Sunday, April 30, 2023
Friday, April 28, 2023
Thursday, April 27, 2023
Wednesday, April 26, 2023
Space Law Stalemate
 |
Review: The Space Law Stalemate
by Jeff Foust
Monday, April 24, 2023
The Space Law Stalemate: Legal Mechanisms for Developing New Norms
by Anja Nakarada Pečujlić
Routledge, 2023
paperback, 244 pp.
ISBN 978-1-032-30072-6
US$48.95
A recent essay published by Foreign Policy made a provocative claim: China was attempting to do an end-run around the Outer Space Treaty. The basis of that argument was an announcement earlier this year that a Chinese company, Hong Kong Aerospace Technology Group, had signed an agreement to build a spaceport in the African nation of Djibouti for launches of Chinese vehicles. Because Djibouti is not a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty and related accords, the essay argued, “China may see this new partnership as an opportunity to enable a potentially rogue actor and reshape global expectations of responsible behavior in space.”
| Activities in either scope or scale not foreseen in the 1960s, when the Outer Space Treaty was written, are emerging even as the legal mechanisms for dealing with them seem increasingly bogged down. |
There are two problems with the argument. One is that it’s not clear how real this spaceport project is: there’s little evidence that the project has the funding and expertise needed to build a launch facility, or that there’s real interest by China in launching from there given the logistical difficulties and limited advantages it offers (it is closer to the Equator, but there are overflight obstacles for launches to anything other than near-equatorial inclinations.) The other problem is legal: space law experts noted after the essay was published that China would be considered a “launching state” and bound by the Outer Space Treaty even if its rockets launched from Djibouti. In other words, the legal loophole claimed in the essay doesn’t exist.
It does though, illustrate some of the stresses on the current international space law regime that has not been updated in decades. Activities in either scope or scale not foreseen in the 1960s, when the Outer Space Treaty was written, are emerging even as the legal mechanisms for dealing with them seem increasingly bogged down. That is the challenge that Anja Nakarada Pečujlić on in the new book The Space Law Stalemate.
She succinctly argues that the systems set up to develop treaties and related binding law in the early Space Age no longer work well. That includes the UN’s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), which works by consensus. That is increasingly difficult to achieve when COPUOS now has more than 100 member states; at the time the Outer Space Treaty was developed, there were fewer than 30. (Consensus also breaks down when even a single country becomes a bad actor, as Russia has become at COPUOS and other international fora like the UN working group for reducing space threats.)
Pečujlić looks to other fields for alternative models. Much of the relatively slender book examines other organizations and systems for dealing with shared resources, such as the International Telecommnuication Union (ITU), which regulates radio spectrum, and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which handles aviation. She also examines the mechanisms of the Law of the Sea treaty as well as multinational organizations like the European Space Agency and the European Union’s space office.
She offers several recommendations for freeing the current legal logjam. One is to simply replace the existing consensus model at COPUOS with a hybrid where majority voting is used in cases where consensus cannot be reached, although the book does not go into details about how that approach would work. A second approach would be to turn COPUOS into a UN “specialized agency” like the ITU and ICAO that would give it more power, and responsibility, to shape space law. More far-reaching, if unlikely, alternatives include establishing an international space agency or an organization that would provide “judicial review” for space legal measures.
| There are no easy or fast solutions (especially fast) to legal issues in space, but as the book shows, there are alternatives to the current system that is straining to keep up with current pace of space activities. |
One option curiously overlooked in the book is an approach that the United States and other nations are taking with the Artemis Accords. Nearly two dozen countries have signed the agreement that is intended to set norms for responsible behavior in space exploration, largely building upon the Outer Space Treaty. It was developed far more rapidly than anything that might come out of COPUOS (which spent the better part of a decade on a series of relatively basic, non-binding guidelines for long-term space sustainability) and has attracted support from both established and emerging space players. The Accords are not legally binding, yet do have some power: if you want to participate in Artemis, you’ll need to sign on. Over time, these may create widely accepted norms that can be codified into something more legally binding.
There are no easy or fast solutions (especially fast) to legal issues in space, but as the book shows, there are alternatives to the current system that is straining to keep up with current pace of space activities. Chinese launches from a notional spaceport in Djibouti may not evade the Outer Space Treaty, but other activities, from space resource utilization to active debris removal, do pose issues that may require updates to space legal regimes on timescales measured in years, not decades.
Note: we are using a new commenting system, which may require you to create a new account.
Is The US In A Space Race With China?
 A Chinese concept for a lunar base. Despite extensive rhetoric, any race to the Moon between China and the US is a one-sided race. (credit: CAST) |
Is the US in a space race against China?
by Svetla Ben-Itzhak
Monday, April 24, 2023
Headlines proclaiming the rise of a new “space race” between the United States and China have become common in news coverage following many of the exciting launches in recent years. Experts have pointed to China’s rapid advancements in space as evidence of an emerging landscape where China is directly competing with the US for supremacy.
| When I look at various capacities, the data paints a much more complex picture than a tight space race between the US and China. |
This idea of a space race between China and the US sounds convincing given the broader narrative of China’s rise, but how accurate is it? As a professor who studies space and international relations, my research aims to quantify the power and capabilities of different nations in space. When I look at various capacities, the data paints a much more complex picture than a tight space race between the US and China. At least for now, the reality looks more like what I call a complex hegemony: one nation, the US, is still dominating in key space capabilities, and this lead is further amplified by a strong network of partners.
