Tethers Unlimited of Bothell, Washington is developing a system to fabricate solar arrays in space, using a combination of 3D printing and automated composite layup. The system, which Tethers Unlimited calls Trusselator, is based on the Spiderfab technology which Tethers Unlimited has been developing under funding from DARPA and NASA’s Innovative Advanced Concepts Program. The Trusselator system will enable the deployment of large solar arrays providing many tens or hundreds of kilowatts for solar-electric propulsion missions and space solar power systems.

Trusselator is one of four projects being funded under NASA Phase I Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contracts which Tethers Unlimited signed this week.

Another funded project is SWIFT-NanoLV, which will develop a suite of low-cost, lightweight, compact, and reliable avionics for small launch vehicles. Last year, NASA said that there is a “technology gap” in small-launch-vehicle avionics, which it cited as the reason for canceling the Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge before the competition even began.

Also funded are SWIFT-HPX, which will develop a Ka-band transceiver to provide high-speed (100 megabit-per-second) cross-links and downlinks for nanosatellites, and SPIDER (Sensing and Positioning on Inclines and Deep Environments with Retrieval), which will develop robotic technologies to traverse craters, ravines, and other difficult terrain on asteroids and planetary bodies using anchored tethers.

The first Morpheus lander was destroyed in an accident on August 9, 2012 during the first attempted free-flight test at Kennedy Space Center. NASA has funded two replacements, Morpheus B and C. The new vehicles have an upgraded 5,000-pound thrust engine, about 20% than Morpheus A (4,200 pounds thrust).

The first fully integrated test of Morpheus B was conducted on May 1.

The following video, posted on May 21, shows the first use of a flame trench with the Morpheus lander.

The Morpheus lander is sized to land a Robonaut-sized payload on the Moon. The goal of the current tethered tests is to prepare for future free flights at Kennedy Space Center, including a kilometer-long approach test along the former Shuttle runway as shown in the following simulation.

The move is part of a continuing migration of aerospace companies (along with other industries) from California to Texas. In July 2012, XCOR Aerospace announced that it is moving its headquarters from Mojave, California to Midland, Texas — a move that is expected to occur later this year.

Raytheon already has 8,000 employees in North Texas. The move will add an additional 170 jobs.

Due to technical malfunctions, most of the test subjects (39 out of 45 mice, and all of the fish, newts, and gerbils) died. An aquarium malfunctioned, mice starved, and gerbils suffocated due to failures of the life-support system.

Such failures could have been easily corrected by a human technician. The Bion M failures show one of the flaws in anti-human spaceflight arguments. Yes, it costs more money to send a researcher along with his experiment, but it also costs money to automate an experiment and debug the automated equipment to ensure it works reliably.

In the software industry, companies spend as much money on testing as they do on development. Anyone who’s developing automated hardware should expect a similar ratio. As the Bion M mission shows, skimping on testing is a false economy.

Automating an experiment is a significant expense that needs to be weighed against the cost of flying a human operator. With current launch systems (orbital, expendable launch vehicles), automation almost also wins. The cost parameters of the equation will change, however, when reusable vehicles enter operational service. Automation will be much less of an automatic win.

That’s especially true for suborbital vehicles. While the cost of access to orbit will decrease in the future, reusable suborbital vehicles will be be much cheaper than reusable orbital vehicles, for the foreseeable future.

Experiment designers should take note of the changing cost parameters when deciding between automation and human-tended experiments, especially for suborbital missions. In some cases, it may be possible to fly several additional flights for the cost of automating an experiment.

For the next phase, a truck will tow the vehicle down the runway to validate performance of the nose strut, brakes, and tires. Those tests will be followed by captive carry tests using an Erickson Skycrane helicopter, leading to unmanned drop tests later this year.

A second test article will be equipped for piloted approach and landing tests. NASA astronauts have already begun test-flying Dream Chaser approaches in a simulator at Langley Research Center in Virginia.

Dream Chaser is intended for a wide variety of orbital missions, including independent on-orbit research and satellite repair, as well as resupplying of the International Space Station. The design has a long heritage, being deriving from the Soviet MiG-21 by way of the NASA HL-20.

Each morning, campers are introduced to a new project, virtual field trip, or experience, led by an expert camp counselor. Materials lists are posted in advance so campers have time to gather the supplies they will need. In the afternoon, campers can join the camp counselor in a Google Hangout to talk about that day’s project or experience, share tips, and ask questions.

