Space Access Update #111 04/05/05 2nd try

Space Access Update #111 04/05/05
Copyright 2005 by Space Access Society
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Do not hit "reply" to email us - it'll be buried in tides of spam, and
we may not ever see it. Email us at
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Contents this issue:

- SA'05 Notes

- Low-Cost Launch: The Concept Is Spreading

- What We Want From NASA: Low Cost Hardware/Flight Demos
- Pay For Results, Not Process

- Industry News Roundup

__________________________________________________ ______________________

SA'05 Notes

First a few quick notes about our upcoming Space Access '05 conference,
April 28-30 in Phoenix Arizona:
- The latest SA'05 info will be posted from now till the conference at
http://www.space-access.org/updates/sa05info.html
- Our $79 hotel room rate is guaranteed available through April 6th -
we'll very likely be able to negotiate extensions as the conference
approaches, but book by the 6th to be sure.
- If you have trouble getting our rate or booking the type of room that
you want, try calling our hotel (Four Points by Sheraton Phoenix
Metrocenter, 602 997-5900, mention "space access") between 8 am and 4 pm
weekdays Mountain Standard Time (EDT-3) since outside those hours calls
automatically get switched to the Sheraton national reservations center,
which seems to have occasional problems with local hotel details.
- If you still have any difficulty booking a room at our rate for SA'05,
drop us a note at ASAP. Thanks! And now back to
our irregularly scheduled Update...

__________________________________________________ ______________________

Low-Cost Launch: The Concept Is Spreading

It's a good thing this is America, where "may you live in interesting
times" is still more blessing than curse. Kudos to the X-Prize, Scaled
Composites and their subs, and Paul Allen - a lot of people are now
aware that there are alternatives to the Government-Space Industrial
Complex, paths off the planet that don't cost major slices of a national
budget. The consequences have started arriving one after another.

One we should get out of the way immediately: Watch your wallet, the
quick-buck artists are here. The email we saw about the Nigerian
astronaut stranded on the Space Station until we take our 15% cut of an
international funds transfer to pay for his return trip (please provide
our account info) was actually pretty funny, but we suspect that the SEC
wouldn't be at all amused by some of the outfits that have popped up
peddling stock lately. Caveat investor... Not that every outfit around
before the field got hot was a good place to put money either, but at
least most actually meant well. Thomas Olson, Paul Contursi, and David
Livingston have a short article in The Space Review with eight things to
watch for when you're thinking of investing in a space startup, at
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/329/1. Strongly recommended.

Another thing we've seen is multiple announcements of brand-new
conferences and/or newsletters. Our rule of thumb is, if all the
promoters seem to know is "X-Prize", "Scaled", and "SpaceDev", they
probably have a way to go before they're worth much attention.

One new entrant in the conference field we are paying attention to is
Esther Dyson, of computer journalism fame, with her "Flight School" one-
day new-aviation/new-space event, debuting last month tagged onto the
end of her long-time influential "PC Forum" IT industry conference. At
$1492 "Flight School" was a bit steep for our budget (though one way to
look at that is that the price succeeded - it kept the riff-raff out!)
but response we've heard has been positive - introducing her field to
our field is generally seen as a good thing. Given Dyson's reputation
as one of the sharper tools in the shed, her extensive information
industry contacts, and her considerable resources, we expect we'll be
hearing more from her.

One of the bigger space conferences around, the Space Foundation's
National Space Symposium annual gettogether of everybody who's anybody
in Big Aerospace (in Colorado Springs this week) this year features an
"Entrepreneurial Spirit" panel with Courtney Stadd, Eric Anderson of
Space Adventures, Jim Benson of SpaceDev, David Gump of T/Space, and
George Nield of FAA AST, plus an appearance by SpaceX's Elon Musk on a
New Directions In Launch panel. It's a good start. Also of interest on
their schedule, a live broadcast on NASA TV of "The Vision For Space
Exploration: Getting There From Here" (we wonder where that phrase
percolated up from...) set for 11 am to 12:15 pm mountain time on
Wednesday April 6th. (As conference organizers ourselves, we'd advise
allowing for a bit of schedule slop if you're setting up to tape it.)

