Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: FAA canks SpaceX Jan28 flight

  1. #1

    FAA canks SpaceX Jan28 flight

    http://nowww.washingtontimes.com/new...ures-in-space/

    ANALYSIS/OPINION:

    The United States is in a titanic struggle with the People's Republic of China for the dominance of space.

    Although the Americans have been to the moon and sent multiple, advanced probes to the surface of Mars, since the end of the Cold War, U.S. space policy has languished in neutral. Due to this, new competitors, namely China, have arisen to challenge the dominance of the Americans in the ultimate strategic high ground of space.

    China has grand ambitions for space. Not only does China plan on beating the Americans to the Martian surface by the end of the decade, but Beijing wants control of the vital orbits around the Earth. By controlling these orbits, China's military would enjoy significant advantages over the American military. Beyond that, China plans on strip-mining the moon for valuable resources.

    The Americans, though, have always had a silver bullet in its competition with China for space dominance: a vibrant and innovative private sector. Specifically, the growing number of private space start-ups, such as Elon Musk's SpaceX.

    Thanks to his reusable rocket design, Mr. Musk's company has already cut down on launch costs by a staggering 40 percent. SpaceX insists that it can cut those costs down further. What's more, SpaceX rockets are entirely indigenously produced. And as the ongoing race to Mars between the United States and China intensifies, Mr. Musk's new deep space reusable rocket Starship, might just be the vehicle that gets American astronauts to Mars before China can get its taikonauts to the Red Planet.

    Certainly, the Starship reusable rocket is unproven. In another America, this experimental craft would elicit wonder and its development would be encouraged. The Trump administration exhorted SpaceX to vigorously move ahead with its Starship program.

    The United States, however, has a new president. And President Joe Biden is making his space policy preferences increasingly clear: America will remain grounded for the time being.

    On Jan. 28, SpaceX was set to put its Starship rocket through another test in the blue skies above Texas. The objective of the test was to get the massive rocket up to 12.5 kilometers about seven miles above the Earth and then spin the giant rocket around so that it could make a vertical landing.

    Sadly, the visionary goal of getting Americans to Mars first came crashing down when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which, under the Trump administration had allowed for SpaceX to conduct their important test flights, ordered Mr. Musk to cancel the Starship prototype test.

    The FAA did not cite its reasoning behind ordering the cancellation of the launch. Many have speculated that the cancellation was brought about due to safety concerns. After all, in December 2020, SpaceX did a test of the experimental rocket. The Starship prototype made it to a height of 41,000 feet. Once it reoriented itself, in order to allow for the rocket to land vertically, the great silver spacecraft promptly did a bellyflop that ended in a massive explosion.

    Despite this, SpaceX learned many valuable lessons from the December failure that were to be applied to the Starship launch in January. In science, the only lasting failure occurs when one does not test a new idea or hypothesis. This axiom is especially true in the context of the new space race between the United States and China.

    It's likely that the FAA's decision to cancel the launch is part of a wider Biden administration effort undo the Trump administration's vibrant space policy. Plus, former President Trump's space vision was explicitly aimed at countering advances made by China in space. It is unlikely that the Biden administration seeks to continue that policy, as the Biden team attempts to stabilize deteriorating relations with Beijing over the next few years.

    Concern over Mr. Musk's Martian intentions is likely another factor for the FAA's cancellation of the Starship launch. Last year, Mr. Musk indicated that any future SpaceX Martian colony would not be "ruled by Earth-based laws." The problem for Mr. Musk is that SpaceX has been awarded lucrative contracts by the Earth-based U.S. government. If SpaceX were to create a colony on Mars, because of the company's contractual relationship with the U.S. government, Washington very much expects that colony to be an American endeavor.
    #RESIST

  2. #2
    Four String Fumbler Joe in PNG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Papua New Guinea; formerly Florida
    He's an honest politician, and stays bought.
    "You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
    "I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI

  3. #3
    I have no idea what the FAA is doing with regard to SpaceX, or whether it is acting in response to political pressure from the Biden administration which would be a disgrace.

    But despite a number of spectacular failures and reports the Mr. Musk is a demanding, arrogant prick (I have never met him so I can neither confirm nor refute these allegations) I really admire the effort, tenacity, commitment and results they have achieved in a very short time.

    It is pretty well accepted that "space is hard" and there are many reasons why "rocket science" is often at the edge of the envelope in many fields including aeronautics, chemistry, computing, etc.

