatih Ozmen, CEO of the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) with headquarters in Nevada which doesn’t have income or corporate taxes; however, the operations are in Colorado.
Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX (Space Exploration Technologies Corporation)
Bob Smith, CEO of Blue Origin
Eric Stallmer, President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation
David Thompson, Founder and CEO of Orbital ATK
Mandy Vaughn, President of VOX Launch Company
Stu Witt, Founder of Mojave Air and Spaceport, former Navy pilot, former Chairman of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation

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 Paul Kiser in Astronomy, Exploration, NASA, Science, solar, Space, Technology, US Space Program

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

ecliptic, ninth planet, orbit, Planet Nine, solar plane, solar system, Sun, trans-Neptunian objects

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 Paul Kiser 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

Anne McClain, astronauts, bias, crew, discrimination, Expeditions, Female, Gender, International Space Station, ISS, Jeanette Epps, male, misogyny, NASA, racism, Russia, Serena Auñón-Chancellor, Space, United States

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.

SpaceX 2018 Launch Schedule Is PR Gold or PR Nightmare

28 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Marketing, Milestone, NASA, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

2018, Block 5, commercial space, fairing, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, launch, manned space program, manned spacecraft, NASA, space business, SpaceX, Starman, Tesla Roadster, Zuma

SpaceX is dependent on its reputation of success and reliability. There is no room in SpaceX’s 2018 launch schedule for major failures. The successful launch of the Falcon Heavy with a Tesla Roadster as the payload has repaired the long delays of the program, but in the business of space, you’re only as good as your last mission.

SpaceX’s Starman in Earth orbit

SpaceX’s reputation will be determined by the successful implementation of three critical elements of their program. Failure of any of the three elements and SpaceX could be facing a public relations (PR) nightmare; however, success will prove Elon Musk’s lofty visions for the company might be more than just talk.

SpaceX Must Do No. 1 – Consistency in Payload Delivery

The Falcon 9 program has moved out of the novice phase and into the professional phase. The question remains as to whether or not SpaceX can consistently put payloads into orbit.

Landing the booster after these launches dazzles the public, but has no impact on the effectiveness or cost efficiency of the program. Most of the boosters are the previous Block 3 or 4 versions and will not be reused. There is an issue with the booster landings. How long will paying customers accept SpaceX’s waste of resources on the ‘reusable’ PR parlor trick?

The other issue cropping up is the reliability of the fairing on the nose of the rocket. There are persistent issues with the fairing and while SpaceX absolved themselves of the loss of the super secret Zuma satellite, questions still remain as to the role of the fairing release after launch.

SpaceX Must Do No. 2 – Prove Falcon Heavy is Reliable

The inaugural launch of the Falcon Heavy was a spectacular success for SpaceX. The PR kudos continue to pour in with every new sighting by astronomers as the alternate human, Starman, drives his Tesla out further in the solar system.

All that could be lost if the next two 2018 scheduled launches of the Falcon Heavy experience problems. Failed launches of the Heavy would erase much of the PR boost of the first launch and call back into question the wisdom of a 27-engine booster. SpaceX has to duplicate the home run first launch at least twice more before customers will feel warm and fuzzy about the Falcon Heavy.

SpaceX Must Do No. 3 – Success of the F9 Block 5 Version

Block 5 is the final version of the Falcon 9 booster and it goes into service in 2018. It is the booster that will be rated for human spaceflight and much of SpaceX’s future as a commercial space program depends on proving it answers all the concerns of the four previous versions.

NASA is requiring seven successful booster flights of the Block 5 version of Falcon 9 before it will be rated for humans. That means SpaceX has to successfully launch the same version of the booster, without significant redesigns, seven times.

SpaceX has scheduled the maiden and second flight of the Block 5 version for April. It then has to fit five more successful flights between May and November. Once achieved, SpaceX can be approved to send astronauts up on the Block 5 booster in December of this year.

2018 A Year of Glory or Humiliation

Elon Musk has a reputation for promising more than he can deliver. He is a master of overconfidence but now results matter. He knows how to carefully craft a situation to amaze the public.

The Falcon Heavy launch was one of those moments. When they see the video of Starman orbiting Earth in a shiny red Tesla with the top down, people don’t remember that the Falcon Heavy was supposed to be ready in 2013. When they see the first stage of a rocket magically land on the pad, people don’t care that the booster was never going to be reused again.

2018 isn’t going to be a time when showmanship is going to cover up glaring issues. If there are problems meeting this year’s critical goals, people will see the man behind the curtain.

However, if SpaceX manages to achieve these milestones with minimal problems, SpaceX will be the shining star of space exploration.