Another major player that is starting to pay attention: NASA. We don't
have much detail yet, but Explorations Systems Mission Directorate,
ESMD, the large slice of NASA HQ tasked with making the Vision For Space
Exploration happen, seems to be at least thinking about some sort of
"non-traditional" Earth-To-Orbit development path in parallel with their
main effort, the multi-billion dollar Crewed Exploration Vehicle (CEV)
that is planned as the mainstay of post-Shuttle NASA manned spaceflight.

No further detail of what ESMD has in mind available yet, but we
speculate this may have something to do with the schedule gap between
Shuttle shutdown in 2010 and CEV operations start in 2014 - both SpaceX
and Kistler (whose reorganization plan was just approved by the
bankruptcy court) plan on having suitably-sized "non-traditional"
boosters flying well before 2010, and there are a number of "non-
traditional" parties who are more than willing (and quite possibly able)
to put basic crewed ships on top. Add in Bigelow's "America's Space
Prize" ($50 million for just such a basic crewed ship) as extra
development leverage, and a plausible picture begins to emerge. However
speculative it is at the moment, of course.

One thing we do know for su Rick Tumlinson of the Space Frontier
Foundation arranged for David Gump of T/Space, Tom Taylor of Lunar
Transportation Systems, and Jim Muncy of PoliSpace to brief NASA's Lunar
Exploration Roadmap Committee last Thursday, and by Friday the committee
had a new Commercial Subcommittee, consisting of those four gentlemen
plus Jeff Taylor of the University of Hawaii. Our congratulations to
all concerned - we expect they'll bring in some fresh ideas.

__________________________________________________ ______________________

What We Want From NASA:
Low Cost Hardware/Flight Demos - Pay For Results, Not Process

On a related subject, something we'd like to see happening at NASA (but
don't really expect out of Exploration Systems) would be a whole series
of low-cost (a few hundred thousand to a couple tens of millions max)
hardware and/or flight demonstration projects, from non-traditional
vendors, done under a reduced-paperwork pay-for-results-not-process
regime. We think this could usefully expand the repertoire of known-to-
work engineering solutions available and on the shelf, and usefully
expand the space industrial base of experienced vendors ready to apply
those solutions for NASA and for the US space industry in general.

Why don't we expect it out of Exploration Systems? To be frank, because
ESMD already have their hands full developing CEV. Admiral Steidle,
before he became ESMD's boss, did succeed in getting a flyable Joint
Strike Fighter out of the established major aerospace contractors via
the established defense procurement process, but we expect he's very
aware that he's at NASA now, where the procurement process and
contractors makes DOD's equivalents look simple efficient and reliable.

Anything that doesn't contribute directly and immediately to meeting the
transportation needs of NASA's new space exploration program is likely
to be seen as a distraction and a drain on scarce funds - funds quite
likely to get scarcer in future years, while future year costs all too
likely climb. The natural inclination is going to be for ESMD to focus
primarily on its major objectives at the expense of lesser projects.

We may already be seeing a symptom of this (necessary) focus: Cries of
pain, public and private, over how thoroughly HQ is applying traditional
NASA paperwork requirements to the smaller bidders. Whether ESMD
actively wants the small outfits to just go away or merely lacks the
time and attention to cut them the appreciable amount of slack available
within the rules is moot - the effect is the same either way. Small
companies end up taking NASA money to produce reports and viewgraphs,
not testable hardware.

As for the viewpoint that if this level of paperwork is OK for the
established majors, the startups should just suck it up and deal with it
too, do we really want to foster new companies whose core expertise is
dealing with NASA process, not delivering functional product quickly and
affordably? Haven't we already got enough of those?

We suspect moving such minor industrial-base/engineering repertoire
expansion efforts out of ESMD could be a good thing for all - less
distraction for Exploration Systems, and steadier support for the small
vendors involved. Looking around for a suitable home for such, we
note that significant parts of NASA have considerable in-house design-
support and engineering-test capabilities sitting around begging for
customers - indeed, in danger of being shut down - and might well be
suitable hosts for such work. We speak, of course, of the various NASA
aeronautical centers - aeronautics is in fact a major element of the
transit between ground and orbit we at SAS are primarily concerned with.

This arrangement could have a number of benefits, among them leveraging
of existing underused NASA resources and a built-in Congressional
constituency separate from the major NASA space operations centers. We
think the greatest advantage of all would be the competitive aspects,
however. Nothing gets the creative juices flowing like a little healthy
competition, whether between companies or between NASA field centers.

But our bottom line is: NASA should be doing low-cost hardware and
flight demonstration projects from non-traditional vendors under a
reduced-paperwork pay-for-results-not-process regime, *somewhere*, if
the agency is ever to break out of the high-overhead low-flight-rate
high-cost cul de sac it's in now.

__________________________________________________ ______________________

Industry News Roundup

Enough editorializing - on to a quick sampling of some things going
on recently in the industry.

Armadillo has decided to pursue bipropellant liquid oxygen engines.
They haven't been able to obtain commercially the high-concentration
hydrogen peroxide they'd need for acceptable monopropellant performance,
and their pursuit of "mixed monopropellant" - lower-concentration
peroxide premixed with fuel just before flight - ran into problems with
limited engine catalyst-pack life. They could make the engines perform
reliably, but only by rebuilding them far more often than practical for
the sort of routine operations they're pursuing. Armadillo has been
developing liquid oxygen preburner technology in parallel with their
peroxide work for a while, and now they've announced they're making
their main propulsion development path engines based on that technology.

X-Prize has announced their planned X-Prize Cup rocket races and
Personal Spaceflight Expo, to take place annually in early October at
the Southwest Regional Spaceport in New Mexico. The first Personal
Spaceflight Expo will take place over four days this year, with
exhibition rocket flights added in 2006 and the first X-Prize Cup rocket
races in 2007.

TGV Rockets remains reticent about announcing much publicly, but they
have seen some government funding these last few years, and they will
admit they'll be hitting some development milestones in the coming
months.

Not directly related to our industry but an old friend of the family,
Bill Stine, G. Harry Stine's son, is reviving Quest Aerospace, his
educational model rocket company, shut down after a motor manufacturing
accident several years ago. Kit manufacture will now be in China,
motors in eastern Germany. The Stine family project to set up a
scholarship program and a library to house Harry's extensive collection
of space books and papers is still in the works.

Len Cormier's PanAero is bidding on an NRO BAA for an Operationally
Responsive Launch Vehicle, and is proposing the Space Van '09 concept
for it; he'll be telling us more at SA'05.

XCOR should have an interesting announcement sometime Tuesday - look for
the press release at http://www.xcor.com.

There's a company in South Korea call C&Space working on an LNG-LOX
engine for their Proteus suborbital ship - details are scant; we've had
limited correspondence with them and their website (www.candspace.com)
is in Korean. They tell us they've conducted ground firings of a water-
cooled test chamber, and are working toward a ten-ton thrust LNG-cooled
operational version. This does bear out something we've been saying for
a long time - rocketry may involve high-performance engineering but it's
no longer ultra high-tech; the rest of the world is catching up, and may
well leave us in the dust if we don't start doing the things we need to
do to move ahead again.

Dr. Jordin Kare has spoken at our conference several times in recent
years about his relatively low-tech approach to laser launch, using
commercially available semiconductor lasers and heat-exchanger liquid
propulsion. He tells us that the technology needed to do this is
essentially available off-the-shelf now, and he'll be telling us about
his plans at this year's conference. (We really are into the 21st
century - we just typed the words "a relatively low-tech approach to
laser launch" in complete seriousness!)

