Tag Archives: Space

Inspiration4: A Waste of Space Exploration

14 Tuesday Sep 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

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

A Soviet-style glorification campaign

Glorifying Them to Glorify SpaceX

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

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

Desperate For Attention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 Friday Aug 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Shotwell and Space Lasers

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

Taking a page from Marjorie Tayor Greene

Methinks the SpaceX Lady Doth Protest Too Much

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

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

“…Better-Than-Nothing Beta Service…”

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

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

Facts Ignored By Shotwell

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

One:  Lack of Flight-Ready Boosters

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

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

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

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

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

Two:  Cheap Lasers Causing Problems?

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

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

Shotwell quoted in SpaceNews

Perhaps cheaper lasers are not a better solution?

Three:  Shotwell’s Credibility Gap

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

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

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

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

Four:  Starlink is a White Elephant Waiting to Die

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

Doing The Math

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

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

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

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

To Be Fair

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

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

Astrophysics Book Review – Space: 10 Things You Should Know

11 Friday Oct 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Minding the Gap of Knowledge

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

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

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

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

Review – Space:  10 Things You Should Know

Category:  Nonfiction, Science, Non-Textbook

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

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

[Formats: Hardcover, Audio]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Becky’s Astrophysics Work

Understanding The Life and Times of a Galaxy

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

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

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

Dr. Smethurst’s Scholarly Astrophysics Linage

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

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

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

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

Dr. Rebecca Smethurst – 23 April 2014

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

Dr. Becky Smethurst

Dr. Becky on:

Sample of co-authored published work:

 

How a Layoff in January Can Impact an April Launch

05 Friday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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

What a January layoff looks like in April

Layoff:  Cut Their Nose Off

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

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

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

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

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

Booster Shortfall?

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

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

Enter the Falcon Heavy Static Fire Test

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Pigs In Space: Discrimination on the ISS

01 Thursday Mar 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

International Space Station not above discrimination

Man Cave In Space

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

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

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

Discrimination Station

Jeanette Epps barred from ISS

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

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

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

Gender-Based Crew Selection

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

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

Five Versus One

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

Lack of Qualified People?

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

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

Space Exploration Isn’t Profitable, It’s Transformative

16 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by in Apollo, Business, Economy, Education, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Generational, Government, Higher Education, History, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, NASA, Passionate People, Politics, Pride, Saturn V, Space, SpaceX, Taxes, Technology, Travel, United States, Universities, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Space exploration ROI (return on investment) sucks. Exploration doesn’t make money, it costs money. It’s not a place for private business. If the question of space exploration is, “What’s in it for me?” you’re asking the wrong question. Space exploration isn’t profitable, but it is transformative.

Apollo Saturn V

The five massive Rocketdyne F-1 engines of the Apollo Saturn V first stage booster. Twice the lift of SpaceX’s 27-engine Falcon Heavy

Exploration Creates Economic Growth

In the 15th century, when the government of Spain financed Columbus to explore a new trade route to the markets in Asia, he discovered the Caribbean. He brought back a few captured natives from the Bahamas, some gold, and a few birds. It didn’t pay for the cost of the voyage.

But what came next transformed Spain and Europe. The year of the discovery of the Americas (1492) is considered the start of the Golden Age of Spain. After Columbus first voyage to the new world, Spain continued with more voyages, and eventually the full exploitation of Central and South America. Most historians focus on the resources that were returned to Spain, but what happened at home was even more important. 

Shipbuilding entered a new phase of design and construction. Jobs at home created a new wealth for the working class. Craftsmen, as well as sailors, became vital to the needs of the Age of Discovery. That new wealth created secondary jobs, along with new businesses selling imported goods. All of this economic growth was a direct result of the exploration pushed forward by the government of Spain.

Exploration created massive economic growth for decades, but exploration didn’t give an immediate ROI for Spain.

The Model Space Program

Not all space programs are successful. The Soviet space program became mired in conflicts between good science and engineering versus political priorities. The administration was pushed into risky decisions and failure was not without punishment. In addition, new technology was considered a State secret so the development of commercial uses was not an option.

The United States approach for the space program was for the use of non-military government oversight of private contractors. The government remained accountable to the voters, which kept both the government and their contractors in a stable environment for decision making.

The result was a massive increase in highly-skilled, well-paid jobs that created a new wealth for the middle class. Space exploration supercharged the United States economy and created new technology that continued to develop for decades after the Apollo program ended. It was the model space exploration program.

A Failure of Vision

Once the United States had landed on the Moon conservatives and liberals united to kill the space program. Liberals could only see the money being spent to explore space as money that could have been used to help the poor. Conservatives could only see money not going into their pockets. As it would turn out, both viewpoints were flawed.

