NASA and the Private Sector - Page 90

On May 17 2016 06:56 cLutZ wrote:
Here is a question: What is the probability of SpaceX defaulting on its contracts if SolarCity fails and what kind of protections does the US Government have against this?

A manned mission to Mars is a hot topic in space, and has been for a long time. Most of the talk around it has centred on the required technology, astronaut durability, and the overall feasibility of the mission. But now, some of the talk is focussing on the legal framework behind such a mission.

In April 2016, SpaceX announced their plans for a 2018 mission to Mars. Though astronauts will not be part of the mission, several key technologies will be demonstrated. SpaceX’s Dragon capsule will make the trip to Mars, and will conduct a powered, soft landing on the surface of the red planet. The capsule itself will be launched by another new piece of technology, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket.

It’s a fascinating development in space exploration; a private space company, in cooperation with NASA, making the trip to Mars with all of its own in-house technology. But above and beyond all of the technological challenges, there is the challenge of making the whole endeavour legal.

Though it’s not widely known or talked about, there are legal implications to launching things into space. In the US, each and every launch by a private company has to have clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
That’s because the US signed the Outer Space Treaty in 1969, a treaty that sets out the obligations and limitations to activities in space. The FAA has routinely given their ascent to commercial launches, but things may be starting to get a little tricky in space.

The most recent Humans To Mars Summit, a conference focussed on Mars missions and explorations, just wrapped up on May 19th. At that conference, George Nield, associate administrator for commercial space transportation at the FAA, addressed the issue. “That’ll be an FAA licensed launch as well,” said Nield of the SpaceX mission to Mars. “We’re already working with SpaceX on that mission,” he added. “There are some interesting policy questions that have to do with the Outer Space Treaty,” said Nield.

The Outer Space Treaty was signed in 1967, and has some sway over space exploration and colonization. Though it gives wide latitude to governments that are exploring space, how it will affect commercial activity like resource exploitation, and installations like settlements in other planets, is not so clear.

Orbiting 250 miles above Earth, the International Space Station is a feat of engineering and an unprecedented tool for space exploration. It also isn’t going to last forever — while the main components of the space outpost were put in place in 2011, actual building began back in 1988.

On Wednesday at “Transformers”, a live-journalism conference presented by The Washington Post, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden discussed the lifespan of the ISS during the “There’s No Place Like Space” panel.

When asked if the ISS would have to retire, Bolden replied, “It is inevitable — it’s a human-made structure with a lifetime.” Its year of expiration? 2028.

Bolden hinted that what could very well replace the ISS is an expandable habitat, like the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM). At the end of March, NASA sent BEAM to the ISS for a two-year demonstrative period to see whether or not the module could replace some of the functions of the ISS.

BEAM, as it is now, is only a fraction of the size it would need to be to replace the ISS — it’s about the same space as a small bedroom. The ISS is roughly the same size as a soccer field. Bigelow Aerospace describes BEAM as a “vital pathfinder” to its next iteration of the expandable habitat.

What will happen to the ISS once NASA and its international collaborators jump ship? While Château ISS might sounds like a sweet vacation spot for future space-tourists, it’s unlikely that NASA will let it linger up there. The federal space agency doesn’t have a warm spot in its heart for space junk — in April NASA announced it plans to invest in a 2D spacecraft which could bring orbital debris down towards the atmosphere — basically a flame-heavy demonstration of spring cleaning.

On May 10 2016 18:08 Simberto wrote:


No. All i am saying is that Delta-V is not the only relevant factor when thinking about distance in space, travelling time can be quite relevant too.

And if you plan to build some sort of colony on a planet, i assume you are going to have things on board of your ship that you can't just unpack and use in space, which means that stuff will be more comfortable once you actually get there. Like some sort of renewable food source, which surely will be part of any plan to have a colony with humans at any place.

There is a big difference between travelling a few weeks and then living in a colony for a few years, and travelling for a few years before you even start the colony.

Regarding the radiation, i am just saying that the longer you stay in space, the better shielded your ship needs to be, which means it has to be heavier.

Note that i am not saying it is impossible, or that building a base on the moon is the way to go (I am not quite certain what the purpose of a moon base would be except just being cool to have) Just that you need to look at more than just Delta V when looking at space travel. This becomes even more obvious when looking further than Mars and into the outer System, where your travelling times might go into decades.

The forecast is excellent for SpaceX's planned 5:40 p.m. Thursday launch of a Falcon 9 rocket and a Thai communications satellite from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

Air Force meteorologists predict a 90 percent chance of favorable weather during the two-hour window at Launch Complex 40, according to the 45th Space Wing.

There's a small chance that strong winds around the launch pad could pose a problem.

On May 26 2016 15:31 JimmyJRaynor wrote:


a lot of big talk about the Moon, Mars and asteroids. i'll be impressed if they can just get someone 5000 miles away. At this stage even that is a major accomplishment.

i think Bush said "we're going back to the moon" in 2004. Obama cancelled that in 2010. now in 2016 its back to the moon for NASA?

On May 26 2016 15:33 oBlade wrote:

You don't want to go only 5000 miles away because you'd constantly be flying through the precious Van Allen belts that vaporize humans instantly, Jimmy.

On May 26 2016 15:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:


where did i say constantly flying?

On May 26 2016 15:42 oBlade wrote:

That's what orbits are.

On May 26 2016 15:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:


and that is you saying it not me.