A clear leader makes for a boring race
Calling the current situation a race implies that the US and China have roughly equal capabilities in space. But in several key areas, the US is far ahead not only of China, but of all other spacefaring nations combined.
| When I look at various capacities, the data paints a much more complex picture than a tight space race between the US and China. |
Start with spending. In 2021, the US space budget was roughly US$59.8 billion. China has been investing heavily in space and rocket technology over the last decade and has doubled its spending in the last five years. But with an estimated budget of $16.18 billion in 2021, it is still spending less than a third of the US budget.
The US also leads significantly in the number of active satellites. Currently, there are 5,465 total operational satellites in orbit around Earth. The US operates 3,433, or 63% of those. In contrast, China has 541.
Similarly, the US has more active spaceports than China. With seven operational launch sites at home and abroad and at least 13 additional spaceports in development, the US has more options to launch payloads into various orbits. In contrast, China has only four operational spaceports with two more planned, all located within its own territory.
Parity with nuance
While the US may have a clear advantage over China in many areas of space, in some measures, the differences between the two countries are more nuanced.
In 2021, for instance, China attempted 55 orbital launches, four more than the US. The total numbers may be similar, but the rockets carried very different payloads to orbit. The vast majority—84%—of Chinese launches had government or military payloads intended mostly for electronic intelligence and optical imaging. Meanwhile, in the US, 61% of launches were for nonmilitary, academic or commercial use, predominantly for Earth observation or telecommunications.
| A major point of difference between the US and China is the nature and number of international collaborations. |
Space stations are another area where there are important differences hiding beneath the surface. Since the 1990s, the US has worked with 14 other nations, including Russia, to operate the International Space Station. The ISS is quite large, with 16 modules, and has driven technological and scientific breakthroughs. But the ISS is now 24 years old, and participating nations are planning to retire it in 2030.
The Chinese Tiangong space station is the new kid on the block. Construction was only completed in late 2022, and it is much smaller, with only three modules. China has built and launched all of the different parts and remains the sole operator of the station, despite having invited others to join.
China is undoubtedly expanding its space capabilities, and in a report published in August 2022, the Pentagon predicted that China would surpass US capabilities in space as early as 2045. However, it is unlikely that the US will remain stagnant, as it continues to increase funding for space.
Allies as force multipliers
A major point of difference between the US and China is the nature and number of international collaborations.
For decades, NASA has been fruitfully cultivating international and commercial partnerships in everything from developing specific space technologies to flying humans into space. The US government has also signed 169 space data sharing agreements with 33 states and intergovernmental organizations, 129 with commercial partners and seven with academic institutions.
China also has allies that help with space, most notably Russia and members of the Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization, such as Iran, Pakistan, Thailand, and Turkey. China’s collaborators are, however, fewer in number and have far less developed space capabilities.
Efforts to return to the surface of the Moon excellently highlight this difference in ally support and synergy. Both the US and China have plans to send people to the surface of the Moon and to establish lunar bases in the near future. These competing lunar aims are often cited as evidence of the space race, but they are very different in terms of partnerships and scope.
| The picture that emerges is not of a “race” but of complex system with the US as a leader working closely with extensive networks of partners. |
In 2019, Russia and China agreed to jointly go to the Moon by 2028. Russia is contributing its Luna landers and Oryol crewed vehicles, while China is improving its Chang’e robotic spacecraft. Their future International Lunar Research Station is “open to all interested parties and international partners,” but, to date, no additional countries have committed to the Chinese and Russian effort.
In contrast, since 2020, 23 nations have joined the US-led Artemis Accords. This international agreement outlines shared principles of cooperation for future space activity and, through the Artemis program, specifically aims to return people to the Moon by 2025 and establish a Moon base and lunar space station soon after.
In addition to the broad international participation, the Artemis Program has contracted with a staggering number of private companies to develop a range of technologies, from lunar landers to lunar construction methods and more.
China is not the only game in town
While China may seem like the main competitor of the US in space, other countries have space capabilities and aspirations that rival those of China.
India spends billions on space and plans to return to the Moon, possibly with Japan, in the near future. South Korea, Israel, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Germany and the European Union are also planning independent lunar missions. Japan has developed impressive technological space capabilities, including rendezvous proximity technology to send a spacecraft to an asteroid and bring samples back to Earth, that rival and even surpass those of China.
In the past, the space race was about who could reach the stars first and return home. Today, the goal has shifted to surviving and even thriving in the harsh environment of space. I believe it is not surprising that, despite its decisive lead, the US has partnered with others to go to the Moon and beyond. China is doing the same, but on a smaller scale. The picture that emerges is not of a “race” but of complex system with the US as a leader working closely with extensive networks of partners.
Note: we are using a new commenting system, which may require you to create a new account.
Was The Starship Launch A Success Or A Failure?
 SpaceX’s first integrated Starship vehicle lifts off April 20 from Boca Chica, Texas, on a brief test flight. (credit: SpaceX) |
Grading on a suborbital curve
by Jeff Foust
Monday, April 24, 2023
For most launches, determining success or failure is fairly straightforward. If the rocket places its payload (or payloads) into its desired orbit (or orbits), then the launch is a success. If the rocket fails to reach orbit, it’s a failure. The only shades of gray emerge in those occasional cases where the rocket places a payload into something other than a desired orbit. There, the degree of partial success depends on how the payload can be salvaged and the effects on it on its mission, a debate that involves the launch provider, customers, insurers, and their lawyers, among others.
| That superposition of failure and success comes to mind with last week’s long-awaited first integrated launch of SpaceX’s Starship vehicle. It would, most definitely, be a test flight. |
When it comes to test launches, though, those shades of gray become a kaleidoscope. Even with ground tests and extensive modeling, the only way to fully test a launch vehicle is to launch it, accepting that there is a chance that something will keep the rocket from reaching orbit. That would make the launch a failure, in the sense it could not complete its mission and place any payload into orbit. Yet the data collected might be entirely satisfactory for engineers to revise the vehicle’s design and ensure future vehicles do make it to orbit: a success in the long run.
That superposition of failure and success comes to mind with last week’s long-awaited first integrated launch of SpaceX’s Starship vehicle. The company had flown the Starship upper stage several times on low-altitude test flights—most ending with crashes and/or explosions—but this would be the first time that it would lift off atop its Super Heavy booster with 33 Raptor engines. It would, most definitely, be a test flight.
It would not even be an orbital test flight. While SpaceX had referred to the launch as an orbital flight test for some time, it switched to calling it an integrated flight test in the weeks closer to launch, reflecting the true nature of the flight. In all went according to plan, Starship would complete less than one orbit of the Earth, splashing down off the Hawaii coast 90 minutes after liftoff without performing any orbit insertion or deorbit burns. An FAA official, talking to reporters in a background briefing in the days before launch, called the flight a “nearly orbital” trajectory that would reach a peak altitude of about 235 kilometers.
Of course, the launch did not go according to plan. The first launch attempt was scrubbed less than ten minutes before the scheduled liftoff April 17 at 8:20 am local time from Boca Chica, Texas, when a valve that is part of the system used to pressurize tanks in the first stage became stuck. The company kept the countdown going to the T-40 second mark, using the remaining minutes as a wet dress rehearsal for the vehicle. SpaceX later said moisture in the valve froze.
SpaceX initially said they would need 48 hours before making another launch attempt in order to replenish supplies of liquid oxygen and methane propellants, then pushed it back another day to April 20. Crowds returned to the tip of South Padre Island, the closest public viewing site for the launch, and this time the valves behaved. At 8:33 am CDT, the Raptor engines fired up and, at T+6 seconds, the vehicle started to ascend.
It was clear almost immediately, though, that the launch was not going precisely as planned. SpaceX, to its credit, displayed graphics on its webcast that showed the vehicle’s speed, altitude, propellant levels, and the status of its engines. When that graphic first appeared at T+15 seconds, three of the Raptor engines were off: two next to each other in the outer ring and one engine in the center that, unlike those in the outer ring, can gimble for attitude control.
| “We should have had separation by now,” SpaceX’s Insprucker said at T+3:45. “Obviously, this does not appear to be a nominal situation.” |
As the flight continued, more Raptor engines shut down, with at least six out of service at some phases of flight. There was also debris that came off near the base of the booster at about T+30 seconds, with some flaring visible in the plume. Yet the rocket continued to accelerate and ascend, powered by its remaining Raptor engines and, seemingly, the ever-louder cheers of SpaceX employees at the company’s Hawthorne, California, headquarters that drowned out the commentary on the launch webcast.
The vehicle powered through max-Q, or maximum dynamic pressure, and continued to fly, but by about two and a half minutes into the flight the vehicle began a slow tumble. The webcast commentators at first suggested this was part of stage separation activities, with Starship set to separate from Super Heavy at T+2:52, according to the timeline SpaceX provided before launch.
That time came and went, though, without a shutdown of the remaining Super Heavy engines or stage separation. The slow tumble continued, but the vehicle remained intact. The cheers in Hawthorne faded. “We should have had separation by now,” acknowledged SpaceX’s John Insprucker on the webcast at T+3:45. “Obviously, this does not appear to be a nominal situation.”
Seconds later, just before the T+4 minute mark, the vehicle burst into a white cloud with only a faint hint of a fireball. (SpaceX later said it triggered the flight termination systems on both Super Heavy and Starship.) The first integrated flight of Starship and Super Heavy was over, far short of that planned splashdown near Hawaii. Yet, counterintuitively, cheers erupted again from Hawthorne. “Everyone here is absolutely pumped to clear the pad and make it this far into the test flight,” Siva Bharadvaj, another host of the SpaceX webcast, explained.
 Starship/Super Heavy in flight. The image shows that several Raptor engines are not working at this phase of flight. (credit: SpaceX) |
“This is not something that is a sure thing at all”
Were the SpaceX employees, not to mention their fans gathered in person on South Padre Island or virtually online, right to cheer a launch that ended explosively four minutes into a 90-minute flight? SpaceX CEO and founder Elon Musk thought so. “Congrats @SpaceX team on an exciting test launch of Starship!” he tweeted shortly after the launch. “Learned a lot for next test launch in a few months.”
Congratulations came from outside the company as well. “Congrats to SpaceX on Starship’s first integrated flight test!” said NASA administrator Bill Nelson in a tweet shortly after the flight. “Every great achievement throughout history has demanded some level of calculated risk, because with great risk comes great reward. Looking forward to all that SpaceX learns, to the next flight test—and beyond.”
| “Everything is proceeding per the plan. We need those guys to get off the ground. We need them to get uncrewed demos done,” NASA’s Kshatriya said. |
NASA, of course, has a very strong interest in Starship, having selected that vehicle to serve as the lunar lander for at least the first two crewed Artemis landings, Artemis 3 and 4, under contracts with a combined value of more than $4 billion. The test flight was not an official milestone in those contracts but one that the agency was nonetheless watching closely.
“They’re doing a lot of great work down in Boca right now,” Amit Kshatriya, director of NASA’s new Moon to Mars Program Office, said at a briefing during the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs hours after the April 17 scrub. He added that NASA “certainly can empathize” with SpaceX given the setbacks the agency suffered getting the first Space Launch System vehicle off the pad last year.
“Everything is proceeding per the plan. We need those guys to get off the ground. We need them to get uncrewed demos done,” he added.
What effect this test will have on that plan, and the overall Artemis schedule, is unclear. A NASA manifest released in March along with its fiscal year 2024 budget request projected Artemis 3 launching in December 2025, giving SpaceX only about two and a half years to get Starship ready to carry astronauts to the lunar surface. That will likely require dozens of test flights to demonstrate the performance of the overall launch system as well as cryogenic refueling of the lunar lander Starship.
Of course, that assume the launch isn’t delayed for other reasons: NASA currently has Artemis 2 scheduled for launch in November 2024, which means it thinks it can turn around ground systems and other elements of Artemis in about a year after projecting two years between Artemis 1 and 2. Nelson, testifying before House appropriators the day before the launch, hinted that Artemis 3 could slip into 2026.
| “This is a very risky flight. This is not something that is a sure thing at all,” Musk said beofre the first launch attempt. |
Others outside the agency also weighed in, supporting SpaceX. “This flight is an important milestone and much will be learned from the engineering data,” Dan Dumbacher, executive director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and a former NASA official, said in a statement. “With Starship, SpaceX is taking bold steps that are helping us accelerate the future of humans living and working off our planet. Flight tests and taking risks will lead to this future.”
Musk himself set expectations low going into the flight. “This is a very risky flight. This is not something that is a sure thing at all,” he said in a discussion for paying subscribers of Twitter, the social media company he acquired last year, the day before the first launch attempt.
Getting off the pad would be good enough, he said. “It would probably take us several months to rebuild the launch pad,” he said of the scenario where the rocket immediately blew up. “So, my top hope is please, may fate smile upon us and we clear the launch pad before anything goes wrong.”
In retrospect, he may not have achieved that. As the Raptor engines ignited, they kicked up huge plumes of dust and sand from around the pad on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico. They may have also picked up chunks of the pad itself. One video released by SpaceX showed material falling into the waters of the Gulf as the rocket ascended, presumably large pieces of pad material, rocks, or other debris liberated by the rocket’s plume.
When photographers who set up remote cameras for the launch were able to return two days later to retrieve their cameras, they also documented extensive damage to the launch mount and nearby tank farm. (Many of the cameras were also damaged or destroyed by the force of the launch.) Unlike other launch complexes, there was no flame trench or other system to divert the exhaust of the rocket at liftoff.
Musk shrugged off the damage. “3 months ago, we started building a massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount,” he tweeted the day after the launch. It wasn’t ready in time but SpaceX went ahead with the launch, thinking that the concrete would be eroded instead of shattering. (The problem wasn’t seen in a static-fire test in February, he added, because the engines ran at only half their rated power.) “Looks like we can be ready to launch again in 1 to 2 months.”
Musk, though, is known for his aspirational timelines. In addition to the time to rebuild parts of the launch pad and install the plate or other equipment to mitigate the force of the launch, SpaceX still needs to investigate what happened during the flight. Were the failed Raptor engines, for example, damaged by pad debris, or did they suffer other problems?
| “Maybe the second one will be or maybe the third one will be, but tomorrow probably will not be successful, if by success one means reaching orbit,” Musk said. |
SpaceX may also need to address the environmental effects of the launch. Residents of the town of Port Isabel, near South Padre Island, reported fine-grained debris—presumably sand—falling on the town, kicked up from the launch plume. There were also isolated reports of broken windows. The FAA, which licensed the launch, will look into those issues as part of its oversight into the launch mishap investigation.
Going into the launch, SpaceX anticipated repeating this first flight. In an environmental document filed the same day that the FAA issued the launch license for the first Starship integrated launch, the agency mentioned establishing an additional zone in the Pacific uprange from Hawaii “to account for the potential Starship debris field for the second and third launches of Starship that are not configured to survive atmospheric reentry.” That suggests SpaceX is planning multiple similar launches until it gets it right.
“Maybe the second one will be or maybe the third one will be, but tomorrow probably will not be successful, if by success one means reaching orbit,” Musk said in his Twitter conversation before the first launch attempt. “If we get any information that allows us to improve the design of upcoming builds of Starship, then it is a success.”
Success, though, won’t ultimately be clear until Starship is flying regularly, carrying satellites to orbit and landing astronauts on the Moon. SpaceX has a record of trying and failing repeatedly until it achieves success: the first flights of the Falcon 1, landing Falcon 9 boosters, and early Starship flights. The same may be true here, but it may be years before we know whether to count this abbreviated test flight as a success or not.
Note: we are using a new commenting system, which may require you to create a new account.
Tuesday, April 25, 2023
Monday, April 24, 2023
Sunday, April 23, 2023
Saturday, April 22, 2023
What The Board Of Inquiry Investigating The Star Ship Launch Will Conclude
I figured out what happened with Starship during the Thursday morning launch. I want to thank a freelance aerospace journalist named T, J. Cooney for solving the problem. The rocket performed flawlessly. A civil engineering failure prevented the rocket from reaching orbit.
From almost 80 years ago when the Nazis started launching V-2
rockets until today, a launch trough or blast deflector was placed under the
first stage rocket motors to deflect the blast of rockets motors.
Starship did not have a blast trough. It sits highly elevated on the launch
pad.
SpaceX engineers are superb. They knew that a blast trough
was an essential part of any rocket launching system. They encountered a huge
challenge with building a launch trough at Boca Chica. There is a layer of
ground and a body of water underneath that upper layer. (The Gulf Of
Mexico). To go down to this body of water would require the cooperation of the
US Army Corps of Engineers and all sorts of protests from environmentalists. A
delay of several years might have followed. SpaceX engineers elevated the
launch pad in hopes of creating a natural blast trough. It did not work. When
the 32 engines ignited, concrete was disrupted and destroyed. These flying
concrete projectiles hit various engines and caused severe damage. Mr. Cooney
went in depth in showing the affected engines and the damage.
A team of outstanding civil engineers will need to produce a "think
outside the box" solution to this problem.
Tell
someone close to you that you love them.
Friday, April 21, 2023
The Starship Launch Yesterday Was Not A Failure!!!
A Clarification On The Starship Launch
We did not have a failure this morning. The Starship has 32 engines and
generates 16.9 million pounds of thrust. In comparison, the NASA SLS hit a
little over 8 million pounds of thrust. It was Starship’s first test flight.
There was a great fear that it would blow up on the launch pad causing massive
property damage and possibly fatalities. (Those in the aerospace business call
this a RUD). When the booster lifted off smoothly and climbed high in the sky,
it was a great success. SpaceX will need to make some adjustments to make the
next flight a full success and take it into orbit. It will be a couple of years
to get it to the point of carrying humans.
Elon Musk and Russia
When Elon
made his first fortune with PayPal in the 1990s, he decided to get into the
space business. He went to Russia and attempted to purchase three surplus
Russian ICBMs to turn them into space launch rockets for satellites and the
like. The Russians did not take Elon’s offer seriously. They rejected his offer
and, shall we say, laughed him out of Russia.
Elon came
back from Russia offended and determined to build his own rockets. SpaceX was
born. Elon, like me, has great admiration for Russian rocket engineering. He
decided to take Russian rocket engineering and make it better. The Falcon 1,
Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy boosters, and his Merlin and Raptor engines are based on
Russian designs and better. His Dragon space capsule is far superior to the
Russian Soyuz.
When
Elon went to work on a super powerful booster, his inspiration was the Russian
N-1 rocket. This 1960s rocket was the Soviet competitor to the Saturn 5 rocket.
It was an incredible rocket that at the time was the most powerful rocket ever
built on Earth (Over 10 million pounds of thrust.). If the Soviets had not quit
due to internal squabbling, they would have created a super lift rocket. They
would have put cosmonauts on the moon. Four launch attempts were made with the
N-1 rocket. Each was a spectacular failure. One failure produced an
explosion roughly equivalent to the detonation of a small tactical nuclear
warhead. Up to 300 Soviet military personnel and civilians were killed in this
blast. (To this day, the Russians are wary about releasing the actual
death toll.) There was massive property damage.
Elon
was determined to build an improved N-1 rocket that was superior to what the
Soviets had created. Starship is the N-1 rocket reborn much better than the
original N-1. On the first launch Thursday, it cleared the launch pad and
soared into space in a way that the N-1 booster never did. Starship will be
reusable and far cheaper than the N-1 was.
Starship was produced without giant government resources normally associated
with the development of such a giant rocket. For example, the Apollo program
that put American astronauts on the moon employed 400,000 skilled men and
women. The US government spent roughly $265 billion in 1965 dollars to make
this happen. With adjustments and inflation that is roughly $2.53 trillion
dollars in 2023 dollars. Elon’s Starship Program which will take humans to the
moon, Mars, and out to the outer planets was produced at a tiny fraction of the
cost of a government program.
Thursday, April 20, 2023
Wednesday, April 19, 2023
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
The Space Economy-A Book Review
 |
Review: The Space Economy
by Jeff Foust
Monday, April 17, 2023
The Space Economy: Capitalize on the Greatest Business Opportunity of Our Lifetime
by Chad Anderson
Wiley, 2023
hardcover, 256 pp.
ISBN 978-1-119-90372-7
US$30.00
It is far from the best of times for the entrepreneurial space field. Earlier this month, Virgin Orbit filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after running out of money, a situation exacerbated, but not directly caused, by its launch failure in January (see “Go big or go home”, The Space Review, this issue). It, like many other space companies that went public in the last two years through mergers with special-purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), raised far less money than expected and saw their share prices plummet. Another launch company, Astra, said last week it won a 180-day extension from Nasdaq to get its share price above $1 or else be delisted from the exchange; as of the end of last week, it was trading at 38.6 cents per share.
| The book lays out that thesis primarily for those new to the industry, that innovations like more frequent, lower cost launch enable new businesses that can use space in novel ways. |
At this juncture, a book trumpeting the promise of the space economy might seem poorly timed. But Chad Anderson, the founder of space-focused investment firm Space Capital, would probably take the long view, seeing the current troubles as a speed bump slowing down the industry but not refuting the argument he makes that there is still tremendous potential for startups to use space to create new businesses.
The Space Economy lays out that thesis primarily for those new to the industry, that innovations like more frequent, lower cost launch enable new businesses that can use space in novel ways, creating a growing space economy (or Space Economy, as Anderson refers to it throughout the book.) For all the attention that launch and new markets like space tourism get, though, he estimates that more than 90% of the value of the industry is in the satellite sector, which includes navigation, geospatial intelligence, and communications. Within those verticals are three layers—infrastructure, distribution, and applications—that he describes in detail in the book.
That results in an expansive definition of the space economy in the book: in navigation, the applications tier includes companies like DoorDash and Uber because they use space-based navigation services. “We believe that any technological product or service that depends on orbital access in some way belongs under this umbrella,” he argues. Most of the companies that he profiles in the book are more conventional space companies, though, from Earth imaging company Planet to space situational awareness company LeoLabs.
| The book is really a primer on the space industry and its potential, just enough, perhaps, to convince someone curious enough about it to read the book to conclude that there is some potential for growth. |
The book is largely an introductory guide for would-be space entrepreneurs and investors alike, highlighting issues and pitfalls for early-stage companies. Some of the advice is generic to technology companies or even any company, like figuring out who is the customer for a new business or recruiting employees. But he also offers some space policy background to help newcomers better appreciate how the space industry evolved into its current state.
While the book focuses on the satellite sector, he does look at emerging industries such as space stations, lunar mission, space logistics and industrial activity in space: those sectors, he concludes, are still far off, but “ignore them entirely only at your peril.” There is far less about the launch sector, beyond emphasizing the role SpaceX played in opening up space access and looking ahead to Starship.
The Space Economy is really a primer on the space industry and its potential, just enough, perhaps, to convince someone curious enough about it to read the book to conclude that there is some potential for growth. So long, perhaps, as you don’t start or invest in a launch company.
Note: we are using a new commenting system, which may require you to create a new account.
Virgin Orbit: Go Big Or Go Home!!!
 Virgin Orbit’s last launch was from Spaceport Cornwall in England in January; its failure exacerbated existing financial problems. (credit: Virgin Orbit) |
Go big or go home?
by Jeff Foust
Monday, April 17, 2023
In the end, the air-launch company ran out of runway.
In the early morning hours of April 4, Virgin Orbit announced it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in federal court in Delaware. The company, which days earlier had laid off 85% of its staff, said the filing would help expedite a sale of the company after months of efforts to raise money failed.
“While we have taken great efforts to address our financial position and secure additional financing, we ultimately must do what is best for the business,” Virgin Orbit CEO Dan Hart said in a statement about the filing. “At this stage, we believe that the Chapter 11 process represents the best path forward to identify and finalize an efficient and value-maximizing sale.”
| “At this stage, we believe that the Chapter 11 process represents the best path forward to identify and finalize an efficient and value-maximizing sale,” Hart said. |
It was common to link the bankruptcy to the failure of its most recent LauncherOne mission in January (see “Too many or two few? The launch industry’s conundrum”, The Space Review, February 13, 2023). Certainly, any launch failure is undesirable, and that mission, promoted as the first orbital launch from the United Kingdom, was a serious setback for the company.
However, it had been clear even before the launch failure that the company was facing financial problems. The company said at the time of its Chapter 11 filing that it generated $33.1 million in revenue in 2022, but recorded a net loss of $191.2 million. As of the beginning of 2023, the company had $51.2 million in cash on hand, enough to cover about one quarter of operations.
In documents filed as part of the Chapter 11 proceedings, Hart acknowledged that Virgin Orbit had faced financial problems for some time. It dated back to its decision to go public through a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC) announced in August 2021 and which closed at the end of 2021.
Virgin Orbit was counting on up to $382 million in proceeds from the SPAC itself, but ended up getting only $67.8 million as most of the SPAC’s shareholders elected to redeem their shares, getting their money back rather that hold stock in the merged company. With some additional investments, Virgin Orbit ended up raising $228 million, still far short of what it expected.
Since the merger closed, “the Company has pursued a broad range of strategic transactions designed to address its continuing liquidity needs,” Hart said in an affidavit filed with the court. That included starting discussions with Goldman Sachs on a potential sale of the company or additional investment in early 2022, not long after Virgin Orbit went public.