Money spent on for space exploration created new, high paying jobs that created a need for improved education and pumped billions of dollars into the economy that created new tax revenue that could be used for government programs to help the poor engage in the new economy.

The flood of new money into the economy helped small companies grow dramatically while increasing profits. It didn’t result in the wealthy becoming dramatically richer, but it did create prosperity that helped everyone.

Missing Greatness

Today the United States is wading in a stagnant economy. Wages aren’t growing as fast as prices are rising. The available jobs pay so poorly that they aren’t worth the cost of working them. If we are missing greatness, it is because we are killing our economy with a focus on profit for a few.

The goal of private business is never to create jobs, nor is it to create high paying jobs. Jobs are created when business has been given a mission to accomplish something. Giving tax breaks does not give business a reason to create more jobs, nor pay employees more.

However, if our country made a serious commitment to the goal of expanding space exploration, and funded it with the tax breaks we are giving billionaires, we would see our economy transformed. It is that simple.

SpaceX Falcon Heavy-Lift Rocket: A Soviet-Style Disaster?

23 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Business, Government, History, Management Practices, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Space, SpaceX, Technology, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

SpaceX is maybe, almost, someday, hopefully going to launch the Falcon Heavy rocket that SpaceX circus master Elon Musk expects to blow up shortly after launch. His concern is legitimate as SpaceX’s 27 engine-utilization is reminiscent of the Soviet’s disastrous failure of heavy-lift rockets of the early 1970’s that used 30 engines.

I hope it makes it far enough away from the pad that it does not cause pad damage. I would consider even that a win, to be honest.

Elon Musk

Three 1st Stage Heavy Rocket Engine Configurations: top – SpaceX Falcon Heavy, lower left – Soviet N1, lower right – NASA’s Saturn V

Soviet Heavy-Lift Plan: Lots of Engines

To get to the Moon the Soviet rocket engineers decided to use thirty engines on the first stage of their N1 rocket design. Smaller engines are easier to build and operate, but more engines mean more potential for failure.

A rocket engine is an effort to contain and control a continuous stream of explosive force. The power, heat, and stress of a rocket engine is unlike almost any other human-created machine. It is a complex network of plumbing, pumps, valves, and structure that must operate perfectly in synch. If they don’t it usually ends badly.

The Soviet’s N1 rocket design avoided the need of designing massive engines, like their counterparts in the United States, however, they didn’t anticipate the complexities of all engines operating in concert. The result was four failures in four launch attempts and the cancellation of the Soviet Moon program. One failure happened at the launch pad with the power of a small nuclear bomb. 

Killer Vibrations

Even if every engine works to perfection, the vibrations caused by each engine can literally shake a rocket to pieces. NASA engineers learned early in the space program that vibrations between the engines and the aerodynamic stresses on the rocket created a ‘pogo‘ vibration running up and down the length of the rocket.

They thought they understood the issue until Apollo Six partially failed because of pogo vibration issue. During the ascent phase of the launch, vibrations damaged fuel lines on the second and third stages. The damage caused the rocket’s second stage to shut down two of the five engines prematurely, and the third stage engine failed to ignite.

Saturn V’s Five Heavy-Lift Engines

Despite the issues with pogo oscillations, NASA’s five Rocketdyne F-1 engines on the Saturn V Moon rocket resulted in 13 out of 13 successful first stage launches. The only partial failure came on Apollo 6 after the first stage had completed its boost of the second and third stages.

It is unclear why the successful Apollo program engine configuration has been rejected as an option for contemporary heavy-lift rockets. It is probable that private ventures into space operations, like SpaceX, want to save money by designing only one rocket engine for all uses.

SpaceX 2017 Great, 2018?

SpaceX is coming off a spectacular year. Of 18 launch attempts, SpaceX had 18 successful launches. SpaceX also had a perfect relanding record in 2017 for every attempt.

2018 is not starting out as well. SpaceX has only had one launch so far this year and it is rumored that the payload did not make it into orbit. No public information has been made about the success of the launch because it was a highly valued, super-secret satellite. It is so secret that the public has not even been told who the satellite was built for, or its general purpose.

SpaceX has proclaimed that its launch vehicle did everything it was designed to do, but the launch narration indicates that there might have been an issue when the fairing or cover around the satellite was supposed to deploy. The launch narrator paused for ninety seconds after he said the fairing would deploy “any second now.” When he began talking again he changed the subject. A few seconds later he finally confirmed the fairing had deployed but did not explain the delay in deployment.

SpaceX Falcon Heavy Engine Roulette

So far, the Falcon Heavy rocket is not a bright spot in the SpaceX story. Its first launch was planned for 2013, and for multiple reasons, it has been delayed for five years. It had been rescheduled for launch in late Fall of last year but was then delayed again. On 1 December Musk tweeted:

Falcon Heavy to launch next month from Apollo 11 pad at the Cape.

