Category Archives: Technology

Blindsided: End of U.S. Solar Observation Capabilities?

29 Monday Nov 2021

Posted by in NASA, Politics, Science, solar, Space, Space Weather, Technology, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

The United States currently has four primary solar observation satellites keeping vigil on the activity of the Sun. They are ready to observe and test dangerous solar flares that might cripple anything that would be at risk with an electromagnetic pulse. Without them, we are left to stand on the shore of space, watching every flicker of the Sun and hoping it isn’t signaling our doom.

These four satellites do more than observe the Sun. Their orbit is at the L1 Lagrange Point directly between the Earth and the Sun. A point where Earth’s gravitational influence equals the Sun’s. These satellites will experience anything the Sun throws at Earth, hours before we will receive it.

However, all four of these satellites are operating beyond their planned lifespan and most are using technology that predates smartphones. We risk being blindsided by solar storms at the same time we are about to enter another solar maximum.

NOAA Space Weather Program Manager William Murtagh made a sheepish attempt to warn a Congressional committee in February of 2020 by saying that they would be “hurting a little bit” if one of the key satellites failed.

Extreme ultraviolet image of the Sun by SOHO

Solar Observation Satellites Today

Currently, the United States has the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE), and the Wind solar wind observatory. All three are beyond their planned mission time. DSCOVR is approaching seven years of operation of a five-year planned mission. ACE has over 24 years of operation for a planned five-year lifespan. Finally, the Wind satellite has been operational for over 27 years of a three-year planned mission.

The U.S. teamed with the European Space Agency (ESA) for the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) satellite that offers near real-time imaging of the Sun in multiple wavelengths on its website to the public. That satellite was launched in 1995 for a planned two-year mission. It has been in operation for 26 years.

There is one additional mission that was intended on giving Earth a 360° view of the Sun using two satellites, one positioned ahead of Earth’s orbit and one behind. The Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO A & B) pair of satellites were launched in 2006. STEREO B was positioned to see the activity of the Sun prior to it rotating towards Earth. STEREO A was positioned to observe the activity after it moved beyond Earth’s view.

Imaging on the STEREO website reminds us of what we don’t have.

Of the two satellites, STEREO B was critical in giving scientists on Earth advance warning of hazardous solar activities; however, we lost contact with that satellite in 2016. Both satellites exceeded their two-year expected lifespan and STEREO A is still in operation.

20+ Year Old Technology

In 2001, Windows XP was released. That program is newer than three of the four primary solar observation satellites currently in service. Smartphones didn’t even exist in the late 1900s and yet, pre-2000 technology is what we currently depend on for early warning of hazardous solar activity.

NASA has been able to squeeze every byte of usability out of our aging satellites but we are at risk of losing most, if not all, of our current solar observation capabilities. Between simple deterioration and future solar storms, we are gambling the safety of our planet with nothing to replace our eyes on the Sun until 2024 at the earliest.

Cameras, communications, and satellite technology have dramatically changed since the end of the 20th century. Our need for updating and upgrading our space-based solar observation abilities has become critical.  

The Money Problem

Both liberal and conservative politicians have made their careers on defunding our key space programs. Conservatives have done the most damage in the aerospace field by slashing NASA programs that don’t blow up or ram something while also filling NASA with people who bend to their will.

At the same time, conservatives have drained the federal government of money for publically controlled space programs and given it to commercial space programs that shield their operations from public scrutiny. The result has been to create Soviet-like space programs that seek to profit off reinventing what we were already able to do decades ago with a government-run space program. 

A Perfect Storm

The risk of a severe coronal mass ejection (CME) that would overload our satellites, electrical transmission wires, cars, computers, phones, etc., increases during the solar maximum that occurs approximately every eleven years. Scientists have been surprised by the early start of the new solar cycle that will reach maximum activity around June of 2023.

Aging satellites, outdated technology, lack of funding for replacement satellites, and an increased risk of solar activity, all create the perfect storm of factors that could lead to the United States having a reduced capability to issue warnings of severe solar weather. In fact, we are probably already too late to do anything about it.  

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

27 Friday Aug 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Shotwell and Space Lasers

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

Taking a page from Marjorie Tayor Greene

Methinks the SpaceX Lady Doth Protest Too Much

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

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

“…Better-Than-Nothing Beta Service…”

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

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

Facts Ignored By Shotwell

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

One:  Lack of Flight-Ready Boosters

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

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

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

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

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

Two:  Cheap Lasers Causing Problems?

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

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

Shotwell quoted in SpaceNews

Perhaps cheaper lasers are not a better solution?

Three:  Shotwell’s Credibility Gap

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

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

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

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

Four:  Starlink is a White Elephant Waiting to Die

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

Doing The Math

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

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

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

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

To Be Fair

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

SpaceX Ran Out of Block 5 Boosters

23 Monday Aug 2021

Posted by in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Falcon Heavy, Internet, Public Image, Public Relations, Saturn V, Science, Space, SpaceX, Starlink, Technology, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The Barn Was Empty, SpaceX Ran Out of Block 5 Boosters

SpaceX activity has been quiet in July and August because they simply ran out of Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters. In June they successfully launched four of their seven pure revenue-producing flights of this year. That, combined with four launches in May for their white elephant Starlink program [SEE:  Must Sell Starlink], left them with nothing to put in the air. 

The Starship Stack Diversion

They did grab the attention of the SpaceX groupies by stacking a non-flightworthy Starship on a booster in Boca Chica. This allowed them to claim that they finally build a rocket taller than the Apollo Saturn Five rocket…of 50 years ago; however, SpaceX has still not launched a functioning rocket that can rival the Saturn Five.

Heavy lift Rockets and number of successful launches to date.

SpaceX Block Five Returns To Work?

Late this month, SpaceX has a launch scheduled to deliver a cargo ship to the International Space Station (ISS) if they have a booster ready. They currently have eight flyable boosters (1049, 1051, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, and 1067;) however, booster 1051 is beyond its ten flight limit¹ and both 1049 and 1051 are now in California awaiting Starlink polar launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base. The most likely candidate boosters for the ISS cargo ship are 1058 or 1063. Both were launched in May and have had three months be readied for flight.

[¹The Block 5 boosters were designed for ten launches without refurbishment. Recently, According to Spaceflight Now, Elon Musk stated that they would fly the boosters for the Starlink program beyond ten missions “…until they break…” indicating the risk of losing the payload is a low priority.]

2021 4th Quarter – What To Expect

There are 17 SpaceX missions rumored for the remainder of 2021. Some of these missions are definitely planned and a few actually have dates and/or boosters assigned. Here is a list of the missions:

August (yes, I know that it is not in the 4th Quarter)

28 August – ISS cargo ship from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) – Booster 1061

LIKELY – [NOTE:  At the time of publication, the booster had not been identified.] The only question on this launch is why the booster has not been determined. SpaceX has a policy of not offering details of missions to the public, but usually, the booster assignment is eventually revealed in public documents or by SpaceX unofficial sources. At this late date, it is assumed that the booster has been assigned and is ready to be mated with the cargo ship.

September

September (x2) – Starlink Polar from Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) – Boosters 1049 and 1051.

LIKELY – This mission has been pushed back from July and August. Booster 1049 arrived at VSFB for this mission shortly after its last launch and recovery in May. If it doesn’t launch in September something is wrong. Booster 1051 arrived at VSFB a couple of weeks after 1049. It is possible both missions will be launched in September, but I wouldn’t be shocked if the 1051 mission didn’t happen until October.

15 September – Shift4 Joy Ride from KSC – Booster 1062

LIKELY – Although no booster has been assigned, several should be available for the public relations stunt. It will be a PR boost for SpaceX and they have every reason to make it happen as scheduled. 

September 2021, November 2021, & TBD 2021 – Starlink from KSC – Boosters unknown

QUESTIONABLE – SpaceX has launched 27 missions for their Starlink satellites in 2020 and 2021. That is 27 booster cycles that weren’t used for commercially viable launches. Three of those launches ended with the loss of the booster which cut short the revenue potential of additional launches with those boosters. SpaceX could reduce the risk of future booster losses by using Block 5 boosters that have finished their design lifespan of ten launches for the Starlink missions.

However, SpaceX has now moved their two Block 5 boosters with the most launches (Booster 1051 – 10 launches & Booster 1049 – 9 launches) to VSFB in California. It is unlikely they will move these boosters back to Florida this year. That means if a Starlink mission is launched, SpaceX will have to use a newer booster and risk its loss. It is unlikely that all three missions will be launched if any are launched.

October

31 October – ISS Crew from KSC – Booster 1067

LIKELY – The fact that this is a revenue-producing flight, that it involves the crew for the ISS, and that it is a NASA mission, is reflected by the fact that it already has a scheduled date and a booster assigned.

October – German spy satellite from VSFB – Booster unknown

QUESTIONABLE – Unless SpaceX is intending on risking a revenue-producing payload on the overextended 1051 booster, they don’t have a booster at Vandenberg for this mission. Certainly, they could move a booster to California or use the new 1069 booster, but this mission has no date, nor booster assigned. An October launch seems iffy.

October –  U.S. spy satellite from KSC – Boosters 1064, 1065, & 1066 (Falcon Heavy)

LIKELY – Boosters are tested and ready. It’s a classified mission and the core booster has to be expended to get the payload into a higher orbit. This is not one for a PR show but it is a mission that they need to show potential commercial and military customers that SpaceX is not just a flying circus.

November

17 November – IXPE satellite from KSC – Booster unknown

LIKELY – Since this mission has a launch date three months in advance it would seem that this is a serious mission. There should be several boosters that will be available.

23 November – DART satellite from VSFB – Booster unknown

LIKELY – This will be an interesting booster assignment. The payload has to go into a heliocentric orbit so it is possible, or even likely, that the booster will be expended. That might be a mission they would assign a booster like 1049 or 1051 as both will have had more launches than they were designed for originally.

December

4 December – ISS cargo ship from KSC – Booster unknown

LIKELY – The mission has a date and the ISS needs its cargo, so this is likely to happen but the date might slide by a few weeks, as in the past.

December – O3b mPower satellites from KSC – Booster unknown

QUESTIONABLE – SpaceX has a long history of putting missions on a tentative schedule and then pushing them back. SpaceX will have to divide its boosters up between Vandenberg and Kennedy Space Center to meet their launch schedule. It would seem that at least three boosters will have to be in California to meet the needs of their customers.

December – Transporter3 from VSFB – Booster unknown

QUESTIONABLE – This will depend upon how many boosters are committed to California. SpaceX seems to be making noises about going big at Vandenberg and the schedule indicates that intention. Unfortunately, SpaceX doesn’t have enough boosters to divide between two launch facilities, and moving them around costs money.

4th Quarter – Turksat 5B from KSC – Booster unknown

NOPE – The kiss of death on a SpaceX schedule is for it to be scheduled for ‘sometime in X quarter.’ It seems to be a schedule filler for SpaceX PR people to refer to when they discuss the number of launches planned for the year. 

4th Quarter – Maxar Technologies satellites from VSFB – Booster unknown

NOPE – Same as the Turksat mission. It probably won’t happen in 2021.

5 Reasons SpaceX Must Sell Starlink

11 Friday Jun 2021

Posted by in Astronomy, Business, Communication, Customer Service, Internet, NASA, Public Image, Space, SpaceX, Starlink, Technology, US Space Program

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Since the start of 2019, slightly over half¹ of SpaceX’s launches have been for the Starlink satellite network. The idea of becoming a worldwide provider of Internet service with a constellation of flashy satellites that people can see crossing the sky after launch has been a welcome boost for the SpaceX fan club. The image of boosters coming back for a perfect touchdown has provided a great cover for the reality that may be lurking behind the SpaceX curtain…SpaceX must sell Starlink. 

¹[Starlink = 29 launches, Commercial and Government = 28 launches]

Starlink satellite rack ready to deploy

5 Reasons SpaceX Should Sell Starlink

1.  Cashflow

In a previous article, I argue that SpaceX is not doing what is required to keep a business viable, that is to make money. [SpaceX “Burning Through Cash” and Boosters] In 2018, all 21 of SpaceX launches were revenue-producing (100% for a paying customer) flights for either commercial or government customers. That dropped to 11 revenue-producing flights in 2019, and 12 in 2020. In the first six months of this year, SpaceX has only launched 5 revenue-producing flights. 

The drastic cut in revenue-producing flights in 2019 raises questions as to why SpaceX couldn’t find customers. Possibly in response, SpaceX ramped up their pet Starlink project in 2020 to maintain the public image of a busy private space enterprise.

However, that image does not come without its costs. Each Starlink launch is estimated to cost $111 million² [Morgan Stanley report Sept 2019.] That number is disputed [NextBigFuture article Dec 2019] by SpaceX; however, they don’t offer to disclose the real costs of the system. If the costs per launch were only $100 million, SpaceX will have spent $2.9 billion since 2019 on the Starlink launches. 

Revenue from the users of the Starlink system is not expected to break even with the costs for several years so SpaceX looks to be in a serious cashflow deficit.

²[$50 million for vehicle + ($1 million per satellite x 60) = $111 million]

2.  Weak Market Base

Despite the fact that the Internet has been around for over two decades, there is no significant use of satellite-based Internet services. Space allows greater access to users; however, the cost/benefit comparison makes ground-based systems a better option.

The target market is the rural user that can’t easily access a broadband connection and this market consists of users with the least spendable income. There is a great need for quality Internet service in rural areas; however, rural area economies don’t provide the financial resources to pay for it.

Starlink is a service that is like selling food to starving people. The need is there, but if the people could afford it, they wouldn’t be starving. 

What 1,500 Starlink satellites look like in orbit. There will be 30,000.

3.  Liability

Starlink has already run into controversy about the impact of the massive satellite system. Astronomers worldwide have voiced complaints about the network interfering with the scientific study of space from Earth-based telescopes. SpaceX has attempted to lessen the impact of the reflectivity of the satellites and they have become less obvious in orbit.

There has also been an incident in 2019, where a request was made by the European Space Agency (ESA) to alter the orbit of a Starlink satellite and the Starlink operator refused to comply. SpaceX claims they initially felt the threat was not a concern, then later realized that it was; however, because of a communications breakdown between SpaceX and the Starlink operator, they failed to act. [Forbes article Sept 2019]

With tens of thousands of satellites and scores of launches every year to build and maintain the constellation, the risk of a significant incident is high. The possibility of a collision would not only impact the satellites involved but would send debris out toward other satellites creating the nightmare scenario that was the plot of the 2013 movie Gravity.

Whoever operates the Starlink constellation takes on the liability of an accident that has global implications. 

4.  Risk of Failure

The Starlink satellite system is a long-term, high-risk gamble both financially and technologically. The logic of how such a system will be economically feasible seems to be flawed. It is a business venture that seems likely to leave someone holding the bag…and the bag may be filled with debt and public humiliation. 

The Starlink Constellation: 30,000 moving parts, traveling at 28,000 km/hr, operating 24/7/365. What could possibly go wrong?

5.  Cost of Maintenance

Based on the Morgan Stanley analysis, the initial cost of the full 30,000 Starlink satellite system will be somewhere between $40 and $50 billion but the cost doesn’t end there.

Each satellite’s lifespan is only five years according to SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell [CNBC.com article Nov 2019.] That would seem to indicate that SpaceX may be continuously launching satellites for the life of the constellation.

But SpaceX is Rolling In Money!

SpaceX has been successful in obtaining venture capital; however, the investors expect a return on their investment. If SpaceX can’t make a profit, there will be consequences.

What about the rumored IPO?

An Initial Public Offering (IPO) of Starlink has been talked about by Musk, Shotwell, and the financial community; however, an IPO means that SpaceX will still be responsible for the costs and risks of Starlink. Selling Starlink allows SpaceX to wash their hands of it and recoup the money they’ve already spent.

Starlink has done what it needed it to do. It has given SpaceX the image of a successful private space corporation. SpaceX will likely be in desperate need of money to keep operations functioning for all of the existing projects. Starlink will likely become a liability and finding someone to dump it on is the best-case scenario for SpaceX. 

SpaceX “Burning Through Cash” and Boosters

08 Tuesday Jun 2021

Posted by in Business, Falcon Heavy, NASA, Space, SpaceX, Technology, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Where You Spend Your Money…

There is an adage that suggests that where you spend your time and/or money indicates what is your priority. In 2021, SpaceX’s priorities have been on launching Starlink satellites, testing Starships, and developing a rocket launch facility in Texas. SpaceX is burning through money with a priority of spending, not making money.

SpaceX Starship Failure

That is a great plan if you have tax revenues to fund your expenses, but SpaceX isn’t a government operation. It is a private company…that isn’t making money.

SpaceX doesn’t share its financial situation so people have to look at what they are doing to get an idea of what is happening with their cash flow. What we can see is that in 2021, SpaceX:

  1. has had 17 launches this year, 13 of which are non-revenue producing (in the immediate future) Starlink launches.
  2. has had 4 Starship non-revenue test launches, 3 unsuccessful landings, and 1 landing that resulted in a fire that damaged the ship.
  3. is engaged in massive non-revenue infrastructure expenditures on developing Boca Chica launch facilities in Texas.
  4. has only had 4 revenue-producing commercial flights so far.

Regarding SpaceX’s spending on the Starlink buildup, Nicholas Rossolillo, said,

…it’s safe to say Starlink is burning through cash. 

The Motley Fool – 9 March 2021

A Lack of Customers Or Ignoring Customers?

Beyond the money issue, SpaceX is burning through boosters. At a time when SpaceX needs revenue, they have used their Block 5 booster inventory to send up Starlink satellites that will not have a financial return for years, if ever. Paying customers have to wonder if their payloads are a SpaceX priority.

22 Boosters * 10 Launches Each = 220 Launches

The selling point to the public about SpaceX’s launch system is the reusable Falcon 9 Block 5 booster; however, reusable doesn’t mean infinite. Since 2018, SpaceX has built (or in the process of building) 22 Block 5 boosters. These launch-and-return boosters are intended to be used ten times. That should result in 220 launches with this inventory of boosters.

Minus Seven For Falcon Heavy

Yet, seven of the 22 are for use in a configuration of three for the Falcon Heavy rocket. This means that three boosters are used for one launch. Since there have only been two Falcon Heavy launches for large payloads, (plus one more now scheduled for October,) SpaceX actually has only 15 boosters for normal payloads. This gives them the potential of 150 launches.

SpaceX Double Stick Landing of Falcon Heavy Side Boosters

Minus Another Seven That Are Now Unusable

Seven of the remaining 15 boosters have been destroyed or lost. Those seven completed only 24 launches of a potential 70, during their use. That leaves eight boosters that are currently available for active use. Those eight boosters have completed 41 launches of a potential of 80 launches. 

Four Boosters Have a Combined Total of Six Launches Left

However, of those eight active boosters, one has reached its ten launch maximum, one has nine launches, one has eight launches, and one has seven launches. That means four of the active boosters only have six launches before they reach their ten-launch maximum.

SpaceX has suggested that they will continue to use the boosters beyond the ten launches maximum; however, it is unclear whether the FAA will allow SpaceX to go beyond the maximum.

Only Four Boosters Available by the End of The Year

As the year winds down, SpaceX will be down to four Block 5 boosters that aren’t near their maximum launch limit and each takes a minimum of 30 to 40 days to turnaround for another launch. The launches in the last half of November will leave no boosters left for the rest of the 2021 launch schedule. The situation becomes worse if they fail to land a booster that has not reached its ten launch maximum.

More Boosters?

SpaceX’s situation would improve if they can put another booster in the inventory. The problem is that the Falcon Heavy core booster that is scheduled for launch in October will be expended to push the customer’s satellite into a higher orbit. Of the next two boosters in production, one is rumored to be a replacement core booster for the next Falcon Heavy launch in 2022.

In addition, the maximum number of boosters SpaceX has built in a calendar year is six, and last year they only produced five new boosters. Another standard Falcon 9 Block 5 booster seems unlikely. 

SkyFall For SpaceX?

SpaceX lovers tend to avoid taking a hard look at the money question. It is easy to be sucked in by the cool onboard videos, the booster landings, and the spectacular explosive failures, but at some point, the bills have to be paid and in 2021, SpaceX doesn’t have a visible income to pay for the fantasy they’ve created. 

NEXT:  Is SpaceX Looking To Sell Starlink?

By The Numbers

SpaceX Booster Inventory

Block 5 Booster:  Out of Service (9)

Booster      Launches     Reason         Date

  • B1046          4x              NLA        19 Jan 2020
  • B1047          3x               NLA         6 Aug 2019
  • B1048          5x                LF         18 Mar 2020
  • B1050          1x                 LF           5 Dec 2018
  • B1054          1x                 LF         23 Dec 2018
  • B1055          1x                PLF         11 Apr 2019 (FHC*)
  • B1056          4x                LF          17 Feb 2020
  • B1057          1x                 LF          25 Jun 2019 (FHC*)
  • B1059          6x                LF          16 Feb 2021

[Key:  NLA – no landing attempted   LF – Landing Failure  PLF – Post Landing Failure]

Block 5 Booster:  Unusable or MIA (2)

Booster    Launches    Reason     Last Launch

  • B1052        2x             FHS*        25 Jun 2019
  • B1053        2x             FHS*        25 Jun 2019

Block 5 Booster:  New (3)

Booster    Type    First Launch 

  • B1064     FHS       Oct 2021
  • B1065     FHS       Oct 2021
  • B1066     FHC       Oct 2021

Block 5 Booster Inventory:  Available? (8?)

Booster    Launches   Last Launch  Next Launch  Next Possible Launch

  • B1049        9x          4 May 2021        July 2021(?)¹       Retired?²
  • B1051      10x           9 May 2021             UKN                    Retired?²
  • B1058        8x         15 May 2021             UKN                24 Jun 2021
  • B1060        7x         29 Apr 2021         24 Jun 2021         3 Aug 2021
  • B1061        3x            6 Jun 2021              UKN                  16 Jul 2021
  • B1062        1x          17 Jun 2021              UKN                  27 Jul 2021
  • B1063        2x         26 May 2021            UKN                    4 Jul 2021
  • B1067        1x            3 Jun 2021           23 Oct 2021          2 Dec 2021

*Booster Type

  • FHC – Falcon Heavy Core Booster
  • FHS – Falcon Heavy Side Booster
  • F9B5 – Falcon 9 Block 5

¹Must be moved to Vandenberg Air Force Base

²Has reached the maximum of 10 launches

SpaceX Remaining 2021 Launches

         Date       Booster   Poss. Booster  Location    Revenue?    Gov’t?

  1. 17 Jun 2021   B1062                                     FL               Yes             Yes
  2. 24 Jun 2021   B1060                                    FL                Yes             No
  3.  July 2021?    B1049                                     CA                No              No
  4.  July 2021?     UNK            B1058              UNK             No              No
  5. 18 Aug 2021   UNK            B1063                FL               Yes             Yes
  6.  Aug 2021?     UNK            B1061                 FL               No              No
  7. 15 Sep 2021   UNK            B1062                 FL               Yes             No
  8.   Sept 2021?   UNK            B1060                CA               Yes             Yes
  9.   Sept 2021?   UNK              ??                       CA               Yes             Yes
  10.   Sept 2021?   UNK            B1058                FL                No              No
  11.   Q3 2021?     UNK             B1063                 FL               Yes             No
  12. 23 Oct 2021   B1067                                      FL               Yes             Yes
  13.   Oct 2021?    B1064-66                               FL                Yes            Yes
  14.   Oct 2021?    UNK             B1061                 FL                Yes            Yes
  15. 17 Nov 2021  UNK             B1062                FL                Yes            Yes
  16. 24 Nov 2021  UNK             B1060                CA                Yes            Yes
  17.    Nov 2021?  UNK             B1063                 FL                 No             No
  18.  4 Dec 2021   UNK             B1061                 FL                 Yes            Yes
  19.   Dec 2021?   UNK             B1067                 CA                 Yes            No
  20.    Q4 2021?   UNK           None Avail.           FL                 Yes            No
  21.    Q4 2021?   UNK           None Avail.           CA                 Yes           No

Timid Democrats in Power Haunts the United States of America

02 Monday Mar 2020

Posted by in Assault Weapons, Business, Conservatives, Crime, Donald Trump, Economy, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, History, Honor, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, racism, Stock Market, Taxes, Technology, United States, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

The decline of the United States of America under the conservative boot has occurred for almost 40 years. Unfortunately, during those few times when the Democratic party has managed to wrench back power for brief periods, timid Democrats have failed to move boldly. The result is that now Democrats are seen as weak and ineffective in power, giving conservatives the opportunity to quickly regain a majority.

Former Vice President Joe Biden: Running away from the left

Conservatives History of Economic Disaster

The United States was driven into the 1930’s Great Depression by a Republican party that had changed direction after the Civil War. Prior to the Civil War, Lincoln’s Republican party had championed the end to slavery. After the Civil War, the party, centered in the northeastern industrial States focused on using the government to promote business interests at any cost.

Prior to the Great Depression, business and the stock market ran amok with no government safeguards to protect individual citizens. In the months leading up to the October 1929 crash, the stock markets ramped up into a delirium of expansion when world markets were collapsing. 

Graphic 1.0 – The Dow Jones wild surge while the world economies were collapsing. [NOTE: Graph uses a logarithmic scale to magnify change.]

The Great Depression demonstrated that government regulation and protections were necessary for a healthy economy. The conservative’s economy based on greed resulted in temporary gains resulting in massive collapses of the world economy. By 1933, a decade of Republican control of the government ended with the loss of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the office of the President.

The Golden Age of the United States

With the exception of four years, (1947 to 1949 and 1953 to 1955,) Democrats controlled Congress from 1933 to 1981. During this period the United States recovered from the Great Depression, developed into a major world power, became a major force in winning World War II, and created a technologically superior economy that landed humans on the Moon in only ten years.

Under Democratic control, individuals and corporations were protected by a government that balanced profit with societal obligations. It was our Golden Age.

End of Government For the People

In the late 1970s, inflation, the retreat from further space exploration, and rising terrorism in the Arab world combined to create an opportunity for conservatives to sow dissatisfaction in the country. The 444-day hostage crisis in Iran during the Presidential election weakened President Jimmy Carter and opened the door for Republicans to take control of our country. 

Ronald Reagan began a dynasty of conservative control of the government of the United States of America. He was bolstered by a friendly Republican-led Senate and a timid Democratic-led House that provided minimal resistance to conservative reforms.

Actor Ronald Reagan from The Bad Man

Prior to his election in 1981, this former ‘B’ movie actor-turned, rightwing conservative-turned, FBI informant-turned-politician, had declared to enact conservative initiatives aimed to dismantle the government and replace it with a Wild West-style society where ethics were secondary to profit. 

Reagan used a ploy of patriotism and tax breaks to mask the true nature of his plan to dismantle protections of individuals and move power from government to the corporations and the wealthy. His tax plan gave small tax breaks to the middle class, which were later rescinded and even increased; however, the wealthy enjoyed the top rate bracket being slashed from 70% down to 50%, followed by an additional cut down to 38.5%.

