And here’s the megafeed of everything I’ve been doing.
There’s clearly a split over this topic within NASA and their advisory groups. My guess is that “load and go” is going to win out in the end. If SpaceX can put together a strong, reliable 2017, with the above report from NASA’s Safety Technical Review Board in hand, this issue could be put to bed once and for all.
While we don’t yet have hard details on which direction NASA programs are headed during the Trump administration, we have started to get some hints. The leadership of the Congressional subcommittees that NASA depends on will be largely unchanged, and Boeing and SpaceX were each promised 4 more Commercial Crew flights. I also talk a little bit about how the Air Force One and F-35 situations apply to NASA programs.
Roscosmos posted a statement on their site about the investigation, but hasn’t updated their English site just yet. Anatoly Zak of RussianSpaceWeb.com has a nice wrap-up.
Thanks to sghill over on the NASASpaceFlight forums who uploaded the Supplemental Environmental Assessment for SpaceX’s LZ-1 expansion plans. There are some really nice details hidden among a lot of boring details. Head over to the post if you want to download the full PDF.
SpaceX wrapped up their investigation into the Amos-6 explosion, and the news is mixed. I discuss their findings, their path back to flight, and some other 2016-2017 odds and ends.
Thanks to my producers and supporters for the month of December, and throughout 2016. If you’re getting some value out of what I do here and want to send a little value back to help support Main Engine Cut Off, head over to Patreon and donate as little as $1 a month—every little bit helps.
Inmarsat, under regulatory pressure to get flying, decided to take a mid-2017 launch slot on Ariane 5, moving away from Falcon Heavy. Everyone thinks it’s a big deal, but for the wrong reason. And SpaceX’s Commercial Crew flights have been delayed, but we did find out that NASA’s Safety Technical Review Board approved their plan to load crew before fueling. That is a big deal.
The inevitable delay has been confirmed—approximately a six-month push–which is not surprising. The more important and meaningful revelation that came yesterday, per Jeff Foust of SpaceNews, was about the Falcon 9 propellant loading procedures as it pertains to crewed launches.
National Geographic posted a clip with fantastic behind-the-scenes footage from the first successful Falcon 9 landing. The emotion from every person who works at SpaceX is wonderful to watch—from the crowd behind mission control, to Gwynne Shotwell hugging and high-fiving anyone nearby, to Elon Musk running like a little kid after it lands.
Four months ago, we heard about the tricky situation Inmarsat is in with this satellite. It’s not a big surprise that they switched, and while it’s a bad look for SpaceX, it’s not that big of a deal. Yet.
A Progress launch failed on its way to the ISS, so I discuss how this may affect the politics of the ISS and NASA going forward. And then I get into some thoughts on satellite servicing in general, and specifically surrounding Restore-L and Orbital ATK’s Mission Extension Vehicle. This episode of Main Engine Cut Off is brought to you by 3 executive producers—@spacepat_o, Matt Giraitis, and one anonymous—and 25 other supporters on Patreon.
One of the big hurdles that satellite servicing needs to jump in order to become a viable market in the current era is the ability to work with satellites not specifically designed to be serviced. For that reason, it’ll be interesting to follow along with this mission as it progresses.
Thanks to my patrons for the month of November. If you’re getting some value out of what I do here and want to send a little value back to help support Main Engine Cut Off, head over to Patreon and donate as little as $1 a month—every little bit helps.
Tory Bruno took to the stage to announce RocketBuilder, their new way to market and sell Atlas V launch services. I discuss my initial thoughts about it and what the announcement means for ULA going forward in the commercial market.
The announcement didn’t contain breaking news or mind-blowing visions of the future, but that doesn’t mean it was entirely inconsequential. It showed that ULA is learning how to speak to the market, and they’re finding new ways to reach out to potential customers. We’ll see just how many customers they get out of this effort, but their improved messaging should not go unnoticed.
Marcia Smith of SpacePolicyOnline.com got her hands on a draft of the upcoming NASA authorization act.
We must be getting really close to that first launch.
A website alone won’t attract more customers, so it’s tough to read the tea leaves and say what exactly is transformative about the announcement. But the existence of the announcement alone shows how much of an effort ULA is making towards becoming competitive in commercial launch services.
Lately when I’ve been talking about political and financial tradeoffs made to sustain programs, I’ve been focusing on NASA’s exploration program, but the same things are true of Ariane 6.
Next week will be very interesting to watch. Keep an eye out for any and all decisions coming out of Lucerne, Switzerland.