The Space Launch Amendments Act passed last winter with numerous
mandates for how FAA AST should regulate commercial passenger-carrying
space transports. That was the easy part - now the FAA needs to
translate those broad mandates into detailed regulations. We're working
with FAA AST to have someone at SA'05 to talk about how that process
works, where it's gotten to so far, and what to expect down the line,
plus we'll have feedback from various of the regulated parties about
what they hope to see, and a talk from Tim Hughes, majority counsel to
the House Science Committee and heavily involved in the drafting of the
Amendments Act, on what the intentions behind various provisions are.

Rocketplane Ltd got full funding for their Rocketplane XP development
last year and are currently moving ahead building a practical suborbital
transport around various existing aircraft components - to oversimplfy
considerably, a Learjet fuselage, engines, and landing gear with new
wings, thermal protection, and an Orbitec "Vortex" rocket engine in the
tail. They're aiming at completing the flight test program in '07, and
currently seeking funding for the passenger-carrying commercial
operations phase to follow.

We spoke with David Gump, President of the T/Space consortium (Scaled
Composites, Airlaunch LLC, CSI, USL, Delta Velocity, and Spaceport
Associates among others) about the report in New Scientist the other
week that due to the massive paperwork burden, T/Space would not bid on
the next phase of NASA CEV. David told us that he had discussed the
merits of a low-overhead rapid-prototyping approach versus the
traditional NASA paperwork-intensive development process with New
Scientist, but that T/Space has not yet made any final decision on
whether they'll bid the next phase of CEV.

Scaled Composites is of course busy developing the suborbital passenger-
carrying SpaceShip 2 for Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, with
passenger service schedule to commence in '07. Burt Rutan punctuates
this routine by travelling to receive various (well-deserved) awards.
Latest we hear is he'll be in DC to accept the prestigious Collier
Trophy at the National Air & Space Museum April 19th. Rumor has it, by
the way, that SpaceShip 2 may well use an all-EAC engine rather than the
mix of SpaceDev fuel casting and EAC plumbing SpaceShip 1 flew with.

Airlaunch LLC, Microcosm, SpaceX, and Lockheed-Martin are competing in
the DARPA/Air Force FALCON small launch vehicle program and are not
currently talking much. The next phase of the program, one or more
contractors building flight prototypes, will be decided this summer.

Meanwhile the Air Force ARES program, to build a reusable rocket
spacelift first-stage demonstrator, is getting underway. We'll have a
briefing on FALCON and ARES at SA'05.

SpaceX meanwhile is still working toward first flight of their Falcon 1
launcher - they've completed all structural testing, but are still
working on main engine qualification. The latest delay now is a matter
of site scheduling at Vandenberg AFB - the final Titan 4 launch has
pushed them back to Q3 '05 at earliest, longer if the Titan launch (as
has happened before) is delayed. SpaceX says they may consider doing
their first flight out of a site being developed on Kwajalein Atoll, if
the VAFB delay goes on long enough.

Blue Horizon meanwhile continues to reveal their plans very slowly - the
latest new info is from a Jeff Bezos interview with the local paper in
west Texas where he owns close to 200,000 acres of ranchland. He plans
eventually to fly from that land, and what he'll be flying will be
vertical-takeoff, vertical landing rockets - first a suborbital ship,
then eventually orbital.

And that's only a fraction of what's been going on lately. The best
single site for day-to-day coverage of this fast-moving field is still
Clark Lindsey's www.hobbyspace.com "RLV News" section, but even Clark
can't get it all. We also recommend Jeff Foust's www.spacetoday.net and
www.thespacereview.com, Keith Cowing's www.nasawatch.com, and of course
the Space News, Space.com, and Aviation Week sites all come up with
good stuff. Over the last year Alan Boyle at www.msnbc.com has written
a lot of good space pieces - Alan was responsible for MSNBC cable's
coverage of the SpaceShip 1 flights being far more technically informed
than the other networks there. Space coverage is showing up in the most
unlikely places these days, though; it's impossible to keep with it all.