Those efforts, though, failed to find anyone willing to buy or invest in Virgin Orbit. The LauncherOne failure resulted in “negative publicity and further challenges in identifying a buyer or capital source,” Hart said.
The company did have a lifeline from Virgin Investments Limited, the investment arm of Virgin Group, which still owned a majority of the company. Virgin Orbit raised $60 million in four loans in late 2022 and early 2023, agreements that also gave VIL priority on the company’s assets, like its Boeing 747 aircraft. But VIL was not willing to make larger investments and Virgin Orbit was running out of cash and time.
In mid-March, the company furloughed most of its staff, citing cash flow problems. A handful were brought back several days later to work on the next LauncherOne rocket, which the company hoped to launch as soon as the second quarter once the investigation into the January failure was complete and approved by the FAA.
There were also signs of a potential deal, from a Texas investor named Matthew Brown. He went on the business TV network CNBC March 23 and said he was in “final discussions” to invest up to $200 million into Virgin Orbit, which he claimed would make him the owner of the company. That deal would be finalized in the next day or so, he asserted.
| Virgin Orbit started discussions with Goldman Sachs on a potential sale of the company or additional investment in early 2022, not long after it went public. |
The deal, though, was never finalized and fell through a few days later (there were reports that raised questions about Brown’s background and his ability to raise that money.) That led to the layoffs and the Chapter 11 filing. Hart said in the court affidavit that Virgin Orbit “received one indication of interest with respect to a sale from a potential buyer, and one indication of interest with respect to a structured financing transaction” but didn’t elaborate on the details other than they ended just before the bankruptcy filing.
Virgin Orbit has retained about 100 employees who are continuing work on the next LauncherOne; the company posted a video April 11 of workers installing an engine on the rocket. The company is operating with debtor-in-possession financing from VIL as it seeks court approval for a plan to sell the company or its assets.
 Relativity Space said last week it would retire its Terran 1 rocket after a single launch to focus on the larger Terran R (above). (credit: Relativity Space) |
Too small, relatively speaking
Virgin Orbit had gotten past many of the hurdles that stymied other launch vehicle startups. It had, for much of its history, plenty of funding, having spent more than $1 billion. It had successfully demonstrated the LauncherOne system, with four consecutive successful launches after its failed inaugural launch in May 2020 and before the UK launch in January.
The LauncherOne rocket, once released from the 747, falls for a few seconds before igniting its engines. It then has to start pulling up to gain altitude. The Virgin Orbit business failed to execute a similar maneuver, pulling up by increasing its launch rate. While Virgin Orbit once talked about launching as frequently as twice a month once it entered service, it was instead launching only twice a year in 2021 and 2022.
There may be any number of reasons for the company’s inability to increase its launch rate: high costs, technical challenges building and operating the launch system, or competition either from other small launch vehicle operators or rideshare launches like SpaceX’s Transporter series of missions. But another factor may be at work as well: a fundamental shift in the market towards larger rockets.
| “Medium-heavy lift is clearly where the biggest market opportunity is for the remaining decade, with a massive launch shortage in this payload class underway,” Ellis said. |
That was made clear last week in an announcement by Relativity Space. The company conducted its inaugural launch March 22 of its Terran 1 rocket from Cape Canaveral. Like many first launches of new vehicles, it failed to reach orbit: the rocket’s upper-stage engine could not reach full power after ignition. An investigation, still ongoing, concluded valves were slow to open in the engine, and the engine’s oxygen pump did not generate pressure during startup, which the company said “is consistent with a vapor bubble being present at the pump inlet.”
This explanation would suggest that the problem is not a fundamental issue with the rocket, including its engines that burn methane and liquid oxygen propellants and its extensive use of 3D-printed structures. A quick fix and the rocket could soon be back on the pad, right?
Not exactly. “Building on momentum from Terran 1’s development and flight, Relativity is shifting its focus to design, development, and production of its next generation Terran R launch vehicle,” the company announced. Terran 1 was one and done.
Relativity had announced the Terran R two years ago as a fully reusable large launch vehicle, able to place more than 20,000 kilograms into low Earth orbit (Terran 1, an expendable vehicle, was designed to place up to 1,250 kilograms into LEO.) It was always the long-term future for the company, but now that future was being moved up.
The Terran R design that the company showed off last week is somewhat different from what it showed off two years ago. The fully reusable design has been replaced by one where only the first stage is recovered, landing on a ship under rocket power like a Falcon 9 booster. There is less use of 3D printing as well, but increased performance: 23,500 kilograms to LEO, or 33,500 kilograms if the stage is expended.
Even before the Terran 1 launch, Tim Ellis, CEO of Relativity, suggested the company might move on from the smaller vehicle in the event of a failure, depending on the feedback from the company’s customers. “Medium-heavy lift is clearly where the biggest market opportunity is for the remaining decade, with a massive launch shortage in this payload class underway,” he said in a series of tweets. His customers, he suggested, may want the company “to solve the remaining rocket science problems on the vehicle they are actually most interested in, Terran R.”
