Space Access 2010

Space Access '10
Space Access Society info

Overview
Thu April 8 afternoon
Thu April 8 evening
Fri April 9 morning
Fri April 9 afternoon
Fri April 9 evening
Sat April 10 morning
Sat April 10 afternoon

Other coverage
RLV News

by Ian Kluft

These are notes I took from the presentations at the Space Access 2010 Conference in Phoenix, Arizona.

Friday morning April 9, 2010

Charles Miller, NASA HQ

Charles Miller, Senior Advisor for Commercial Space, "An NACA Approach To Low Cost Reliable Access To Space", NASA HQ

Miller comes from the NewSpace industry before recently going to NASA HQ.
This presentation suggests learning from the successes of NASA's predecessor NACA (National Advisory Comittee on Aviation)

* overview of history of NewSpace industry, Space Access conference, NASA policy on commercial space flight
* NASA HQ calls the new sector "entrepreneurial entities"
* many slides with quotes from NASA Administrator and other officials' speeches supporting shift to emphasis on commercial launch services
* US has made 3 attempts at low-cost reusable access to space

1970's space shuttle
1980's NASP (same purpose)
1990's X-33 (same purpose)

* These errors are not new.

In 1898 $50K was granted to Samuel Langley to start a government program to invent the airplane.
Langley's flight attempt in 1903 splashed into the Potomac.
Langley claimed to be the authority, but in hindsight didn't have the necessary understanding for the task. Gov't was beaten by two bicycle mechanics on Dec 17, 1903, who spent $1K of their own money.
At the time, nobody would have picked the Wright Brothers before their flight.

* Common error among these approaches was a centrally-planned programmatic approach to pick a winner
* solution:

sometimes we don't know what we don't know
take an open innovation approach to low-cost access to space
do not pre-select a winner
adopt an NACA approach - "build an industry, not a program"

* NACA was formed when US had become far behind in aviation during World War I
* NACA brought together diverse federal agencies: Army, Navy, Simthsonian, Bureau of Standards, Weather Bureau
* NACA's early successes did not involve lots of cash

holistic systems view of national priorities
established aircraft patent cross-licensing agreement, solved the long-standing crippling patent dispute between Wrights and Curtiss
created cooperative partnerships between government and industry
started advocating government purchase of commercial services for air mail, which was a government monopoly at that time, led to Kelly Air Mail Act of 1925
persuaded commercial insurers to start insuring aviation
recommended to President to increase Weather Bureau budget to promote safety in aeronautics
recommended creation of Bureau of Aeronautics (predecessor of today's FAA)
developed methods for mapping from aircraft

* NACA technical successes

studies on landing gear, airfoils, etc made available to all companies, not just one

* NACA structure generated holistic consensus on aviation

today the Augustine Commission served this role for commercial space

* slides listing numerous upcoming NASA workshops with industry

Bill Gaubatz and Layne Cook, formerly with DC-X team

Bill Gaubatz and Layne Cook: DC-X, High-Alpha and the Continued Quest for the VTVL Spaceplane

DC-X was a vertical takeoff/vertical landing (VTVL) experimental rocket by McDonnell Douglas in the early 1990's. See the DC-X page on Wikipedia for background.

* Bill Gaubatz presents...
* DC-X was a technology demonstrator (so not a prototype)
* 42 feet tall, 41,000 lbs at takeoff, 4 rocket engines
* all successful flights, "one unsuccessful landing"
* goal to turn around in 8 hours, a record which "has been shattered by other teams recently"
* focus was aircraft-like operations for a rocket vehicle
* DC-X became flying testbed for new technologies at the time as it transferred from DoD to NASA, renamed DC-XA
* demonstrated in-flight abort to intact landing
* reduced risks for follow-on projects
* "inspired a lot of high hopes" evident at Space Access
* basic approach: build a little, test a little, learn a lot
* From Q+A:

Q: How well do you think Armadillo and Masten are carrying on legacy of DC-X? A: very good follow-on, focused attention at a manageable scale, DC-X was hindered by funding trying to act entrepreneurial within large bureaucracies of McDonnell Douglas and NASA

* Layne Cook presents...
* "Next Generation DC-X: Vertical Landing + High Alpha"
* recommendation for a follow-on project
* vertial landing was demonstrated by DC-X
* high-alpha (high angle of attack atmospheric entry) has not been tried with this vehicle configuration
* high-alpha concept was considered when DC-X was a bidder for the X-33 project
* NASA crashed DC-XA and X-33 was not awarded to Douglas
* video clip of envelope expansion flight of DC-X experimenting with high-alpha approach

engines always on - problems making an abrupt turn for landing
analysis of alternatives turned the maneuver to what they call a landing flare
would never fly at a low angle of attack
is that feasible? does it have any benefits besides solving the rotation maneuver?