Interesting times!
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote radical reductions
in the cost of reaching space. You may redistribute this Update in
any medium you choose, as long as you do it unedited in its entirety.
You may reproduce sections of this Update beyond obvious "fair use"
quotes if you credit the source and include a pointer to our website.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Space Access Society
http://www.space-access.org


"Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System"
- Robert A. Heinlein

Henry Vanderbilt wrote:

SpaceX meanwhile is still working toward first flight of their Falcon
1
launcher - they've completed all structural testing, but are still
working on main engine qualification. The latest delay now is a
matter
of site scheduling at Vandenberg AFB - the final Titan 4 launch has
pushed them back to Q3 '05 at earliest, longer if the Titan launch
(as
has happened before) is delayed. SpaceX says they may consider doing

their first flight out of a site being developed on Kwajalein Atoll,
if
the VAFB delay goes on long enough.

Hmmm. Orbital Sciences plans *two* Minotaur launches
from Vandenberg between now and Q3 '05. Boeing has
a Delta 2 Vandy launch planned during the same time
frame. There are also three Minuteman launches
and one MX test reportedly planned before July. And
the last Titan 4 launch is set for June 30, maybe.
That's about 10 launches planned during the 80+ days
left in Q2. Plenty of slots should be available
for SpaceX. What's the real reason for the hold up?
Pad overflight issues?

- Ed Kyle

aaargh. Overcaffeinated brain-fart department: Bezo's
company is Blue Origin, not "Blue Horizon"...

Ed Kyle wrote:

That's about 10 launches planned during the 80+ days
left in Q2. Plenty of slots should be available
for SpaceX. What's the real reason for the hold up?
Pad overflight issues?

- Ed Kyle

It really doesn't make sense. SpaceX has its own pad. Pad overflight is
a just plain silly concern, I would think the insurance for that minute
failure risk would be much less cost than the cost of schedule slip,
and DOD tends to be very generous with that kind of risk. Don't forget
Falcon I is carrying another DOD payload.
It seems likely that there's some troubled aspect of their plan that
they're not revealing, such as some integration or avionics issue that
they're doing additional testing on prior to launch, and using DOD
scheduling as a '**** screen'. It wouldn't be the first time for
SpaceX--until late December of last year they were still claiming that
the main holdup would be the payload from NRL/OSD--before revealing
that the Merlin qualification was a bit delayed.

Don't get me wrong, they've accomplished an incredible amount so far,
I'm just pointing out they have a history of pointing the finger at
DOD. SpaceX has no real need to explain their delays to the alt.space
community anyway, so I wonder why they keep doing it.

Tom Cuddihy

Ed Kyle wrote:

Hmmm. Orbital Sciences plans *two* Minotaur launches
from Vandenberg between now and Q3 '05. Boeing has
a Delta 2 Vandy launch planned during the same time
frame. There are also three Minuteman launches
and one MX test reportedly planned before July. And
the last Titan 4 launch is set for June 30, maybe.
That's about 10 launches planned during the 80+ days
left in Q2. Plenty of slots should be available
for SpaceX. What's the real reason for the hold up?
Pad overflight issues?

- Ed Kyle

Good question. A quick web search reveals that part of
the Falcon 1 program is to be a hot-firing of the motor
on the pad, at VAFB SLC-3. The VAFB map at
astronautix.com shows the Titan 4 launch pad SLC-4 as
being nearby - I wouldn't try to give a precise figure
from that map, but on the order of one kilometer SW
of SLC-3.

I might guess that the owners of the Titan 4 prefer not
to have hot firings of new medium boosters that close
to their billion-dollar baby, and close overflight might
also be an issue.

For what it's worth, all the other vehicles you
mention launch either from areas 10-20 km north of the
Titan 4 pad, or from the commercial complex at SLC-6
several kilometers to the south. (The map is at
http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm)

Henry Vanderbilt

Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

Plenty of slots should be available
for SpaceX. What's the real reason for the hold up?
Pad overflight issues?

