The Good and the Not so Good

The Good:

In my May 28, 2012 post, I wrote about SpaceX’s successful launch of a cargo ship to the International Space Station (ISS). It was the first time a ship owned by a private citizen had visited the ISS, and now they may have an opportunity to expand into the manned space shuttle business.

On August 3, 2012, NASA announced three companies had been contracted to design and develop the next generation of crewed spacecraft under the umbrella of NASA’s Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative. NASA’s press release states the CCiCap’s objective is to facilitate the development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability. Their goal is to achieve safe, reliable and cost-effective access to and from the International Space Station and low Earth orbit. The idea is that the technology, once developed, would be available to the government and private sector.

The three companies are:

• Sierra Nevada Corporation, Louisville, Colo., $212.5 million
• Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), Hawthorne, Calif., $440 million
• The Boeing Company, Houston, $460 million

According to NASA, these commercial partnerships have the potential to set the agency on a course to provide new transportation into space for its astronauts, while expanding human presence beyond low Earth orbit and enabling new missions of exploration across the solar system.

The Not so Good:

NASA is working on an in-house project called Morpheus, a vertical test bed demonstrating new green propellant propulsion systems and autonomous landing and hazard detection technology. It is a full spacecraft that will be capable of carrying 1100 pounds of cargo to the moon.

On Friday, August 3, 2012, NASA completed a successful tethered test flight at Kennedy Space Center.



It went so well that NASA decided to attempt a free flight with a Morpheus prototype on Thursday, August 9th. Unfortunately, the craft crashed about fifty feet from the launch site.



NASA says no one was injured, no property was damaged (besides the vehicle), and they have been able to recover significant data that will give them greater insight into the source of the problem.

I think both these events are of equal importance. I hope NASA doesn’t give up on Morpheus. This was a setback but no one was injured and to me, the fact that they are creating a homegrown spacecraft is huge. Also, since NASA has awarded some developmental contracts I have hope that the United States space effort is not dead.

Does anyone else think both these events are of equal importance?

My First Blog Entry

My first blog entry, wow.  I ask myself, who wants to read what I have to write?  I don't have an answer so I'm going to forge ahead.

I’ve done some blog research (I emphasize “some”) and there are a lot of them out there.  Holy smokes!  There are opinions about everything and as my Drill Instructor used to always say, “Opinions are like –” … maybe I won’t go there, but you get the drift.

Obviously I have a geeky side, as the “Star Trek Live” picture should indicate.  I’ve worked in the aerospace industry, specifically space related systems, for a number of years and I had never visited the Kennedy Space Center.  I’ve been to Orlando numerous times, which is but a stone’s throw from Cape Canaveral.  Go figure.

So, finally, in April of this past year I made the trek.  And I enjoyed it; a piece of American history.  I only hope that it doesn’t die before we launch the next gen of space craft.

I know there are people who wonder why the need to travel into space.  Granted, I’m biased, since I owe my home and car to the space industry.  But from my perspective, the benefits have been worth the time and money.  The innovations that are a direct result of the space program are many.  Just Google space program inventions, you’ll see what I mean.

I have a wide range of interests, foremost being science fiction, so I suspect most of my posts will relate to this genre.  I’m a fan of “Star Trek” (all of them, even Enterprise, though I admit I didn’t really care for Star Trek: The Motion Picture) and “Star Gate,” especially “SG1.”

I just finished watching Green Lantern.  I liked it; I think a sequel has potential.  But then … I’m not a purist.  I thought Abrams did a terrific job with Star Trek (2009), I don’t see anything wrong with referring to science fiction as sci-fi and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the DH (though a DH should never be MVP; but that’s another argument).

See you next week, same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.