The result was to shift the tax burden on to the middle class and cut federal government revenues drastically. Changes in the tax structure and government protections was an abrupt 180° change in course for the nation. It ended a government for the people and replaced it with a government for corporations and the wealthy.

The Rise of Republican Bullies and Timid Democrats

House Democrats adopted a position of acquiescence to Reagan, possibly under the belief that the popularism that brought Reagan into power would falter after his policies led to economic failure. If so, it worked to some degree. Republicans lost control of the Senate in 1987, and in 1993, Bill Clinton became President.

For a brief moment, it seemed that the United States might return to the Golden Age. Clinton used Democratic control of the government to reverse several conservative policies put into place by Reagan and President George Bush (41st.) In his first term, Clinton pushed forward the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, cut taxes on the poorest citizens and raised taxes on the wealthiest, began work on a Universal Health Plan, passed gun reform legislation known as the Brady Bill, enacted the  North American Free Trade Agreement, and passed the Omnibus Crime Bill, that included a ten-year ban on assault weapons.

Bill Clinton Under Siege

At the same time, conservatives began a relentless campaign of attacks on the President and Hillary Clinton including smear campaigns regarding his time as Governor of Arkansas. These efforts were unprecedented in our country’s history. Arkansas State Troopers with ‘slimy motives’ claimed they had arranged private engagements with then-Governor Clinton and other women. The Clintons were accused of abuse of power in what became known as the Whitewater controversy.

In 1994, the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress for the first time in forty years. Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, ran on a united plan known as the Contract With America that put forward a mix of popular ideas (require Congress to abide by any new law, term limits, etc.) and proposals to dismantle government protections (deregulations, reducing government, etc.) In large part, the Contract With America was ineffective. Some issues were defeated, some were vetoed by President Clinton, and some were ignored. At least one item was enacted but was later ruled unconstitutional.

Picking up where Reagan left off

However, Republican control of Congress began a resurgence of conservative power that effectively beat Clinton into submission. Clinton did win a second term but even before the election he signaled his surrender to conservatism. During his 1996 State of the Union address, he announced that the “…era of Big Government is over.”

The era of the Timid Democrat had begun.

Florida Fiasco

In 2000, Republicans completed their coup of the government by retaining both houses of Congress and winning the Presidency. George W. Bush (43rd) was elected when the Supreme Court interceded in vote recounts that gave a micro margin lead to Bush over Vice President Al Gore. Bush was elected by the smallest number of popular votes in over 100 years and a subsequent State-wide recount indicated that Gore actually won.

Without a majority in Congress and a Republican President, Democrats essentially gave up. It would be six years until Democrats would win back Congress and that was only possible after Republicans had mismanaged the economy into a near second Great Depression. 

Change Undelivered

In 2007, the United States began a Recession that nearly destroyed the country. The cause of the financial crisis was unethical practices by the banking industry that placed greed over common sense. The lack of government regulation, forced by conservatives, resulted in massive packaged loans that were laced with bad debt. When the investors realized the depth of the deception, the value of the investments went into freefall.

The crisis led to the restoration of the Democrats to power. In 2008, Barack Obama, the first African American President, won over Senator John McCain. Focused on restoring the economy, Democrats, led by Obama, took bold actions that were chastised by rightwing conservatives and their media feeds, including Fox News. The action taken by the Democrats saved the country, but rightwing media worked diligently to underplay the role of liberals in restoring the economy.

Obama’s election was heralded as the great change to reverse the destruction of government. Democrats united to push for a massive new healthcare system during Obama’s first term. Unfortunately, saving the economy and implementing a new, heavily compromised healthcare plan would be the highlights of the first two years of Democratic control of the government. 

In 2010, Democrats lost the House and in 2014, they lost the Senate. Republicans adopted a strict ‘no-cooperation’ with President Obama and effectively stopped any effort to restore the country to a government for the people. The President did attempt to use his authority to effect change through executive action; however, the rightwing media severely criticized him for adopting any non-conservative approved policy.

By 2016, Democrats had completely settled into acquiescence and even Hillary Clinton adopted a conciliatory platform when she led the Democratic ticket for President. Clinton was blindsided by Donald Trump, who used his conman skills to consolidate the vote of the uneducated, religious Evangelicals, and racists. The results of the election left Democrats devastated. The party leadership had no response to a person who had no ethics, played by no rules, and was supported by people who were blind to his behavior and actions.

Lessons Unlearned

The current situation in the Democratic party reflects a continuation of the mistakes of the past 40 years. Former Vice President Joe Biden is a symbol of the Timid Democrats. His positions are to continue subservience to conservatives under the mask of a Democrat. His campaign is based solely on defeating Trump by moving farther right to collect more conservative moderates.

The party has a long list of candidates who are trying to carve out the moderate vote while ignoring the need to reverse the course. Only Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren seem to understand that the actions of conservatives are the problem.

Unfortunately, with Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klochubar dropping out, the moderate vote will now be more consolidated for Biden. In addition, Billionaire Mike Bloomberg is apparently setting himself up for an independent run for President. The long-standing moderate Republican suddenly declared himself as a Democrat in 2018, followed by a delayed entrance into the race for President. His late run virtually guarantees that he cannot win the nomination; however, he likely will lure Democrats to vote for him as an independent.

It may end up that people will have a choice of Biden or Bloomberg to oppose Trump. Both of them will be champions of continuing conservative ideals, and that will mean the era of the Timid Democrat is to live on.

Moffat County Coal: Why Ignorance is Not Bliss

30 Thursday Jan 2020

Posted by in Business, Conservatives, Donald Trump, Economy, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Green, History, Honor, jobs, labor, Layoff, Mining, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Reduction in Force, Small town, Technology, US History, Voting

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

The Pity Party Regarding Moffat County Coal

A video about coal mining in northwestern Colorado suggests the people of Craig, in Moffat County, are having a pity party and they want everyone to join in on their self-inflicted suffering. Craig’s primary economic industries are coal mining, coal-fueled power generation, and tourism from primarily hunting and other seasonal outdoor sports. It is an economy that locals admit lacks diversity and resiliency.

Craig, Colorado:  Moffat County’s Only Significant Population Center

This month, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association announced that it would close all three coal-fired power units by 2030 and close down the Colowyo coal mine that supplies the three power plants south of Craig. Not surprisingly, local people are upset and many are turning their anger towards government regulations that they claim are killing their community.

This carefully crafted pity video published in 2015, by the American Energy Alliance, an energy industry-funded non-profit operated and directed by former House Republican staffers, is being used by at least one area resident¹ to use the news of the closings to renew anger at the government:

[SEE: The Perfect Storm Over Craig, Colorado]

The Ugly Reality of Coal Mining

Modern history lacks any examples of coal-mining dependent communities that have eventually gone on to become a great economic success. It just doesn’t happen. Mining companies have a reputation of ripping the coal out of the ground, shipping it away, selling it, reaping vast fortunes, and walking away from their mess. The coal industry has a legacy of broken workers, broken agreements, and always placing owner profits over every other consideration. In their wake is typically a shell of a community that is left in a cycle of poverty.