- Ed Kyle

Good question. A quick web search reveals that part of
the Falcon 1 program is to be a hot-firing of the motor
on the pad, at VAFB SLC-3. The VAFB map at
astronautix.com shows the Titan 4 launch pad SLC-4 as
being nearby - I wouldn't try to give a precise figure
from that map, but on the order of one kilometer SW
of SLC-3. ...

(The map is at
http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm)


A look at a Vandenberg map in the Cambridge Encyclopedia
of Space shows that SLC 4E (Titan 4 pad) is 2 km south-
southwest of SLC 4W (Falcon 1) and is pretty close to
being in line with (perhaps 200-300 hundred meters west
of) the standard space launch azimuth. For that matter,
SLC-6 (the Delta IV pad) isn't far from an overflight
path either, though it is 8 km downrange.

- Ed Kyle

"www.geocities.com/launchreport"

Ed Kyle wrote:

A look at a Vandenberg map in the Cambridge Encyclopedia
of Space shows that SLC 4E (Titan 4 pad) is 2 km south-
southwest of SLC 4W (Falcon 1) and is pretty close to
being in line with (perhaps 200-300 hundred meters west
of) the standard space launch azimuth. For that matter,
SLC-6 (the Delta IV pad) isn't far from an overflight
path either, though it is 8 km downrange.


Is it possible that the Falcon I pad isn't actually qualified for a
full hotfiring of the booster? I can't imagine that kind of oversight,
but if the pad was originally intended just to take the energy of a
launch--there's a lot more energy in a full holddown firing of the
booster. Could that be a concern?

Tom

Tom Cuddihy wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

A look at a Vandenberg map in the Cambridge Encyclopedia
of Space shows that SLC 4E (Titan 4 pad) is 2 km south-
southwest of SLC 4W (Falcon 1) and is pretty close to
being in line with (perhaps 200-300 hundred meters west
of) the standard space launch azimuth. For that matter,
SLC-6 (the Delta IV pad) isn't far from an overflight
path either, though it is 8 km downrange.


Is it possible that the Falcon I pad isn't actually qualified for a
full hotfiring of the booster? I can't imagine that kind of
oversight,
but if the pad was originally intended just to take the energy of a
launch--there's a lot more energy in a full holddown firing of the
booster. Could that be a concern?


If SLC 3W could handle Atlas, it can handle Falcon.

I think, after reading the 3/31/05 SpaceX press release
reproduced below, that we have the real answer. The
first Falcon is still in Texas, awaiting its acceptance
test firings. It won't be shipped to Vandenberg until
late April at the earliest. Once at SLC 3W, the rocket
is slated to do a hold-down test before the actual
launch campaign starts. SpaceX is talking late Summer,
maybe July-August, for the launch.

Interestingly, the SpaceX web site is now showing the
second and third Falcon I launches being performed
from the Marshall Islands! The first Falcon V launch
is still shown flying from Vandenberg.

From the SpaceX web site (www.spacex.com):

"SPACEX COMPLETES FALCON I STRUCTURAL QUALIFICATION FOR FLIGHT

El Segundo, Calif. - March 31, 2005 - Space Exploration Technologies
Corporation (SpaceX) today announced the completion of qualification
and acceptance testing of all primary structures for the Falcon I
launch vehicle. SpaceX has now successfully tested every major
structural subsystem of Falcon I including the gimbal, thrust frame,
first stage tank assembly, interstage, second stage tank assembly,
avionics bay, payload adaptor and fairing. Stage and fairing separation
systems have also been successfully tested for flight. The first stage,
which is designed to be reusable, was taken through over 150 pressure
cycles without any sign of fatigue.

"We recognize that nothing is more important to our customers than
reliability. Failure is never low cost," said Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX,
"I hope that those who have followed our progress will note that we
have been meticulous and rigorous in our testing, leaving no stone
unturned. By combining an exhaustive test regime with a simple, minimal
failure modes design, Falcon I will deliver reliable, low cost access
to space for small satellites."

The Falcon I first stage engine, Merlin and second stage engine,
Kestrel will begin acceptance testing within the next few weeks at the
SpaceX 300-acre testing facility in McGregor, Texas. Following that,
Falcon I will be shipped to its launch site, SLC 3W at Vandenberg Air
Force Base, in late April for a system test firing.

The maiden flight of Falcon I carrying TacSat-1 is scheduled to follow
the launch of the last Titan IV from SLC 4 at Vandenberg Air Force
Base. Assuming an on time departure of the classified Titan IV mission,
SpaceX expects a launch window in late summer."


- Ed Kyle

"www.geocities.com/launchreport/slr.html"

Ed Kyle wrote:

The Falcon I first stage engine, Merlin and second stage engine,
Kestrel will begin acceptance testing within the next few weeks at
the
SpaceX 300-acre testing facility in McGregor, Texas. Following that,
Falcon I will be shipped to its launch site, SLC 3W at Vandenberg Air
Force Base, in late April for a system test firing.

The maiden flight of Falcon I carrying TacSat-1 is scheduled to
follow
the launch of the last Titan IV from SLC 4 at Vandenberg Air Force
Base. Assuming an on time departure of the classified Titan IV
mission,
SpaceX expects a launch window in late summer."


The Lompoc Record has an exclusive on a few interesting things about
the SpaceX inaugural launch:

http://www.lompocrecord.com/articles...ews/news08.txt

some interesting highlights:
-the first Falcon I is at Vandenburg and on the pad

-a short firing of the rocket will occur some time next week

- Ed, you were right about the reason for the delay: The Air Force
wants to wait for BOTH Titan launches before the inaugural Falcon I
launch. As a consequence SpaceX is considering switching the first
launch to Kwajalein, Omelek Island (approx 9.5 N, 167 E). Presumably,
they'd just make the DARPA payload the inaugural payload instead of the
OSD/NRL small sat.

one note: the "short firing" of the first stage is definitely a change
from what was previously a "full holddown firing" of the first stage.
It may still be a precursor to that type of test, or they might do the
full test on first launch, the article doesn't make it clear.

Either way, at least they're making definite progress.

Tom Cuddihy

Here's another interesting SpaceX tie-in:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16252

Statement of Elon Musk at House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee
Hearings on the Future Market for Commercial Space


Statement of Mr. Elon Musk
CEO and Chief Technology Officer
Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
Before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
United States House of Representatives

Chairman Calvert and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
for inviting me to testify today on Future Markets for Commercial
Space. It is an honor to be here. What is the SpaceX Business Plan?

SpaceX is dedicated to improving the reliability and cost of access to
space for the greater purpose of helping us become a true space-faring
civilization. Without dramatic improvement in those two inseparable
metrics, we will never exceed the great deeds our nation accomplished
for all humanity with the Apollo program.

Although the ultimate goal of SpaceX is to provide super-heavy lift and
manned launch vehicles, we have chosen to focus our initial efforts on
a small rocket capable of launching satellites to low Earth orbit. This
vehicle, the Falcon I, is effectively a sub-scale technology test bed,
ensuring that the inevitable errors of development occur on a small
scale and without people on board. However, the Falcon I, which has the
lowest cost per flight in the world for a production rocket and is
entirely American built, is also showing strong market demand in its
own right. We already have three firm contracts for launch and expect
to close another two before Falcon I performs its maiden flight later
this year. Once the Falcon I has a few flights under its belt and the
satellite producers have time to adjust, I think it is quite possible
that there will be more flights per year of Falcon I than any other
vehicle in the world.

It is also worth noting that the Falcon I is the only semi-reusable
rocket in the world, apart from the Space Shuttle. However, reusability
is not currently factored into the price. As we refine that process,
the cost of Falcon I will decline over time. As far as reliability is
concerned, the Futron corporation, which is used extensively by NASA
and the FAA, concluded that Falcon I had the second highest design
reliability of any American rocket. It was tied with the most reliable
version of the Boeing Delta IV and Lockheed Atlas V. The highest design
reliability rank was held by our Falcon V design, which will be the
only American rocket that can lose any engine or motor and still
complete its mission.