Elon Musk

To date (21 January 2018) the Falcon Heavy has still not had a test fire of its first stage engines. This means there are less than ten days to launch test the engines and then prepare the rocket for launch. Any issues during the test firing and the launch schedule will likely slip again into February.

If SpaceX has a successful launch it will still have to prove the reliability of the 27 engine design. The mass-numbers-of-engines design ultimately killed the Soviet program with four consecutive failures. SpaceX is reliant on business customers who have faith in their ability to deliver their payload into orbit. Continued delays and any failure will reduce confidence in the Falcon Heavy, risking it to have the fate of the Soviet N1.

(Story Update:  SpaceX had a successful test firing of the Falcon Heavy first stage booster today – 24 January 2018.)

Zuma Fail: Why Space Is No Place For Private Business

10 Wednesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Ethics, Government, History, Management Practices, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, Taxes, Technology, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

SpaceX Zuma Launch: What went up, but what came down?

On Sunday SpaceX launched Zuma, a super secret, we-can-tell-you-but-then-we-have-to-kill-you military satellite built by Northrop Grumman. It was the most important, most expensive military satellite that we know nothing about…except that it may, or may not have made it into orbit, it may or may not have separated from the second stage booster, it may or may not have burned up as it came back down into the atmosphere, and it may or may not have come down in the Indian Ocean.

Like two boys standing in the backyard after a window has been broken, SpaceX yelled, “We didn’t do it!,” and Northrop Grumman is looking down, kicking the dirt and saying, “We’re not gonna say anything.” It feels like the 1960’s and the Soviets are running our space program. 

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate

This is why private business has no place in space. Private business is incapable of telling the truth to the public and they are hiding behind the skirt of the military hoping no one will notice that there is no state secret about whether a satellite made it into orbit or not.

The United States Government has to be an adult. If they send a rocket up and it fails, they have to tell us what happened. Private business, like the 1960 Soviet space program, believes that the public only needs to know about how great they are, and anything negative is to be a secret.

In the absence of the truth we can only assume that both SpaceX and Northrop Grumman are at fault and no more taxpayer money should be spent until they both can act like adults.

(SEE:  CBS article with full SpaceX Zuma launch video)

(SEE: Independent YouTube video of SpaceX Zuma launch)

The Zuma Fairing Mystery?

During the Zuma launch, the SpaceX announcer pauses his commentary for ninety seconds after saying the fairing would deploy (eject) “…any second now..” He then came back on and switched topics, then finally confirmed the fairing deployment. Why the long pause?

  • T+0:50 seconds (50 seconds after liftoff) – A SpaceX announcer begins a live and nearly continuous commentary regarding upcoming events with the Falcon 9 rocket, pausing only for those events to be confirmed by SpaceX control.
  • T+2:03 – SpaceX announcer pauses as four events related to second stage separation are about to begin.
  • T+3:06 – SpaceX announcer resumes commentary and confirms a successful second stage separation, and explains at T+3:15 that fairing separation “…should occur any second now” (ejection of protective nose shell around satellite.) He continues on to say that he will confirm the fairing separation after it occurs.
  • T+3:26 – SpaceX announcer begins a pause that lasts for one minute and thirty seconds.
  • T+4:57 – SpaceX announcer says, “Alright, so we’ll address the fairing deployment in a second once we have more information, but for now we’re going to shift our transition back to our secondary mission…”
  • T+5:17 – SpaceX announcer says, “…ah, quick sidebar here that we did get confirmation that the fairings did deploy.”

 

Living in the Imminent

27 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by in Government, Honor, Passionate People, Pride, Random, Science, Space, Technology, Travel

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

international-space-station-completeSix people near death 

Don’t they know?

They show no fear

They have to know.

They live surrounded by a monster that kills without effort

Yes, in this millisecond they live in peace

In the next they could die in horror

We have no reason to fear walking outside

But these six

They should have reason

Death awaits outside with the tools of the universe

Radiation, heat, cold, or even nothing can kill

These six live where no one should

Yet, these six rob Death

These six live flawlessly where perfection matters

These six know Death and know his tools

Yes, these six know and know the risk

Just before sunrise or just after sunset

We watch them go by

We walk outside and watch them go by

For them, sunrise comes, sunset goes many times a day

But rarely do they go outside to watch

They know what is waiting outside

They know the risk

And three by three they will come and go

Three to rob death, three to come home

Three to look up to, and three to celebrate

Six people near death

But alive and well

This is Why (2015 vs the 1950’s)

15 Sunday Mar 2015

Posted by in Aging, Communication, Crisis Management, Education, Generational, Government, Higher Education, History, Lessons of Life, Politics, Pride, Science, Space, Technology, Traditional Media, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Why is the world like it is?