Campers are encouraged to share photos and videos from their completed projects. Campers can also join the Maker Camp Community on Google+ during camp and after it ends.

Last year, more than one million virtual campers followed Make on Google+, as the magazine’s staff introduced them to new projects and special maker experiences including virtual field trips to CERN, NASA, The Smithsonian, National Geographic Institute, Disney Imagineering, and Ford Innovation Lab.

Swiss Space Systems, which is working with the French Aerospace firm Dassault and Belgian firms Sonaca and Space Application Services, will leverage work previously done for the European Space Agency’s Hermes spaceplane and NASA’s X-38 lifting body. The system is designed to launch satellites weighing up to 250 kg (550 pounds) at a price of 10 million Swiss Francs (about $10.5 million) per launch. The company hopes to bring the new launch system to operation by 2017 at a cost of 250 million Swiss Francs (about $260 million). It has already signed a contract with the Van Karman Institute for four launches.

Although unconventional, the idea of using a large airliner as a launch platform for a reusable spaceplane is not a new idea. In fact, the idea is more than 30 years old.

In 1978, Len Cormier left left Rockwell International, where he had worked on the Space Shuttle, to form TranSpace, Inc. (later Third Millenium Inc., also known by the Roman numerals MMI). Cormier believed that the Space Shuttle was overdesigned and could never live up to the cost projections which had been promised. With his new company, he began to design a much simpler, lower cost launch vehicle, which he called the Space Van.

Cormier realized that the combination of potential energy, kinetic energy, and reduced drag/gravity losses from air launch would reduce the energy needed to reach orbit by about 670 meters/second. Additionally, launching at airline altitude would eliminate the need for an altitude-compensating engine nozzle. To exploit these advantages, he designed a rocket-powered spacecraft he called the Space Van. (Click on the drawing below for a more detailed view.)

The Space Van was to be powered by six Pratt&Whitney RL-10 rocket engines, which were already in use on the Centaur upper stage and had proven to be extremely reliable. Given the RL-10′s proven reliability, Cormier saw no problems in using them on reusable vehicle. The original Space Van concept carried  all of its liquid-hydrogen fuel internally but most of its liquid oxygen was carried in two reusable drop tanks. Together, the orbiter and drop tanks had a combined takeoff weight of 136,700 pounds. The Boeing 747 would carry the vehicle to a launch altitude of 40,000 feet.

Unlike the Space Shuttle, which used its wings only for reentry and landing, the Space Van would fly a lifting trajectory after launch. The use of aerodynamic lift limited the thrust requirements and reduced the number of RL-10 engines required. The twin drop tanks were placed to absorb the support loads on the carrier aircraft and relieve structural bending loads on separation. The Space Van’s planform loading was 60% lower than the Shuttle’s, leading to reentry temperatures 500°F lower, allowing the use of an all-metallic heat shield. Due to low wing loading after burnout, landing approach speed was 35% lower than the Shuttle’s. Additionally, because the Space Van was air-launched rather than taking off from a runway, the landing gear could be optimized for landing at burnout weight rather than gross weight (which was about eight times heavier).

Recognizing that high flight rates were the key to economical operations, Cormier designed the Space Van for small payloads. Each flight would carry a passenger module with 8 people or a cargo module with one ton of payload. Cormier believed the Space Van could be developed for an initial investment of $500 million ($1.2 billion in 2013 dollars). That amount would cover research and development, fabrication of three orbiters and 12 drop tanks, procurement and modification of two 747′s, and the infrastructure needed to support 150 flights per year. Expanding operations to 1500 flights per year would require four or five additional carrier aircraft, 28 additional orbiters, and additional facilities, requiring an additional $750 billion ($1.8 billion in 2013 dollars).

Cormier estimated that each orbiter would fly 50 times per year for 10 years. Based on this flight rate, an allowing for return on investment, he calculated a projected price per flight of $250,000 ($600,000 in 2013 dollars).  That translates to a ticket into space for $75,000 person or $300 per pound of cargo (in 2013 dollars).

Cormier foresaw some potential problems with the air-launch concept, particularly in ensuring positive separation from the carrier aircraft. To solve the separation problem, he proposed a pullup/pushover maneuver. The pilot of the carrier aircraft would pull up to a 10-20° flightpath angle, then push over into a zero-lift or low-lift ballistic arc. This would allow the orbiter to separate and clear the tail of the carrier aircraft before igniting the rocket engines.