The Falcon V, scheduled for first flight next year, is a medium lift
rocket designed to carry people as well as much larger satellites. As
such, the design margins will meet or exceed NASA requirements for
manned spacecraft. My hope is that this vehicle will provide the United
States with an all American means of transporting astronauts to orbit
and ensure that we are beholden to no one once the Shuttle retires.

All in all, I see an increasingly positive future for commercial space
activities over the next five to ten years.

What should the government do or not do to encourage the nascent
commercial space industry? The most important thing that the government
should do is adopt a nurturing and supportive attitude towards new
entrepreneurial efforts. In particular, the government should seek to
purchase early launches as well as offer prizes for concrete
achievements. Evidence for the tremendous power of prizes can be found
throughout history, most recently with the X Prize. Regarding
purchasing early launches, the Defense Department has been very
supportive and has done the right thing at every level, purchasing two
of the four launches we have sold to date. Regrettably, however, NASA
has not yet procured a launch and has provided less financial support
than the Malaysian Space Agency, who has bought and paid for a flight
on Falcon I.

However, I am very much heartened by the recent confirmation of Dr.
Griffin as the new NASA Administrator. I am confident that his
outstanding technical ability, dedication and diverse experience will
invigorate our space program. With a finite budget and entrenched
interests to fight, Dr. Griffin will be forced to make some difficult
decisions in the years ahead. I urge Congress to give its full support
to Dr. Griffin when he does so.

As far as what the government should not do, I think it is important to
minimize the regulatory burden required for space launch activities. We
should do no more than is necessary to protect the uninvolved public.
It sometimes seems to me that our society is paving the road to hell
one regulation at a time.

Are there implications for the commercial space industry as you see it
in the President's announced Vision for Space Exploration?

The NASA budget is unlikely to see significant increases in coming
years and in fact will face severe pressure from entitlements in the
next decade. Compounding the problem, US launch prices from existing
contractors are increasing every year, sometimes significantly. Unless
we can reverse the trend of rising costs, NASA will be placed in a
continually tightening financial vice, accomplishing less and less each
year. Therefore, the only way that our country can meet the President's
Vision in a meaningful way is by encouraging the development of new,
low cost access to space. If we can't afford to get there, the Vision
will become nothing more than a mirage.

About Elon Musk

Elon is the CEO & Chief Technology Officer of Space Exploration
Technologies (SpaceX), which is developing a family of launch vehicles
intended to reduce the cost and increase the reliability of access to
space ultimately by a factor of ten. The company officially began
operations in June 2002 and is located in the heart of the aerospace
industry in Southern California.

SpaceX is the third company founded by Mr. Musk. Prior to SpaceX, he
co-founded PayPal, the world's leading electronic payment system, and
served as the company's chairman and CEO. PayPal has over sixty-five
million customers in 38 countries, processes tens of billions dollars
per year and went public on the NASDAQ under PYPL in early 2002. Mr.
Musk was the largest shareholder of PayPal until the company was
acquired by eBay for $1.5 billion in October 2002.

Before PayPal, Mr. Musk co-founded Zip2 Corporation in 1995, a leading
provider of enterprise software and services to the media industry,
with investments from The New York Times Company, Knight-Ridder, MDV,
Softbank and the Hearst Corporation. He served as Chairman, CEO and
Chief Technology Officer and in March 1999 sold Zip2 to Compaq for $307
million in an all cash transaction.

Mr. Musk's early experience extends across a spectrum of advanced
technology industries, from high energy density ultra-capacitors at
Pinnacle Research to software development at Rocket Science and
Microsoft. He has a physics degree from the University of Pennsylvania,
a business degree from Wharton and originally came out to California to
pursue graduate studies in high energy density capacitor physics &
materials science at Stanford