But history and context are typically not what local people care about or understand. They only see that a company is willing to come to their isolated community and offer them a Devil’s Bargain for jobs. Local communities are usually burned by the deal but rather than accept the consequences, many adopt the tactics of the tobacco farmers when the public became aware of the dangers of smoking. They scream, “It’s all the government’s fault.”

The Facts

Change Has Been Coming:  In the last decade, many aging coal-fired plants have been converted over to natural gas. The fuel is less expensive and cleaner than coal. Tri-State has stated that the decision to shut their Moffat County operations was a business decision based on operational costs.

The Road to Nowhere

The Craig Power Plants Units Already Slated For Closure:  Two of the three units were already slated to be retired. Unit One was to be closed in 2025 and Unit Two was to be retired in 2039. Unit Three was only four years younger than Unit One but no retirement date had been established. All three Units were facing decommissioning and the associated coal mine would become less relevant with each Unit closure.

Coal is More Expensive and Harmful:  The combined costs of building and operating coal-fired power plants, added to the cost of mining coal, the cost of restoring the damage (environmental, health, etc.) caused by mining coal, and the cost of the impact of the air, soil, and groundwater pollution of coal burning, makes the expense of coal-generated energy too high. With no mining, minimal pollution, and free fuel, solar and wind energy are less expensive and the green options don’t threaten the disastrous consequences of global warming caused by carbon-based fuels.

Alternative Energy is Becoming the Standard

Coal Generation Has Been On a 20 Year Decline:  In 1997, coal provided 52.8% of the energy generated at commercial sized units. By 2018, that had dropped down to 27.8%. No new coal-fired generating plants are being planned or built in the United States to replace old units scheduled to be closed. Coal is a dying industry and no one can say it’s a sudden death. [Source]

It’s the Mining Company, Stupid:  Mining has consistently replaced human workers with machines that are more productive, less expensive, and don’t complain or demand anything. The reduced size of the mining workforce in the United States has nothing to do with government regulation and everything to do with companies saving money by taking away mining jobs from their own workers.

The Person Standing On the Train Track

A person standing on an active train track has three choices. That person can, 1) step off the track before the train comes, 2) get up on the platform and hope the train stops to let him or her get on, or 3) continue to stand on the track and rant about the train until she or he is run over by it.

The video suggests that the people of Craig have chosen to take the third choice. There is no sudden change in the coal industry that is causing it to be phased out. Anyone who cared about their community would have known that coal was a bad bet in the economic sustainability game.

Moffat County, the Perfect Victims

Why is Craig the perfect platform to be showcased for a political agenda?

White Begats Red

Moffat County is Trump Country. It is 80% caucasian and overwhelmingly Republican. In the last 55 years, no Democratic Presidential candidate has obtained more than 40% of the vote in the county. Craig is happy to be the political tool of the white wing.

History of Being a Victim

Craig is located halfway between Denver and Salt Lake City. It used to be on the main route between the two major cities (US 40.) When Interstate 70 (I-70) was in the planning stages it was to terminate in Denver, but Governor Edwin Johnson, (a Moffat County native,) convinced the federal government to continue it through Colorado. The irony is that he ignored the existing US 40 route through his home town and proposed the interstate follow the US 6 route.

Signal Hill: The Faded Glory of Craig

That decision isolated Craig. Instead of being the perfect stopping point between Salt Lake and Denver, it became the town ninety miles south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and ninety miles north of I-70. The impact of that choice still affects Craig’s economy today.

Population Stagnation

While the population of every economically diverse community has been increasing over the last 30 years, Moffat County’s population hit a high of 14,541 in 1983 and today it has over 1,000 fewer people than 37 years ago. Every Spring, the high school graduates more students than the community has jobs. For decades, the need to diversify and expand Moffat County’s economy has been a topic of discussion…with no viable plan.

Imprisoned By Their Own Political Ideologies

One obvious opportunity is alternative energy. The transmission lines that connect Craig to the power infrastructure already exist with the terminus at the current power plants. A wind or solar farm in Moffat County wouldn’t have significant expenses in building transmission lines.

End of the Road in Craig

The problem is that alternate energy choices are exactly what many people from Craig have sworn to oppose. In their minds, solar and wind farms are a waste of time and resources. For a majority population of Trump supporters, accepting clean energy as a source of new jobs and revenue for the community is unthinkable. Better to fail and cry than admit their lack of foresight.

A Failure To Educate

Moffat County High School is one of the worst performing in the state. Those that graduate face the choice of few job opportunities in the community or leave and face difficult challenges in being competitive with better educated graduates. From the CollegeSimply website:

Moffat County High School has an academic rating well below the average for Colorado high schools based on its low test performance, average graduation rate and low AP course participation.

Moffat County High School students score less than a 9% proficiency in Math (State average is 33%,) and less than a 14% proficiency in Reading (State average is 42%.) Less than 9% of the students have passed one or more AP exams. [Source]

Whether Craig’s stagnated economy has led to poor education or poor education has led to a stagnated economy the result is the same, the future of the community is not in the hands of young people who can be expected to repair and build upon their parent’s lot in life.  

A Video For No Reason

All this may explain the attitudes and desperation of the people of Moffat County expressed in the video. They feel like victims and so rather than embrace new technologies and diversify the economy, they would rather hang on to the past.

This video is the perfect storm of ignorance, political game-playing, an attitude of defeat, and poor education. It exposes the city and county’s history of failing to be proactive. Instead of seeking a more diverse economy, a choice was made to seek pity. The community may never realize that a Devil’s Bargain has a price…and now they will pay.

[¹NOTE:  This video was posted on 29 January 2020 on the Facebook page of a former high school graduate of Moffat County High School who still lives in the region. The author of this article believed the video was published after the news of the closings; however, after this article was published the author became aware that the video was first published in 2015. Corrections to the text have been made accordingly. Also, the video embed link has since stopped working and has been replaced by a URL link. ]

Betelgeuse: Schrödinger’s Star

21 Tuesday Jan 2020

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Much Ado About Something

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

What are you doing, Betelgeuse?

A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to a Supernova

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

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

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

A 645-Year-Old Notice

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

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

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

Betelgeuse is the armpit of Orion

Why Don’t Astronomers Know?

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

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

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

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

The End of the Faint?

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

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

My Answer To the Question

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

You have to love Schrödinger.

SpaceX Booster Crisis

13 Monday Jan 2020

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Missing SpaceX Boosters?

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

The decline and fall of SpaceX’s launch schedule

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

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

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

SpaceX Booster Deficit:  It’s a Math Problem

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

We’re almost through the hard math.

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

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

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

SpaceX Exec:  Pay No Attention To Reality

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

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

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

Fantasyland Scenarios

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

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

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

What is Possible For 2020?

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

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

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

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

Is SpaceX a Dead Program Walking?

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

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

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

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

Astrophysics Book Review – Space: 10 Things You Should Know

11 Friday Oct 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Minding the Gap of Knowledge

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

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

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

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

Review – Space:  10 Things You Should Know

Category:  Nonfiction, Science, Non-Textbook

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

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

[Formats: Hardcover, Audio]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Becky’s Astrophysics Work

Understanding The Life and Times of a Galaxy

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

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

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

Dr. Smethurst’s Scholarly Astrophysics Linage

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

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

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

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

Dr. Rebecca Smethurst – 23 April 2014

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

Dr. Becky Smethurst

Dr. Becky on:

Sample of co-authored published work:

 

How a Layoff in January Can Impact an April Launch

05 Friday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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

What a January layoff looks like in April

Layoff:  Cut Their Nose Off

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

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

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

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

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

Booster Shortfall?

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

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

Enter the Falcon Heavy Static Fire Test

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

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

SpaceX Public Relations: Secrecy is Modus Operandi

04 Thursday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

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

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


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

SpaceX Public Relations:  Code of Secrecy

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

Prep for Falcon Heavy Static Fire Test…in 2018

Falcon Heavy Problems?

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

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

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

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

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

Why Should the Public Know?

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

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

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

Musk New Plan: Space Bridge to Mars

01 Monday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

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

Space Bridge Starts Twitter Storm

Reaction on Twitter was quick and enthusiastic.

But there were a few who had doubts:

But SpaceX fans quickly shot down the naysayers:

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

NASA All For Space Bridge

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

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

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine

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

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

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

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

31 Sunday Mar 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Ignition

SpaceX’s Financial State

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

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

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

SpaceX Statement

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

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Upper Booster Engulfed

The Organization Doth Protest Too Much

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

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

The Falcon Heavey Gambit

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

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

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

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

What’s at Risk for SpaceX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough Pessimism, What If the Falcon Heavy Flies!

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

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

False Bravado

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

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

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

29 Friday Mar 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

A Fake Starship Prototype?

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

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

Lee Cavendish for Space.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Space.com Ignoring the Problems?

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

Among the issues that seem to be ignored are:

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

Space.com:  SpaceX’s Public Relations Team

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

SpaceX 2019 Launch Schedule Realities

28 Thursday Mar 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

SpaceX Retreating Launch Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Falcon Heavy Headaches

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

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

Dragon 2 Human-Rating Race

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

Dragon 2 Cargo Capsule – already flying

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

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

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

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

What’s SpaceX’s Problem?

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

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

Hot Tub “Make It Work Project” Video

24 Thursday May 2018

Posted by in Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Do It Yourself, Ethics, Honor, Life, Make It Work, Management Practices, Marketing, Nevada, Public Image, Public Relations, Recreation, Respect, selling, Technology, Water

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Make It Work: Hot Tub Repair

With a background and a degree in theatre, as well as years of home projects, I often have encountered “make it work” situations. My experiences in electrical and plumbing have allowed me to undertake projects that I would have never attempted as a young man.

A “Make It Work” project is a significant repair or build that is not done by a professional, nor done with a major budget. It is a project that involves adaptation and usually requires resolving several issues that are not part of the standard procedure. 

I just completed a major repair on our hot tub (spa) and created a video that records the steps taken to replace several worn out key components. 

Balboa Water Group:  The Customer is the Enemy

The most significant challenge of this project was the anti-customer relations of the Balboa Water Group. Balboa was the company that made the controller that failed and the replacement. Their philosophy of support is to only deal with spa technicians and shun customers.

That philosophy is understandable as spa technicians require less interaction in troubleshooting a problem because of the technician’s familiarity with hot tubs. Customers require more explanation and are more time consuming. Because of the plumbing and electrical issues associated with a hot tub, most people rely on a professional technician to deal with any spa problems.

However, the customer is the person that actually purchases the product (one way or another) and the company should have some accountability to the customer. Balboa tech support is so anti-customer, the phone maze actually hangs up on the customer once the person identifies themselves as a customer, not a technician.

Fortunately, they will take emails from a customer, and tech support called me almost immediately after I sent an email, but the attitude of the support person was that I needed to hire a professional. He did give me enough information that I was able to know what to test, but he was elusive in giving me direct answers to my questions.

Their lack of cooperation and the confusing electrical design of the Balboa control board was responsible for about one-quarter of the time involved on this project. 

Did F-117 Nighthawk Defeat USSR?

12 Thursday Apr 2018

Posted by in All Rights Reserved, Communism, Government, History, Nevada, Politics, Russian influence, Science, Soviet Russia, Technology, United States, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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.

Employee Ownership? Does Business USA Own Its Employees?

11 Wednesday Apr 2018

Posted by in All Rights Reserved, Business, Communication, Donald Trump, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government, Honor, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, jobs, labor, Life, Management Practices, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Reno, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, United States, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Employee Ownership?

It was a chance encounter. Juli Briskman was out riding her bike on a Saturday in October. Trump was just leaving from playing another round of golf. Trump’s motorcade passed Briskman and she saluted the Resident of the White House with her middle finger. Had a photographer not caught the act it would have just been another typical day. This day, it would get Briskman fired. The company’s position:  it owns its employees.

Trump’s Single Digit Approval Rating

Quid Pro Quo

It’s important to note that Briskman was not identified in the photo, nor could she be identified as the photographer was behind her. She voluntarily told her company that she was the one in the photo. The company then fired her.

Employment is a quid pro quo environment. An employer agrees to pay compensation and benefits in return for certain specific tasks and responsibilities. Employment is not servitude, nor does it allow an employer to govern the employee’s actions 24/7/365. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States forbids indentured servitude along with slavery.

In the social media age, businesses have attempted to expand their authority over employees and govern hu’s (her/his) non-work activities. The problem is that if a company is allowed to govern free speech outside of the work environment they are essentially making a demand on an employee’s time, expression, and choice without compensation. Again, employment is a Quid Pro Quo environment and both parties must agree to the terms of what is offered in return for compensation and benefits.

Is the Reverse True?

The test of this situation is to reverse it. If the company can claim it can govern employee behavior during non-work hours for no pay, does that mean all employee non-work activity is a liability for the company? If an employee kills someone, can the victim’s family sue the company? The point is that a company cannot arbitrarily decide what non-work activities it governs. If it governs some non-work activities, shouldn’t the company assume responsibility for all non-work activities?

The reality is that business has failed to be reasonable in its limitations on employee rules and policies. It is now time to reestablish that quid pro quo relationship and stop attempting to ignore the 13th Amendment.

Murder Mystery: Did the Kremlin Kill Yuri Gagarin?

07 Saturday Apr 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

Yuri Gagarin portrait

Yuri Gagarin: Soviet Hero. Brezhnev enemy?

Yuri Gagarin:  Hero of the USSR

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

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

Soviet Doctor’s Evaluation

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

From Wikipedia on Yuri Gagarin

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

High-Risk Gamble

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

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

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

Unacceptable Risk

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

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

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

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

Death of a Friend

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

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

Yuri Gagarin Poking the Bear With a Stick

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

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

Gagarin’s Mysterious Plane Crash

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

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

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

Another Coincidence

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

SpaceX’s Magical Block 5 Booster is a No Show

06 Friday Apr 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

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

SpaceX One Trick:  Wasting Money to Reland Junk Boosters

Block 5 Falcon 9 – The Grand Promise

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

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

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

The Snake Oil of Spaceflight

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

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

Space Customers Are Watching

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

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

Should Federal Dollars Go To States With Low Taxes?

03 Tuesday Apr 2018

Posted by in About Reno, All Rights Reserved, Business, Conservatives, Donald Trump, Economy, Ethics, Government, Honor, jobs, labor, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, Reno, Taxes, Technology, United States, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Nevada has no income tax, no corporate tax, no inventory tax, and no capital gains tax. Should the rest of the country be taxed to give money to Nevada? The idea that some State and local governments can avoid taxing their citizens, but expect to receive federal tax dollars is a question of fairness and equity. Perhaps the federal government should base allocations to States based on their willingness to act fiscally responsible?

Virginia State Line

Some States Pull Their Weight

Low Taxes Myth

There is a myth that low State taxes attracts businesses, that in turn, attracts jobs for the citizens. In Nevada, the tax haven does attract companies, but only those that seek to dodge taxes. The Sierra Nevada Corporation is a prime example. They are a private defense contractor that, among other things, seek to become the next privatized NASA.

The Sierra Nevada Corporation sounds like it would be a major employer in Nevada. It is not. Currently, it claims to have over 3,500 employees in 33 locations around the world.  In 2014, about one-third of its employees were in Colorado and the potential job growth is at its Colorado facilities.

However, its corporate headquarters is in Nevada. The company was founded in Nevada; however, the State does not have the caliber of workers needed for the high technology jobs. So why not move the company to Colorado? Because the corporate staff and the company enjoy the tax immunity of Nevada.

Freeloader States

According to WalletHub.com, the ten State governments that are most dependent on federal money are as follows:

  1. Louisiana
  2. Mississippi
  3. Arizona
  4. Kentucky
  5. New Mexico
  6. Montana
  7. Oregon
  8. Tennessee
  9. Missouri
  10. Alaska

These States are the top ten with the lowest taxes on their residents, (with the ranking of federal dollar dependency,) according to USA Today (Taxes on corporations are not included):

  1. Alaska (10)
  2. Wyoming (20)
  3. South Dakota (14)
  4. Tennessee (8)
  5. Louisiana (1)
  6. Texas (21)
  7. New Hampshire (31)
  8. Nevada (36)
  9. South Carolina (29)
  10. Oklahoma (26)

Three of the top five having the lowest State taxes are also among the top ten State governments most dependent on federal money. The residents of another three of the top ten States with low taxes are in the top fifty percent in dependency on federal subsistence.

Five of the top ten States (Alaska, Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas, and Nevada) with the lowest taxes have no State income tax.

Pulling Their Weight

Many States use federal money to supplement their own tax revenue. It is only fair that they should. It is unfair that some States tilt the tax revenue field and expect federal money to replace State revenue. Perhaps it’s time that federal money should be restricted from States that do not have an adequate local and State tax structure to provide a foundation for services for their citizens before federal money is given to them.

Our Roving Intelligent Life On Mars

31 Saturday Mar 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

Mars = Soviet Humiliation

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

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

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

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

What We Know About Mars, Thank NASA/JPL

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

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

Curiosity takes a selfie on Mars

Curiouser and Couriouser

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

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

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

28 Wednesday Mar 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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

Tiangong altitude

The rapid altitude decline (in km) of Tiangong 1

Current Stats of Tiangong 1

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

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

Lost Contact

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

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

Best Guess?

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

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

Journalism Ethics: Interviewing the Reporter As a News Source

27 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by in All Rights Reserved, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Donald Trump, Entertainment, Ethics, Generational, Government, History, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Journalism, Language, Opinion, Politicians, Politics, Print Media, Public Image, Public Relations, Republic, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, Traditional Media, United States, Website, Wordpress, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

News organizations have not evolved as much as they have devolved over the last sixty years. Journalism ethics have suffered the greatest. The priority in news organizations has shifted from high journalistic standards to gaining market share. The news anchor or primary news host now use the reporter as hu’s* news source.

I can't match the anchor's name to any of the CNN faces online

CNN news anchor interview CNN reporter Matt Rivers

How Did We Get Here?

Originally, the news reporter job was to gather the facts, confirm the facts, and organize the facts into a story. The myth of Superman’s girlfriend getting the scoop and landing a Page One, Pulitzer Prize article wasn’t how it really happened.

Good journalism was the verification of the facts, careful research, and exposing lies. In the end, the reporter’s name was the byline, not the storyline. Reporters needed the attention to detail of an accountant, the interrogation skill of a great attorney, the ethics of a great judge, and the knowledge of a college professor, in addition to the ability to write a compelling story.

But when investors began buying up news organizations, money became the priority over journalism standards. Advancement was based who could attract a bigger audience. Women were brought into the newsroom, but the motivation was ratings, not equality. Money flowed to those that could produce shock and awe. The young, idealistic journalism graduate discovered that a reporter was underpaid, overworked, and disrespected.

And while the journalism standards fell, the news source wall went up. Organizations created ‘public relations’ experts to ‘control the message.’ Now a reporter is the person between the news organization looking for ratings and the news source that wants to be a shining star.

Corporate Public Relations Mastery of Orwellian Doublespeak

Not every company believes in lying to the public, but it does seem the bigger they are, the less responsive they are willing to be. The most recent major incident is Facebook’s initial response to the data of 50 million users being collected by conservatives connected to the Donald Trump campaign.

After the story broke on Saturday 17 March, Facebook ran silent for days before issuing any response. Journalists that attempted to obtain information and/or a response were ignored. Major headlines were running about the data breach and Facebook was on lockdown.

Corporate PR has made the company the least likely source of accurate, reliable, and/or truthful information. So now the reporter digs up whatever information they can and becomes the ‘expert.’ The news anchor often interviews the reporter as the sole news source because no one else will talk.

The problem with this is that the reporter can’t speak with authority. They are not privy to the inside information so they can only offer hu’s opinion. That changes journalism into gossip and guessing. No one can be sure of anything because no one knows the truth. That leaves it up to the individual to accept what they want to hear and reject what they don’t want to hear. That is never good for a democracy.

[*Hu’s is a gender neutral pronoun for his or her.]