It is an interesting question. Unfortunately it is the wrong question. The world is what we perceive it to be and our perceptions are based largely on our experiences…or at least the experiences we tend to remember. This is why attitudes about the world are vastly different between generations. This doesn’t mean that age determines attitude, just that age contributes to attitude. 

So why do different generations tend to see the world differently?

The 1950’s – The Calm After the Storms

Mass Production of New Technology

POST DEPRESSION, POST WAR

If you were an adult, you just survived through the most massive conflict in history. Millions died directly or indirectly because of the war. The United States of America was expected to fold after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Instead, Americans pulled off a miracle by sacrificing normal daily life for a united country at war.

With victory in World War II came a fierce pride, but nobody was ready to rush into another war anytime soon. Despite that, a growing fear of Russia’s aggression put everyone on edge that they might be plunged into even a more horrible war than the one they survived.

Children of the 1950’s were witnesses to a traumatized adult population. Their grandparents lived through the Great Depression where the unthinkable financial disaster became everyone’s reality. Both grandparents and parents survived World War II. An event that stopped normal living and put everyone under the shadow of death and fear. Children also became a victim of the Cold War where fear of a global extinction event was a real possibility.

NEW ECONOMY
The massive industrialization for World War II created new jobs, more money, and a sudden burst of growth in the economy. Companies grabbed up anyone with advanced training or knowledge to incorporate advancements in technology created during the crisis of the war. People suddenly could afford luxuries like televisions, phones, cars and new homes. This prosperity was juxtaposed against the horrors that the world had experienced in the previous 20 years. It was truly the best of times and the worst of times. 

NEXT:  The 1960’s

THE SERIES:  The 1970’s    The 1980’s    The 1990’s    The 2000’s    Epilogue

Boehner, GOP Pass Funding Scheme For Privatized Death Star

01 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by in April Fools Day, Fiction, Government, Opinion, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Washington, D.C. – April 1, 2013  

Republicans in Congress managed to slip a little noticed addendum to the budget bill that provides a funding scheme for a Star Wars-like Death Star to be operated and run by private interests. The language of the addendum would void the entire budget bill if removed and authorizes the funding plan if Congress fails to pass or kill the budget bill on it by April 4, 2013. The authors of the measure have created legislation where no action is required to fund the Death Star. House Speaker Boehner (Ohio-R) said:

“We are very comfortable with legislation that requires no action. It’s what we’ve been doing for years and we’re getting very good at it.” (Rep. Boehner)

Under the GOP plan, the project will use a large asteroid pushed into Earth orbit and mine out the luxury condos and living envioronment

Under the GOP plan, the project will use a large asteroid pushed into Earth orbit and mine the luxury condos and living environment out of existing rock

Boehner added that this a budget neutral bill as the initial government funding for the project is a loan that will be repaid by a private consortium over the term of the loan. Unnamed sources have confirmed the term of the loan to be 10,000 years. Representative and former Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) said,

“This is a win-win-win project. It provides hundreds of thousands of new jobs over the next 100 years, it will put America’s back in space again, and it is the mother of all defense programs.” (Rep. Ryan)

When asked about a rumored plan to use prisoners from thousands of American jails as cheap and expendable labor, Ryan replied, “Another win-win! We’ll decrease the prison population and lower construction expenses.”

President Obama was asked about the Death Star project at his press conference today to encourage consideration of discussion regarding of forming a committee to address global warming. The President said:

“You know, back in December we killed this idea and gave good reasons why it should be killed, which is probably why the Republicans ran with it.” (President Obama) 

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) chided the press for overstating the military function of the massive artificial satellite. McConnell said:

“Once again the liberal press has labeled this great project to re…re…uhm…what’s the word…reflect, that’s it! Uhm…what was I saying?” (Senator McConnell)

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) then added:

“I believe that what Senator McConnell is trying to saying is that by referring to it as the ‘Death Star’ the liberal press has given a sinister impression of the purpose of this project. Most of this project will be dedicated to luxury condos for those who wish to use Earth’s Second Moon as their primary or secondary residence.” (Senator McCain)

It was reported by some unnamed sources, one of which was former Vice President Dick Cheney, that former Vice President Dick Cheney will be the President and CEO for the consortium building the artificial satellite. When questions were raised about someone of such advanced age running a 100-year project, Rep. Boehner said:

“We have that covered. We have identified five donors with the correct blood type and tissue match to keep the former Vice President healthy and active for at least the next twenty-five years. After that, we will have five more ready to go.” (Rep. Boehner)

When asked if the media would be allowed to interview the donors Boehner said:

“Oh they don’t know they are donors yet. This is a Homeland Security issue and they’ll know when they need to know.” (Rep. Boehner)

The six organizations will take the lead in the design, construction, operation, ownership of the project were identified are: Exxon, Koch Industries, KBR (the former subsidiary of Halliburton,) The Las Vegas Sands Corporation, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and Papa Johns Pizza.

Cheney said:

“These organizations are a perfect fit to carry out the construction and operation of this project. We have all our bases covered.” (Former VP Cheney)

When asked if the project will have a science component like the International Space Station, Paul Ryan answered:

“It will have a science component, but the science will be limited to the confirmation of the existence of God and how He create our universe. We’re not going to waste millions of dollars chasing after scientific hokum.” (Rep. Ryan)

Representative Steven King (R-Iowa) clarified:

“I think it’s important to understand the primary purpose of the Second Moon project. This is a place for certain people to escape Earth’s bounds and celebrate their success. It’s not the type of place that President Obama’s daughters will go for spring break.”

The project is tentatively scheduled for completion by the 2nd Quarter of 2110.

What America Must Do: Step 5 – Restart a Federally Run Space Program

05 Monday Nov 2012

Posted by in College, Crisis Management, Ethics, Government, Health, Higher Education, History, Information Technology, Opinion, Passionate People, Politics, Pride, Re-Imagine!, Religion, Science, Space, Taxes, Technology, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

USSR scared America into the space race and it led to our prosperity

Fifty years ago America was scared. The USSR had sent a man into space and he had orbited the Earth. The Soviet Union was also threatening to plant their ballistic missile weaponry in Cuba. The United States entry into the space race was out of a fear that if we didn’t respond quickly, it might be too late.

This dire situation caused a crisis-type response that defined who we are as a people. Ignoring profit or ROI (return on investment) we established our space program and became proficient at churning out new technologies. Almost overnight we had a new breed of people who literally became rocket scientists.

And then it happened. We discovered that space technology had terrestrial applications. That wasn’t the justification for it, but our space program suddenly pushed the United States of America into the role as the go-to nation for space technology applied to terrestrial application. For decades Americans and the world reaped the benefits of the new materials, equipment and knowledge that came from our effort to go beyond the safety and protection of Earth’s womb.

Young people became excited about the space program and suddenly universities had applicants knocking down their doors to become a scientist, mathematician, or engineer that would go on to shape tomorrow’s world. Space ignited learning and research at colleges that shook up their dusty libraries and ivy covered walls. Philosophy, religion, arts, economics, and literature were blindsided in the 1960’s and 70’s by new questions that challenged our old beliefs and standards.

In 2008, USA space competitiveness was dominant, but today it wanes

Meanwhile, in Russia, scientists were put under extreme pressure to be successful on an accelerated space program. Behaving more like a mega-corporation that pushed for immediate results, Russia’s government forced scientists to try to take major risks in a dangerous environment where failure meant loss of life. When the scientist did have a new breakthrough they became state secrets and the larger population did not benefit. For the Soviets, the space race showcased the failure of running a government like a business.

Fifty years later America can look around at our computers, cell phones, medical devices and almost everything we touch, consume, or use and know that the space program had a direct or indirect impact on its development.

Yet, today America is stagnant. We are desperately trying to be competitive in a global market that spends most of its time figuring out how to make things cheaper, but not better. We say we want young people to pursue careers as engineers and scientists, but there is no burning reason for a high school graduate to pursue those careers. Instead we have university Psychology programs that are filled to overflowing with students who are more inspired to collect a salary by listening to other people’s problems than in designing the transportation and living habitats for a colony on Mars.

The United States is desperate for water in the South and West, but everyday we waste it

For decades the western United States has been battling with a growing population and a dwindling fresh water supply. We also face aging community water and sewer systems that are in need of major updating and repairs. We face global climate change because the we have been filling the air with energy absorbing carbon from burning coal, gasoline and natural gas.

The concept of transporting power, water, and waste is based on 19th and 20th century engineering. Power has to be generated hundreds of miles away and then delivered to homes via power lines that can fail in a major storm. Expensive and overburdened water treatment plants transport fresh, clean water through miles of pipeline and is only used once and then it becomes waste. Purified water that would be the envy of many people in Africa and the Middle East is mindlessly sprayed on our lawns and used to flush our toilets. 

In space water has to be recycled, air must be purified, and power must be generated efficiently on a micro scale. That means focusing on self-sustaining habitats built that will face extreme conditions. On Earth, these technologies will pave the way to a shift from macro water, sewer and power systems (power plants and water and sewage treatment facilities) to cost-effective micro systems that free families from relying on expensive, polluting, and wasteful systems that are unsustainable. Everything we need to solve America’s terrestrial problems can be found by solving the  problems of extended human living in space. In addition, a renewed public space program will inspire High School graduates to pursue careers in engineering and science.