Cormier joked that the Space Van design “set aviation back 50 years” because of the landing gear. The Space Van was a taildragger, with limited visibility over the nose. That did not bother Cormier, who had flown taildraggers from US Navy carriers during World War II. Len still hoped to fly some of the Space Van test flights himself, if investors would let him.

By 1983, Cormier had revised the Space Van design to use a more modern tricycle landing gear, as shown below. The revised Space Van could accommodate passenger or cargo modules, as before, but it also had the capability to carry a “space stage.” This upper stage, powered by two additional RL-10 engines, would allow the Space Van to launch a larger cargo into orbit. When operating with the space stage, the orbiter itself would fly a suborbital trajectory, returning to the launch site. The space-stage engine module could be recovered by a Space Van orbiter on a later mission. The use of the space stage would increase cargo capacity to about three tons. (Click on the drawing below for a more detailed view of the 1983 concept.)

Unfortunately, Cormier had trouble finding investors. The Space Shuttle was just entering service, and most people in the private sector believed the Shuttle would be the National Space Transportation System as NASA predicted. The full extent of Shuttle cost overruns, and their effect on launch prices, was not yet apparent. So, Cormier turned to his military contacts.

The US Air Force took an interest in Cormier’s Space Van concept, which it renamed the Air Launched Sortie Vehicle. Unfortunately, to Cormier’s dismay and frustration, the Air Force passed over his small consulting firm and decided to give the concept to one of the major aerospace contractors (a pattern that would be repeated frequently with startup companies in future years).

Boeing partnered with Pratt & Whitney (manufacturer of the RL-10 rocket engine) to study an unmanned version of the ALSV. In this concept, the 747 carried liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen internally, in insulated dewar tanks. A Space Shuttle Main Engine was added to the tail of 747 to provide thrust augmentation for the launch-and-separation maneuver. The propellants would be transferred to the ALSV just prior to launch. Storing the propellants in insulated tanks allowed the system to wait at the edge of the runway on ready alert. The ASLV could overfly any point on Earth, or fly past any object in Low Earth Orbit, within 90 minutes of takeoff.

Air launch promised all-azimuth launch capability, including militarily significant polar orbits, without debris-impact problems. The ALSV could operate from any Air Force base with 10,000-foot runways, maneuver propulsively or aerodynamically, and return to an Air Force Base for landing.

A cluster of ten RL-10 engines was planned for ALSV propulsion.

Boeing was not the only aerospace contractor involved in the studies. Rockwell International, which was the prime contractor for the Space Shuttle orbiter, proposed a piloted ALSV powered by a Space Shuttle Main Engine instead of RL-10′s.

The Rockwell concept is shown below.

Like many Cold War projects, ALSV had its Eastern bloc counterpart. In the 1980′s, the Russian design bureau NPO Moliniya began to develop a concept called the Multipurpose Aerospace System (MAKS, according to the Russian acronym). MAKS was designed to be launched from an Antonov 225 Mriya, the world’s largest aircraft, which was originally developed to carry the Soviet Buran space shuttle orbiter.

Three separate versions of MAKS were proposed. MAKS-OS was the baseline system, with a small reusable orbiter and an expendable propellant tank. Main propulsion would be two RD-701 rocket engines using an advanced dual-fuel propulsion system switching from LOX/kerosene to LOX/hydrogen in flight. The MAKS-OS orbiter had a two-seat crew cabin. In addition to the crew, it was designed to carry a payload up 6.8 meters (22 feet) long and 2.6 meters (8 feet in diameter), weighing up to 8.3 metric tons (18,000 pounds).

MAKS-T was a cargo version, with an expendable upper stage replacing the reusable orbiter. This unmanned system was designed to place 18 metric tons (39,000 pounds) into a 51° orbit, 19.5 metric tons (43,000 pounds) into an equatorial orbit, or 5 tons (11,000 pounds) into geosynchronous orbit. These payload weights rival the 55,000-pound maximum payload launched by the US Space Shuttle.

MAKS-M would have been the most advanced version. With advanced structures, it would eliminate the expendable propellant tank in favor of a fully reusable single-stage orbiter. The projected payload was 5.5 metric tons (12,000 pounds) to a 51° orbit or 7 metric tons (15,000 pounds) to equatorial orbit.

Development work on MAKS continued after the fall of the Soviet Union. In the mid-90′s, Molniya worked with British Aerospace on a design study for a suborbital demonstrator, called RADEM, under a contract from the European Space Agency. In 2010, Molniya talked publicly about reviving the MAKS project. So far, there is no sign of that happening.

