Blue Origin's Flight

Planetary Resources to Launch Testbed Arkyd-3 Nanosat in 2014

A billionaire-backed asteroid-mining company aims to start putting its big plans into action soon, launching its first hardware into space by this time next year.

Planetary Resources, which counts Google execs Larry Page and Eric Schmidt among its investors, plans to loft a set of tiny "cubesats" to Earth orbit in early 2014, to test out gear for its first line of asteroid-prospecting spacecraft.

"Our belief and our philosophy is that the best testbed is space itself," Chris Voorhees, Planetary Resources' vice president of spacecraft development, said Wednesday (April 24) during a Google+ Hangout event. [Planetary Resources' Asteroid-Mining Plans (Images)]

"Despite the fact that we're a deep-space company, we're going to use Earth orbit as much as possible," Voorhees added. "For us, it's a valuable learning experience, and that's what we plan on doing one year hence."

The cubesats slated for launch in 2014 will measure 12 inches long by 4 inches wide by 4 inches tall (30 by 10 by 10 centimeters), company officials said. These "Arkyd-3" satellites will test out technologies for Planetary Resources' Arkyd-100 scouts, which the firm hopes to launch to low-Earth orbit on asteroid-hunting missions in 2015.

The Arkyd-3 "is the testbed manifestation of our Arkyd-100 spacecraft. It just happens to be flying," Voorhees said.

Bigelow's Space Station Alpha

Hailing what it calls a “sea change” in space costs, Bigelow Aerospace has unveiled pricing information for governments, companies and individuals interested in using its planned private Alpha Space Station.

Transportation costs to the station begin at $26.25 million per seat for a 60-day visit. Leases for exclusive use and control over part of the space station begin at $25 million. Naming rights for the entire station will cost an additional $25 million per year.

Kickstart an Ion Drive!

Time is short on this one...

Boeing, SpaceX & Sierra Nevada Win Commericial Crew Contracts

Did I call it or what?

Boeing got $440 million for their CST-100.  SpaceX got $420 million for the Dragon.  Sierra Nevada got $212 million.

Innovative, but sure (SpaceX).  Dinospace but likely to succeed (Boeing).  And "sexy" or "kewl," SN.

There were some rumors floating around (when aren't there?) that the White House delayed the announcement because they were unhappy with the decision.  The rumor was that ATK had won something and that the WH didn't like it.  The only way that works now that the awards are out is that they had hoped that ATK had won and that it didn't...

ATK may continue, albeit slower, according public statements.

Congratz, folks.  Let's see Americans going up in American spacecraft again.

Bigelow Aerospace's Space Stations in the NY Times

Rutan Clarifies His Criticism

My basic concern is that the real value of NASA's contributions that America realized in the 60s and early 70s is now being completely discarded. How can we rationalize a surrender of our preeminence in human spaceflight? In my mind, the important NASA accomplishments are twofold: 1) The technical breakthroughs achieved by basic research (not by Development programs like Constellation) and 2) The Forefront Manned Exploration that provided the inspiration for our youth to plan careers in engineering/science and that established the U.S. as the world leader in technology.

In short, it is a good idea indeed for the commercial community to compete to re-supply the ISS and to bring about space access for the public to enjoy. I applaud the efforts of SpaceX, Virgin and Orbital in that regard and feel these activities should have been done at least two
decades ago. However, I do not see the commercial companies taking Americans to Mars or to the moons of Saturn within my lifetime and I doubt if they will take the true Research risks (technical and financial) to fly new concepts that have low confidence of return on investment. Even NASA, regarded as our prime Research agency has not recently shown a willingness to fly true Research concepts.

For years I have stated that a NASA return-to-moon effort must include true Research content, i.e. testing new concepts needed to enable forefront Exploration beyond the moon. The current Ares/Orion does not do that. While I have been critical of Constellation for that reason, I do not think that NASA should 'give up' on manned spaceflight, just that they should be doing it while meeting the 1) or 2) criteria above.

Some backpedaling, but not much. He accuses the journalists of cherry picking his statements. Gosh. That never happens.

Burt Rutan Blasts NASA Plan

Commercial space pioneer Burt Rutan has sharply criticized Obama administration proposals to outsource key portions of NASA's manned space program to private firms.

The White House wants NASA to use outside firms to develop and operate new rockets and spacecraft that would transport astronauts into orbit and beyond, functions that had previously been considered a core function of the agency. Mr. Rutan, a veteran aerospace designer and entrepreneur, in a letter addressed to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, says he is "fearful that the commercial guys will fail" to deliver on the promises to get beyond low earth orbit, and that the policy risks setting back the nation's space program.

"That would be a very big mistake for America to make," according to the letter sent to lawmakers that is expected to be released Wednesday during a Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing on the future of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Such comments are unexpected from a maverick engineer long identified with pushing the boundaries of commercial space projects, and the man who designed the first commercial suborbital rocketship.

"From my past comments on NASA's" lack of direction and success, "an observer might think that I would applaud the decision to turn this important responsibility over to commercial developers," the letter says. However, he adds, that's "wrong."

oooooo!

If Burt is nuking the proposal, that's NOT a good sign. I really want to see that letter.

He's right though. NewSpace isn't ready...yet. We have a ways to go to get to the point where we will be and betting the farm on the noobs isn't a good idea. On the other hand, putting your eggs in a single basket isn't good either. If I were one of the law makers, I'd be looking hard at preventing Constellations canning and looking on how to ramp up NewSpace's capabilities in parallel. It'd be expensive though.