Space X Falcon 9 Engine Array – Redefining space technology

America needs to be pushed into using new technologies that break down the paradigms of the past. In the 1960’s we were pushed by the Soviets and the result was prosperity.  Today we need to push ourselves, not out of fear, but out of pride and courage. I have nothing against Space X or any other private or commercial space program, but prosperity doesn’t happen out of the pursuit of profit. Prosperity happens when everyone sacrifices from the board room to the break room for the good of the United States.  

Space X has made new breakthroughs in the bureaucracies and waste built up over five decades by NASA and its private contractors and they should be the model of a new public space program, but investors and ROI are not the reason America needs to take back the leadership in space exploration.

If the last 50 years have taught us anything it is that raising ships to the stars, we will raise all ships on Earth. It’s time to reclaim our space program.

Links to:

What America Must Do:  Step 1 – Silence the Wackos in Politics
What America Must Do:  Step 2 – An Extreme Makeover of Government at All Levels
What America Must Do:  Step 3 – Restore Government Revenue and Fair Taxation
What America Must Do:  Step 4 – Balanced Budget By 2015, Debt under 50% of GDP by 2020
What America Must Do:  Step 6 – Reinvent Higher Education

2011 Dates of Historical Note

31 Friday Dec 2010

Posted by in History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT  [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Article first published as
2011 Dates of Historical Note
on Technorati

Historical milestones coming in 2011:

JANUARY

15th – Wikipedia’s 10-year anniversary

17th – 50 years ago President Dwight Eisenhower warned America of the growing “military-industrial complex”

18th – 100 years ago the first plane landed on a ship (USS Pennsylvania)

1st plane landing on a ship

31st – 40 years ago Apollo 14 launched on a mission to land on the moon
and 50 years ago Ham, the Chimp, was launched into space.

FEBRUARY

1st – 50 years ago America tested its first ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile)

9th – 50th anniversary of The Beatles first performance (The Cavern Club, Great Britain)

The Beatles at the Cavern Club

14th – 5th anniversary of YouTube (and Valentine’s Day)

15th – 50 years ago the entire US Skating Team was killed in a plane crash


1961 US Skating Team killed in plane crash

MARCH

1st – 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps

3rd – actress Jean Harlow was born 100 years ago

6th – actor and President Ronald Reagan was born 100 years ago

8th – the first International Women’s Day was 100 years ago

23rd – 10th anniversary of the Mir space station re-entering Earth’s atmosphere

26th – playwright Tennessee Williams was born 100 years ago

APRIL

1st – singer Susan Boyle was born 50 years ago

3rd – actor Eddie Murphy was born 50 years ago

12th – 30 years ago STS-1 (Space Shuttle Columbia) launched on maiden voyage, the first manned mission in almost 6 years
and 50 years ago Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space

The Space Shuttle launches from the Kennedy Space Center

17th – 50th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba

21st – Judgement Day, according to the Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles television series

23rd – comedian and actor George Lopez was born 50 years ago

28th – 10 years ago Dennis Tito becomes first space tourist

MAY

5th – 50th anniversary of 1st American in space (Alan Shepard)

6th – actor and activist George Clooney was born 50 years ago

13th – basketball star and actor Dennis Rodman was born 50 years ago
and actor Gary Cooper died 50 years ago

14th – 50 years ago the Freedom Riders bus is firebombed and occupants are beaten by Segregationists in Alabama

15th – the birth of modern genetics occurred 50 years ago

17th – singer Enya was born 50 years ago

John F. Kennedy announces plan to Congress

25th – 50 years ago President John F. Kennedy announces a commitment to land a man on the moon within a decade to a joint session of  Congress

27th – actor Vincent Price was born 100 years ago

29th – singer Melissa Etheridge was born 50 years ago

30th – The first Indianapolis 500 race was held 100 years ago

31st – Hull of the Titanic launched in Belfast 100 years ago (Sinks April 12, 1912)

JUNE

9th – actor and activist Michael J. Fox was born 50 years ago

11th – Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber Timothy McVeigh was executed 10 years ago

14th – singer Boy George was born 50 years ago

22nd – 100 years ago King George V was coronated

25th – 50 years ago Iraqi President Abdul Karim Kassem announces his plan to annex Kuwait

27th – 50 years ago British troops are sent to Kuwait to secure it from annexation by Iraq

JULY

1st – the late Princess Diana was born 50 years ago

2nd – writer Ernest Hemingway died 50 years ago

Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire

10th – Neptune completes its first orbit since it was discovered in 1846

16th – dancer, actor, and artist Ginger Rogers was born 100 years ago

17th – baseball legend Ty Cobb died 50 years ago

26th – 40 years ago Apollo 15 was launched on a mission to land on the Moon

AUGUST

6th – 20 year anniversary of the World Wide Web (Internet)
and 100 years ago Lucille Ball was born