Once again, Citizens in Space is back at Maker Faire in the Bay Area.

This year, we’ve combined booths with our next-door neighbor (NASA). Come see Citizens in Space, PhoneSat, and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, all in one booth.

On Sunday, Citizens in Space will take part in a DIY Space Chat at 4:00. Also taking part will be Peter Platzer, co-founder of NanoSatisfi, which is developing the Ardusat satellite, and Matt Reyes from NASA Ames Research Center. Keith Hammond, projects editor for Make Magazine, will moderate.

Maker Faire, produced by Make magazine, is a two-day festival of do-it-yourself science, engineering, art, and crafts. Maker Faires are held in various places around the US, but Maker Faire Bay Area, which takes place May 19 and 20 at the San Mateo Event Center, is the oldest and largest. About 150,000 people attend each year.

The map below shows the location.

2013 marks the 40th anniversary of the Skylab, America’s first space station.

Skylab began in the early 1960s when NASA managers, particularly those at the Marshall Space Flight Center, looked at ways to use modified Apollo hardware for lunar and earth-orbital scientific programs. The concepts were variously titled “Extended Apollo,” “Apollo X,” and the “Apollo Extension System.” By 1965, these studies became known as the “Apollo Applications Program,” or AAP. Two years later, the AAP proposal comprised 14 earth-orbital flights and 3 lunar missions, culminating in a two-week lunar surface expedition with a mobile laboratory. Such an expanded manned space program would need four launches each per year of both Saturn IB and Saturn V rockets.

Budget constraints forced the elimination of the lunar portion of AAP by the time of the Apollo landings and so many of AAP’s lunar exploration goals became part of Apollo that the expanded program became superfluous. AAP became strictly an earth-orbiting space station program with the elimination of the lunar expeditions. The initial concept was to use only the Saturn IB for the AAP space station. The first launch would comprise a manned CSM and the Mapping & Survey System (M&SS) module for Earth observation. Three days later, an unmanned Saturn IB was to blast off with a Multiple Docking Adapter (MDA) and airlock attached to the top of the S-IVB stage. Once the stage reached orbit, the astronauts were to rendezvous with it, attach the M&SS to one of the MDA ports, and convert the empty S-IVB into an orbiting laboratory. Electrical power for the laboratory came from two arrays of solar cells mounted on the S-IVB. The converted S-IVB was called the Orbital Workshop, or OWS.

The concept of transforming a previously live rocket stage into a space station was known as the “wet” workshop. A subsequent mission would deliver the Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM), a solar observatory, to the AAP station, where it would be docked to the MDA. The ATM was to use a LM ascent stage structure attached to a battery of telescopes where the descent stage would have been. Controls for the instruments replaced the normal LM instrument panels. Four arrays of solar panels provided electrical power for the ATM. It would have taken four launches to completely assemble the AAP cluster.

By the middle of 1969, there was a growing consensus within NASA that the wet workshop should be dropped in favor of a “dry” one launched by a Saturn V. Apollo 8’s success eliminated the need for one of the preliminary lunar missions, so a Saturn V became available for the space station program. With the dry workshop, the station would be fully outfitted before launch. The M&SS instruments would be housed inside the MDA, and the ATM would also be attached to the workshop during its initial launch. Mounted on a moveable truss, the ATM swung into position alongside the MDA once the station was in orbit. The redesigned ATM no longer used the LM Ascent Stage structure, and the instrument controls were mounted inside the MDA. The MDA had two docking ports for Apollo spacecraft.

Between the MDA and OWS, there was an airlock so astronauts could perform EVA’s without depressurizing the entire station. It had hatches on each end and an outward opening hatch for extravehicular activities. When designing the Airlock Module, engineers adapted the proven Gemini spacecraft hatch for the EVA hatch. For an EVA, the space-suited astronauts entered the airlock, sealed the end hatches, emptied the air from the compartment, then opened the Gemini-style hatch. Extravehicular activities were necessary to retrieve film canisters from the redesigned ATM. On February 17, 1970, AAP became Skylab.

Switching from the wet workshop to the dry workshop delayed the program, but NASA felt the delay was more than offset by the increased productivity by having a fully operable space station with the first launch. NASA converted S IV-B stage serial number 212 into the OWS. The converted stage had no engine. Within the workshop, what was originally the liquid hydrogen tank became the 10,000 – cubic foot laboratory and living area. The smaller liquid oxygen tank became a trash dump.

