Space Quote: The Taikonauts Are Coming!

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): The crew of the latest mission to China’s Tiangong space station – the Shenzhou 23 mission. (CMSA/CCTV)

“Well, I would just say, first, it’s not arguably like there- we are very much in a space race right now, and the Chinese are moving at incredible speeds, and they are certainly capable of doing what the Soviets were not during the- the first space race. The Chinese will land their taikonauts on the moon. There’s no question. The question is, will the United States return before them, and will we do so in a different way this time, when we build a base, establish that enduring presence? I think the answer is yes.“

-Statement by NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman on CBS’s Face the Nation this past Sunday. The interview addresses other issues in addition to the Artemis mission to the Moon, including efforts to save the Swift space telescope as well as the status of Blue Origin’s efforts to recover from the recent explosion of its New Glenn rocket.

Space Stories: Starliner Beats SpaceX on Costs, NASA Administrator Ignores Regulators, and Blue Origin Rebuilding Beyond Impressive

Posted on by onespaceman2000

Here are some recent NASA-related stories of interest.

—Florida Sentinel: “Boeing Starliner Costly But Cheaper for NASA Than SpaceX Switch, Audit Says“

Boeing’ Starliner costs and delays remain the target of the latest audit from NASA’s Office of the Inspector General, but remains a cheaper option for the agency than relying solely on SpaceX for its commercial crew needs. The audit releasedJune 30 dinged the beleaguered spacecraft’s tumultuous and still uncertain path toward certification and wars that the timetable for its use to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station is running short.

—Newser: “NASA Chief Defies FAA With ‘High-Risk’ Flight“

NASA chief Jared Isaacman took to the skies over Washington in a vintage fighter jet on July 4, even after federal regulators flagged the plan as too risky. The Federal Aviation Administration rejected a request on June 30 to let four 1970s-era Northrop F-5 Tiger II jets participate in the National Mall flyover for America’s 250th birthday, calling the aircraft “very high-risk” and citing concerns about flight controls, ejection scenarios, and past crashes, the Wall Street Journal reports.

—Benzinga: “NASA’s Jared Isaacman Says Blue Origin’s New Glenn Recovery Is ‘Beyond Impressive’“

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said Blue Origin has devoted significant resources to cleaning up and rebuilding its launch pad after a late-May explosion of a New Glenn rocket, as the agency weighs how the setback could affect lunar missions tied to the Artemis program. “Blue Origin’s response to the situation is almost beyond impressive, and that’s not just a NASA assessment,” Isaacman told reporters Wednesday afternoon, according to Ars Technica. He said U.S. Space Force officials also have been deeply involved in Blue Origin’s planning since the May 28 test anomaly damaged New Glenn’s only operational launch pad.

Note: Here is the podcast version of this post.

Podcast: The Future of Space Stations

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): Design of Blue Origin’s Orbital Reef space station. (Blue Origin)

The latest podcast episode of the Planetary Society’s Planetary radio had an informative discussion about space stations, including why we need them and who should be financing them. The episode, What’s Going on with Commercial Space Stations, is a conversation between Casey Dreier, Chief of Space Policy for The Planetary Society, and Clayton Swope, Deputy Director of the Aerospace Security Project and Senior Fellow for The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Mr. Swope wrote an story last month for CSIS titled “NASA Changes Course on Commercial Space Stations.” In it, he notes that NASA’s recent change to its program for commercial space stations was due to greater skepticism about the private sector’s ability to make a business case for a space station and then properly construct one in a timely fashion. This is the crux of his discussion with Casey Dreier, which is fun to follow.

Should the federal government continue to take the lead on both the financing and construction of manned space stations to replace the International Space Station (ISS) once it is retired? And why do we even need another manned space station? Does it serve a commercial purpose that cannot be replicated with robots? Or is it more akin to our nation’s support and participation in the Olympics, where we can show American prowess while hopefully taking sports to a new level?

The conversation covers a fair amount of ground, while the Planetary Radio website offers a variety of background links as well as some useful information on the proposed commercial space stations, including:

  • Axiom Station,
  • Orbital Reef,
  • Starlab,
  • Cygnus spacecraft captured by Canadarm2, and
  • Sierra Space LIFE habitat.

NASA and the private sector will need to find a way to make this Earth-orbiting commercial space station a viable option before the ISS is little more than a shooting star. NASA has already killed the Moon’s space station earlier this year (aka Gateway), demonstrating that it is willing to move quickly and break things.

Image (Credit): Artist’s rendering of Gateway orbiting the Moon. (NASA)

A Martian Rover on the Moon?

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): The PROMISE rover, as shown at a recent “NASA Moon Base Update” press conference. (NASA)

It seems NASA is looking for some shortcuts to get back on the Moon, including repurposing an earlier rover designed for Mars. The rover in question is called the Polar Rover for Observation, Mapping and In-Situ Exploration, or simply PROMISE. It is the test model for the Perseverance and Curiosity rovers currently exploring Mars.

One of the advantages of the Mars rover is its power source. Instead of relying on solar panels, the rover is powered by a nuclear battery. This will give it greater range on the Moon’s surface without having to wait for lunar daylight. Another advantage is that it is proven technology, as the two Martian rovers have demonstrated for years.

It sounds like a smart way to take something off the shelf, but one can only wonder why this is only being considered now after NASA spent more than $450 million on the Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) project. Was a nuclear battery ever considered for VIPER? These Martian rovers have been around for quite some time, and a nuclear reactor has been discussed as part of the Moon Base itself, so this is not a new idea.

Given this change in plans, one might expect that the contract with Blue Origin to bring the VIPER to the Moon in 2027 is no longer needed. Maybe VIPER will put on a shelf for years like PROMISE until someone comes up with a new purpose for it.

Stay tuned.

Audit Report: NASA Launch Facilities in Need of Repair and Sustainable Financing

Posted on by onespaceman2000

First, let’s note the good news. NASA has more and more launches on its current launch pads (see figure above). Now, the bad news. NASA is running out of functioning launch pads.

That’s the story from NASA’s Office of Inspector General in its latest audit report, NASA’s Launch Infrastructure. The June 22nd audit report concludes that:

NASA’s launch infrastructure is dated and lacks the capacity to meet the growing demands of the Agency and government and commercial partners. The number of launches supported by Kennedy and Wallops has increased dramatically since 2020 and is projected to grow even further by 2030 due to a surge in commercial launches. The growing number of projected launches from Kennedy and Wallops could eventually outpace each site’s capacity to support the launches. Based on current launch projections, Kennedy and Wallops are expected to operate near capacity in the 2028 to 2029 time frame.

The report also notes that the Kennedy Space Center is in tough shape (see figure below). For example, the auditors stated:

Kennedy’s roadway and bridge infrastructure was largely constructed in the 1960s and was not designed to accommodate the volume, frequency, and weight of modern heavy transport operations. Roadways and bridges are in marginal to poor condition and are expected to receive further strain as launch rates increase and generate approximately 19,000 additional truck trips annually to transport flight hardware, propellants, and related materials.

Why is this the situation in a nation that seems to want a strong space program? The report highlights a number of causes, including budget cuts and NASA’s inability to seek sufficient reimbursement from commercial users. It seems we want the private sector to be involved, but we are subsidizing all of the infrastructure, thereby not showing the true cost of these missions. The auditors noted that Congress is aware of this problem, but still unable to pass legislation to correct this reimbursement issue.

The report has a number of recommendations addressed to NASA, which is the auditee. Yet a few recommendations are also needed for Congress. My first recommendation would be for Congress to get off its butt and put legislation in place to ensure the commercial sector is reimbursing the government for the services it is using. That seems easy enough with a serious Congress, and NASA certainly has enough bipartisan support to make this happen.

Note: Figure 4 shows that the vast majority of the launches from Florida are for commercial purposes and not government launches. For instance, 101 of the 109 launches in 2025 related to SpaceX, and most of those launches pertained to Starlink, a commercial enterprise. Maybe it is time to ask the world’s only trillionaire to kick in a litte more for space infrastructure.