13th – 50 years ago East Germany began building the Berlin Wall

21st – 100 years ago the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre and not the crime was not discovered until the next day

SEPTEMBER

6th – 10 years ago the Justice Department gives up its attempt to break up Microsoft

11th – 10 years ago four planes are hijacked by 19 men (most Saudi Arabian citizens) and crash two planes into the World Trade Center towers, one into the Pentagon, and one is brought down in a field in Pennsylvania by the passengers

18th – 10 years ago Anthrax-laced letter attacks began, ultimately killing five people and infecting 17

25th – Heather Locklear was born 50 years ago

and the 100 year anniversary of the groundbreaking ceremony for Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts

30th – 100 years ago Austin, Pennsylvania is wiped out by a dam break

OCTOBER

7th – 10 years ago the United States invades Afghanistan in retaliation for the September 11th attacks

18th – 50 years ago West Side Story (film) was released

19th – 50 years ago the Arab League relieves Great Britain of the security of Kuwait and British troop go home

26th – 10 years ago President George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act into law

27th – 50 years ago Soviet and American tanks began a standoff in Berlin that brought the two countries to the brink of war

30th – 50 years ago today the USSR detonated the largest human caused explosion (a 58 ton nuclear bomb)

NOVEMBER

3rd – Chevrolet entered the auto market 100 years ago

5th – 100 years ago the first transcontinental flight was completed from Sheepshead Bay, New York to Pasadena, California (49 days)
and Roy Rogers was born

9th – 50 years ago Neil Armstrong, who would be the 1st man on the Moon less than eight years later, set a world speed record in the X-15

10th – 50 years ago Joseph Heller’s book Catch-22 was published

11th – 11/11/11 11:11:11 AM

13th – 10 years ago President George W. Bush authorizes military tribunals for foreign citizens accused of terrorist involvement

18th – 50 years ago President John F. Kennedy sends 18,000 advisors to Vietnam

19th – Meg Ryan was born 50 years ago

22nd – Mariel Hemingway was born 50 years ago

DECEMBER

2nd – 10 years ago Enron files for bankruptcy
and 50 years ago Fidel Castro announces that Cuba will be a Socialist country

11th – 50 years ago the Vietnam War officially begins

12th – 100 years ago the capital of India is moved from Calcutta to New Delhi

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Our Country and History Related

Negative Time: The Self-fulfilling Prophecy a Scientific Possibility?

27 Monday Sep 2010

Posted by in History, Lessons of Life, Passionate People, Random, Relationships, Science

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT  [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

(Warning: This post contains information that may cause brain damage.)

There is a television commercial where an middle-aged couple is watching their son being inaugurated as President, which is followed by a series of scenes working backwards in time:

  • > The ‘President’ is a young boy playing with his Dad
  • > The ‘President’ being born
  • > His parents in their first house
  • > His parents at their wedding
  • > His parents on their first date
  • > And finally a scene where his Dad first sees his Mom on a train that is about to leave and he and uses his phone to buy a ticket so he can meet her.

Positive Time, No-Brainer
This backward view of a series of related events illustrates the concept of negative time, and while the new theories regarding how our micro, micro, micro world works may not yet directly propose it, there is some evidence that time may work both ways. If true, everything we understand about life would be turned upside down.

Time flows only one-way, right?

We take positive time for granted. It is so automatic in our lives that most people can’t even conceive what the opposite of positive time would be like in our universe. It is so basic to our lives that if I were to ask a lay person to define the term ‘positive time’, they might come up with a reasonable definition, but they probably would have to take a moment or two to construct their explanation. If asked for the a definition of negative time, most people would likely be stumped.

Positive time is relatively simple. In our universe time began at the Big Bang, or Big Pop, as I prefer to call it. Theoretical physicists believe that prior to the Big Pop everything in ‘the universe’ was completely ordered and homogeneous. There was no movement, or action, or decay. In essence, no ‘matter’ or substance in the universe, just energy. Time didn’t exist because you must have something changing to measure time, and there wasn’t anything to measure.

At the Big Pop, matter was created out of energy and put in motion. Matter in motion means that it has a beginning point and a direction of movement and that means it can be measured. The moment of the creation of matter was also the creation of Time. From that moment Time moved in a positive direction, meaning that one second follows the next, but in one direction only. We (in our experience of Time) cannot reverse time and go back to a past moment, nor can we figure out a way to have time run backwards. Since we can only observe Positive Time it has been easy to ignore the question, “Why does time always move in one direction?”

One depiction of how time travel might be possible

Time Travel is not Negative Time
Science fiction has toyed with the idea of time travel, but that is not quite the same as negative time. Jumping from the present to the past or future involves skipping over all those seconds between now and then. To be the opposite of positive time, negative time would have to flow backward from one moment to the next, which is how we experience positive time.

So why care about the concept of negative time when it doesn’t seem to exist? Well, maybe it does.

String Theory Shakes Up Our Idea of Space/Time and Dimensions
For most of human history we have assumed we live in a four-dimensional world (three space dimensions, plus the dimension of positive time.) It is all we can observe; therefore, it is fact. But a new view of the Quantum world of the very, very small, called String Theory, we have tangible evidence that beyond the micro, micro world of electrons, muons, and photons is a micro, micro, micro world of vibrating strings, made not of matter, but of energy. Without getting into all the background of the last 30 years of discoveries and theories, the concept of String Theory offers the best and most rational explanation of the raw materials that create the reality we see, sense, hear, and feel around us.

A simplistic view of the 'strings' in String Theory

Along with String Theory has come an acceptance by many in the field that in addition to the three dimensions we know, there must be at least seven or eight additional dimensions that we can’t observe because they are either too small to be detected, or they just are outside our realm of detection by our senses and/or equipment. It may seem odd to have a concept of something outside of our experience and before we can detect it; however, Albert Einstein is only one example of someone who came up with bizarre ideas that were not proven until years after he gave us the theory. In the case of String Theory, mathematicians have used equations to determine what is and is not possible in the micro, micro, micro world and eleven dimensions makes all the puzzle pieces fall together even though we currently lack the technical capability to observe all but three of them.

The Legacy of a 200 year-old Experiment
Note that String Theory does not propose that time works in two directions. In fact, when theoretical physicists discuss the eleven dimensions they often add, ‘and the dimension of time’ as if to reinforce that time is a singular, one-way aspect of reality. The idea that time might flow two ways is not part of the typical String Theory conversation.

The conflicting waves of the Double Slit Experiment

But there is an interesting experiment discussed in Brian Greene’s book, The Fabric of the Cosmos, which challenges our positive time flow assumptions. The experiment is known a the ‘Double Slit Experiment‘ and it was devised over 200 years ago (1801) by Thomas Young. The experiment uses two slits that light passes through to a film that would record the effect of the slits on the path of the light. If the light creates a cluster of points on the film, it is evidence of particle behavior. If the light creates a banded appearance, it is evidence of wave behavior.

The result seemed to prove that light behaved as a wave pattern and for about 150 years that was the accepted point of view, but in the past fifty years light has been proven to be a particle (known as a photon.) So what’s up with Mr. Young’s experiment?

Without delving into Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle, the belief is that a photon travels every possible theoretical route before it travels the only route it is destined to travel and therefore, it shows up as a wave pattern in the classic Double Slit Experiment, but if the experiment is set up to determine the route of the photon it only detects the route that the photon actually travels and all the potential paths disappear…if you head is starting to hurt, I completely understand. The full discussion of this takes up a sizable portion of Mr. Greene’s book, but for now, I ask you to accept this so I can move on to the next concept.

According to Mr. Greene, the detector that identifies the route of the photon does not interfere with the photon reaching the recording film, but because the photon was being observed before it reached the recording film, its behavior changed at the source. In other words, somehow the light sensed the detector and rather than every possible path being recorded on the film, the only thing recorded was the singular photon.

Again, according to Mr. Greene, this was not a case that the detector changed the behavior of the light, but that the behavior of light changed at the source. There are no rational explanations for why this happens, but one possible idea is that time can flow backward, meaning that the photon’s behavior is shaped, not by positive time flow (photon emitted by source, path observed or not by detector), but by negative time (photon observed or not by detector, photon emitted by source.)

Do Final Events Determine the Events that Preceded It?
The concept of negative time is so bizarre and outside our experience that any rational mind has a hard time accepting the possibility of anything that contradicts a world ruled by positive time. But why should time be limited by what we experience? What if our Positive Time experience consists of the result of future events, not of past events?  What if the previously mentioned television commercial has correctly ordered the events? Maybe the boy who becomes President causes all the preceding events all along the timeline? What if our universe is constructed, not by one event followed by another, but by a final event that then construct all the events that led up to the final event?

By now your head may be pounding from trying to understand a concept that is absolutely alien to what we know, or you may decided to reject the idea as absurd, (which it is when taken in the context of our experience,) but if negative time is real then it means that much of what we see as coincidence is not…. and a self-fulfilling prophesy is not just an amusing idea, but a fact of life in Negative Time. It means that what we do now is guided by what we will do in the future.

The ramifications of Negative Time exceed what we can imagine and challenge our foundations of science, philosophy, religion, business, in fact, all aspects of life as we know it. It is a concept that is a long way from becoming provable in our experience of the universe, but the possibility of Time being a two-way phenomenon is exciting…even if it makes my head hurt.

More Articles