Relativity has raised more than $1 billion, having eschewed SPACs a couple years ago in favor of a very large venture round. The company claims to have contracts for Terran R launches with $1.65 billion from several customers, including OneWeb, which plans to use the vehicle for launching part of its second-generation constellation. “We can’t wait to see them push on to the next evolutionary step in bringing the Terran R to market,” Massimiliano Ladovaz, OneWeb CTO, said in a statement.
Relativity doesn’t seem to be leaving much on the table by giving up on Terran 1. Ellis said two years ago, when the company announced Terran R, that there was strong demand for the smaller vehicle. “We see almost insatiable demand for that vehicle right now,” he said of Terran 1 then.
But there are few announced customers for that vehicle. Iridium, which once signed a contract for up to six Terran 1 launches of individual replacement satellites, decided instead to launch all but one of them on a single Falcon 9 (that will be shared with OneWeb.) The company does have a NASA contract to launch cubesats through the Venture Class Launch Services program, as a demonstration of the Terran 1; that contract is being renegotiated now that Terran 1 is being retired.
| “We can’t wait to see them push on to the next evolutionary step in bringing the Terran R to market,” said OneWeb’s Ladovaz. |
Relativity sees the market moving towards larger vehicles, better able to serve the demand from megaconstellations and other systems that need more mass (including, notably, national security missions.) It is not alone. Rocket Lab, perhaps the most successful small launch vehicle operator today with the Electron, is working on the larger Neutron. Firefly, whose Alpha is in roughly the same performance class as Terran 1, is working with Northrop Grumman on a redesigned Antares rocket as a precursor to its MLV vehicle.
That suggests tough time for companies focused on smaller vehicles, “microlaunchers” that can place a few hundred kilograms into orbit. On Friday, European launch vehicle developer Orbex, whose Prime vehicle in development is intended to place 180 kilograms into LEO, announced its founding CEO, Chris Larmour, was leaving the company.
“I feel I have taken it as far as I can personally, and it's time now to step away and let others lead Orbex to the next level,” Larmour said in a company statement. That statement added that that the change would allow a “focus on new goals” but didn’t elaborate, or provide an update on the development of Prime.
Which brings us back to Virgin Orbit. A few days after the Chapter 11 filing, the company asked the court to allow an expedited sale of the company or its assets, soliciting bids in early May that would lead up to an auction later that month. Their hope is that someone will step in who would not, our could not, before the filing, buying up the company and resuming launches, perhaps with a more streamlined structure that lowers costs.
But if the market is moving towards larger rockets, with existing vehicles or rideshare options good enough for smaller satellites, the business case may simply not close, particularly given the high costs of maintaining an air-launch system. It’s tough to air launch anything much bigger than LauncherOne on a Boeing 747.
Note: we are using a new commenting system, which may require you to create a new account.
Monday, April 17, 2023
Sunday, April 16, 2023
Saturday, April 15, 2023
Friday, April 14, 2023
One Of These Days Humans Will Fly To The Stars!!
I will confess to all of you that since I was a teenager, I have been fascinated with the prospect of sending humans on a spacecraft at the speed of light to colonize a new world orbiting a faraway star. In eighth grade, I took a drafting course. I started to draw plans for a manned starship that would take 100 colonists to a new world far away. The spacecraft would be powered by a photon engine. I kept refining the plans. They became more intricate. I called the spacecraft "Project Dream." Let us fast forward 60 years to now. I still believe that in the next 100 years, humans will achieve a propulsion system capable of propelling a spacecraft at the speed of light. Suspended animation will become a reality. We will be able to send colonists to an exoplanet far away.
A
famous scientist and well-known science fiction writer disagrees with me. His
name is Kim Stanley Robinson. He has written many incredible science fiction
books talking about the human colonization of Mars, etc. When the subject of
interstellar travel comes up, he gets quite pessimistic. He does not believe
that it will ever happen. He wrote a book on the subject titled
"Aurora." It is a sad and dreary book. The spacecraft that he
envisages can only attain 10% of the speed of light. All sorts of things go
wrong on the way to another star system. The spacecraft is forced to turn back.
Two days ago, I made the discovery of a television science-fiction story
that debunks Dr. Robinson’s pessimism. The show is titled "The Ark."
In the US it can be found on the Peacock Channel. It should be available on
cable television systems in other countries. For those curious here is a link:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt17371078/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_q_The%2520Ark
This is a television series and not a big-budget movie.
Despite the monetary constraints, the producers have created a brilliant
program with superb special effects, excellent cinematography, great writing,
and unknown actors who turn in brilliant performances.
In
the storyline, an advanced starship is en route at the speed of light to
another star system to deliver over 150 colonists to an exoplanet. All human
passengers are soundly sleeping in suspended animation. The ship is
struck either by a very large meteor or a small asteroid. There is serious
damage. All the senior management and older professionals are killed as their
sleeping pods are hit by falling metal. When the survivors awaken what is left
are people between the age of 19 and 33 years of age. A 33-year-old woman
becomes the ship's commander.
There are all sorts of problems including a failing life support
system, no food, and no water. Despite all the challenges the surviving
settlers refuse to give up. They solve all the problems including getting the
life support system back online, growing their own food, and tapping a comet to
get a lot of water to fill the water tanks.
This is great entertainment for those who love science fiction. It is verification
that one day the human race will leave our solar system and go to other star
systems.