The MDA contained the control panel for the Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM), the Earth Resources Experiments Package (EREP), materials processing furnace, and other experimental equipment. Four solar arrays totaling 1,200 square feet extended from the ATM. The OWS had two solar array “wings” that were to unfold in orbit.

The Skylab OWS was launched on May 14, 1973. This was the last flight of a Saturn V, and the only two-stage version of the gigantic booster to be launched. The OWS had a thin metal shield to protect it from micrometeorites and shade it from the sun’s heat. Sixty-three seconds into the flight, the shield tore away, taking one of the two solar panels with it. The other panel was jammed shut by debris. These panels provided most of Skylab’s electricity. When Skylab reached orbit, the sun’s rays beat mercilessly on the OWS. Temperatures inside the station soared. Only the ATM solar arrays unfolded, providing just enough power to keep the station alive. Skylab was in danger of being a powerless, overheated derelict.

The launch of the first crew, comprising Pete Conrad, Joseph Kerwin, and Paul Weitz, was postponed while NASA engineers sought ways to salvage the program.

By orienting the station 45 degrees to the Sun, ground control brought Skylab’s internal temperature down to 130 degrees Fahrenheit. But, this came at a price — the ATM solar panels no longer faced the Sun, so even less power was available for critical systems. Working around the clock, teams devised several makeshift sun shades and created a tool kit to release the remaining solar array. One of the biggest challenges was that nobody knew precisely what the astronauts would find so three different shields were needed to handle various contingencies.

However, the question still remained, could Skylab be saved?

Northrop Grumman has completed a feasibility study of commercial lunar lander configurations for the Colorado-based Golden Spike Company. Part of the study includes a novel low-mass ascent stage concept, which Northrop Grumman calls Pumpkin.

Golden Spike plans to use existing or emerging rockets and capsules to provide a safe and efficient lunar transportation system that allows nations, individuals, and corporations to mount their own expeditions to the surface of the Moon. The lander is the only significant part of the architecture that needs to be designed from the ground up. Golden Spike engaged Northrop Grumman in 2012 to help with the lander design.

Northrop Grumman evaluated 180 lander configurations for loiter capabilities, staging, propellants, engines, surface duration, surface cargo, and technology.

The study confirmed the viability of various lander concepts for Golden Spike’s lunar expedition architecture and identified novel options using a minimalist pressurized ascent pod and descent stage with surface habitat. This unique approach meets Golden Spike’s objectives with all-storable propellants and reduces development risks and costs, Golden Spike said.

Northrop Grumman’s study leader Martin McLaughlin said, “This concept has significant operability advantages for surface exploration since the surface habitat can be segmented to isolate lunar dust and provides more space for living and for selecting the most valuable lunar return samples. We affectionately call the minimalist ascent pod Pumpkin due to its spherical shape.”

Golden Spike president and CEO Dr. Alan Stern said, “Northrop Grumman has done an exemplary job and helped advance Golden Spike’s technical approach to renewed human lunar exploration. The study’s results are very exciting and will help enable Golden Spike launch a new wave of human lunar exploration.”

Northrop Grumman’s participation brings heritage experience to Golden Spike. Northrop Grumman is a major aerospace and defense contractor whose heritage companies, Grumman and TRW, designed and built the Lunar Module and its Descent engine for the Apollo lunar missions.

Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) will soon move its VTVL reusable first-stage demonstrator, Grasshopper, to Spaceport New Mexico for further testing.

New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez announced that SpaceX has signed a three-year agreement to lease land and facilities at Spaceport America for the next phase of flight testing.

“I am thrilled that SpaceX has chosen to make New Mexico its home, bringing their revolutionary Grasshopper rocket and new jobs with them,” Governor Martinez said today. “We’ve done a lot of work to level the playing field so we can compete in the space industry. This is just the first step in broadening the base out at the Spaceport and securing even more tenants. I’m proud to welcome SpaceX to New Mexico.”

SpaceX has completed its first series of successful, low-altitude tests of the Grasshopper vehicle in McGregor, Texas.

SpaceX president and chief operating officer Gwynne Shotwell said, “Spaceport America offers us the physical and regulatory landscape needed to complete the next phase of Grasshopper testing. We are pleased to expand our reusable rocket development infrastructure to New Mexico.”

Christine Anderson, the NMSA Executive Director, said, “We are excited that SpaceX is coming to Spaceport America, where our first-class service will empower them to focus their full attention on their mission.”