* aerodynamics of atmospheric entry are challenging

initially stays on the "back side" of the lift/drag curve, higher drag to slow down
then vehicles normally switch to higher lift at "front side" of the curve, provides cross-range capability to reach landing site
DC-X model would gain cross-range capability and mass margin by using high-alpha

* structure drives the design, not the aerodynamics

DC-X optimized for vertical takeoff, vertical landing - only one axis for the structure to be strengthened for
theoreticaly less TPS (thermal protection system) capability needed

* this was investigated a little at McDonnell Douglas and later at Universal Spacelines
* Space Clipper eXperimental proposal is much smaller to reduce cost and fly more often
* comments on experimentation

"nothing builds confidence lke repetedly flying, even if you blow one up once in a while"
"never build a vehicle that's so expensive you can't ever crash it"
compared to space shuttle, so expensive that program is terribly risk-averse (and it has had crashes anyway)

Jeff Greason, XCOR Aerospace

In addition to being CEO and a co-founder of XCOR Aerospace, in 2009 Jeff was also a member of the White House appointed Augustine Commission which reviewed NASA's human spaceflight plans.

* "thrilled and terrified" at the magnitude of the opportunity for commercial space
* it's a lot to do - we're going to have to do it anyway
* "it is time to grow up" - grown up industries sell to each other, don't fight over the scraps
* we the United States space industry are now on the same team between NewSpace companies and Boeing, LockMart, Northrup Grumman, etc
* XCOR decided 10 years ago on a 2-stage to orbit solution - founders had come from a company that attempted single-stage to orbit
* "orbit is about going sideways, not up"
* XCOR is currently building a suborbital vehicle called the Lynx
* video clips included XCOR's rocket racer, never before shown clip of XCOR refueling and turning around X-Racer rocket plane for flight in 8-1/2 minutes
* "we do not currently have a business relationship with the Rocket Racing League" but explicitly didn't rule out re-establishing one
* it's really hard to turn around a rocket quickly if you're afraid to touch the propellants - advocates non-toxic propellants
* asked audience members to raise hands if they have flown aboard XCOR's rocket plane - some hands went up (almost all XCOR employees of the time did)
* various new commercial contract making rocket motors for customers - didn't specify which
* video of the concept of the Lynx suborbital space plane - carries one pilot and one participant or payload
* XCOR Lynx: 15 seconds from brake release to rotation, 50 seconds to supersonic
* "and you re-enter with those wings that the previous presenters were saying you don't need"
* if you have wings, use them on the way up and down
* Space Shuttle configuration with vertical launch and horizontal landing will go down as a strange period in history
* "reusable launches that fly only 3 or 4 times a year are stupid"
* admits wind tunnel video can only be exciting to people working on the project - but assures everyone the results are exciting
* supersonic model is interesting problem - NASA wind tunnel designed for "missile shaped things" and Lynx has wings; lots of "too big, too small, just right" changes to the wind tunnel configuration
* "the big shocker out of the wind tunnel was CFD lied" - good to find things earlier in the project
* "It's looking like we're getting there"
* business was rough past 2 years - economic slowdown slowed investment while NASA exited R&D business
* now prospects are "brighter than they have been in ages"
* XCOR has had $7.5M in NASA contracts over past 5 years
* Lynx was designed to price below the competition's cost
* originally expected some competitors may be flying sooner

but the well-funded competitors "don't seem to be gaining on us"
competitors don't have engines yet
XCOR would love to make engines for them
if XCOR made engines for competitors, some might say that it's helping the competition, "but we'd be making money - so who cares?
if competition bought engines from XCOR, some might say they were helping their competition, "but they'd be making money - so who cares?"
when this can happen, it'll show the industry is more grown up

* From Q+A:

On ITAR: "If we're going to continue to shoot ourselves in the foot, it'd be nice if we got off full auto."

Jane Poynter, Paragon Space Development

* Paragon was started by crew from BioSphere 2 project (Poynter was a crew member)
* first commercial experiment on ISS
* working on life support systems for Excalibur Almaz
* has equipment on Bigelow's Genesis commercial space station test modules currently in orbit
* other techologies

regenerable oxygen systems
space suit environmental systems

* working with Odyssey Moon (team for Google Lunar X-Prize) on systems
* experience with structural analysis

inflatable structures currently tend to be overengineered 3-4x due to uncertainty about analysis - helping to bring down the excess while maintaining adequate safety margins

* Paragon awarded life support system contract from NASA for its Air Revitalization System

goal to make it flexible enough to fly on any company's vehicles

* ECLSS humar rating facility - tests life support systems though any flight conditions on- or off-nominal (i.e. leaks, depressurization, different gases, etc)
* From Q+A:

issues for a lunar base include 14 Earth days duration of sunlight followed by 14 Earth days duration of darkness - really stresses the systems of the base, plants which can grow in greenhouses (short cycle plants like mustard have fared well), etc

Ryan McLinko, Space Frontier Foundation

* SFF position: government based space programs to a destination are not sustainable
* need to bring in commercial sector to make it sustainable
* it's been an exciting year
* SFF slogan was recited: "Space is a place, not a program"
* advocates that government has a very useful role in promoting research that commercial entities need but can't afford alone (NACA model)
* new NASA mandate seen very favorably by SFF
* difficulties with direction change include effects on jobs
* political critics say the plan has no purpose or destination - need to educate that it isn't just one destination - there are many destinations with infrastructure and increased capabilities
* SFF's NewSpace Conference will be July 23-25 at NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View (Silicon Valley), California