    And even when they fail and blow things up they take it in stride, analyze the wreckage, solve the problem and go again. They receive very limited support from the .gov and even in the Trump administration had to fight with the Air Force to get contracts that were "supposed" to go to others.

    In my view this is the kind of thinking and effort we need more of, in all fields. Yes there will be failures, definitely some property damage and maybe even some loss of life (although not yet with SpaceX). But this is how significant progress is made quickly.

  4. #4
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Good, good... we can use a tech billionaire on the other side to balance all the progressives. All is right in the universe. Praise be to the uniter in chief.
    ”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB

  5. #5
    I mean, yeah.

    Typically when your flying shit explodes telling the FAA 'we kinda expected that might happen' doesn't make things better.

  6. #6
    I guess there are at least two possibilities to consider

    1. This is part of Biden's plot to undermine SpaceX and cede space dominance to China
    2. SpaceX got a little ahead of themselves completing some bureaucratic paperwork and there was a slight delay


    Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by LorenzoS View Post
    I guess there are at least two possibilities to consider

    1. This is part of Biden's plot to undermine SpaceX and cede space dominance to China
    2. SpaceX got a little ahead of themselves completing some bureaucratic paperwork and there was a slight delay


    Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one.
    3. NASA doesn't like private competition. Some combination thereof? Who knows?
    #RESIST

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    We continue to suffer from the Space Shuttle experience.

    Way back in the '70s, NASA was forced to choose between additional Apollo missions and a "Block II" spacecraft, or the Shuttle. I'll note that the additional Apollo missions would have led to a semi-permanent Moon base and presence.

    Apollo Applications Program

    There have been a host of "post-shuttle programs", and/but they have all used a combination of Shuttle RS-25 main engines, Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), and Shuttle Cyrogenic Main Fuel Tanks. They can all be considered "Shuttle-derived" systems:

    The National Launch System (NLS), circa 1991, Ares V/Constellation, circa 2005-2009, and now, finally, Orion. While the RS-25s have been either been pulled of of Shuttles or been fabricated as duplicates, the SRBs and Cryogenic Main Fuel Tanks have been re-designed into these NLS/Ares V/Constellation derivatives.



    The time and cost of the effort required to create a "Shuttle-derived" systems is equal to or more than the cost to come up with a totally fresh design. Once designed, the cost of a non-reuseable "Shuttle-derived" system is much greater than the re-useable Shuttle. Even though the Shuttle itself was far less re-useable than originally intended and claimed, it at least brought back a vehicle and engines.

    The reason that these "Shuttle-derived" systems have been the only ones that NASA has tried to pursue is that by being derived from the Shuttle, they use the same contractors. Those contractors are wealthy and powerful, and they support a substantial Congressional lobby that is hugely resistant to any new system that would not use the same contractors. Meanwhile, there really only is so much performance and safety that can be squeezed from Shuttle-derived systems.

    Here's what a re-design of the Apollo F-1 engine would be like:



    And here's what Sea Dragon could be like:



    I would argue that if we're going to be serious about space, then we need to be able to put substantial and affordable mass and volume in orbit, for the purposes of exploiting the mineral/resource wealth of asteroids. I think that SpaceX is in a far greater position to do that than NASA, which is both administratively hidebound and crippled, with a Congress that also won't let it move away from supporting traditional contractors.
    Per the PF Code of Conduct, I have a commercial interest in the StreakTM product as sold by Ammo, Inc.

  9. #9
    I am an unapologetic space nerd and I am thrilled at the progress SpaceX has made to revitalize our space program. Musk is weird but I honestly don't think there is another individual today with the vision and balls to lead the way as successfully. There are serious conversations to be had on the blend of public and private, and about the appropriate level of risk to be taken. There are plenty of reasonable, smart people who will land differently on the right balance there.

    Unfortunately statements like this do not contribute productively to that conversation:
    It's likely that the FAA's decision to cancel the launch is part of a wider Biden administration effort undo the Trump administration's vibrant space policy. Plus, former President Trump's space vision was explicitly aimed at countering advances made by China in space. It is unlikely that the Biden administration seeks to continue that policy, as the Biden team attempts to stabilize deteriorating relations with Beijing over the next few years.
    Perhaps the FAA is being too cautious or bureaucratic, and we should address whether current regulations are still appropriate to our new space age. But not everything is a Manchurian Candidate conspiracy.

  10. #10
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Quote Originally Posted by Totem Polar View Post
    Good, good... we can use a tech billionaire on the other side to balance all the progressives. All is right in the universe. Praise be to the uniter in chief.
    I love this idea too...it might make Musk not so "super fired up" over Biden.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •