SpaceX to launch first private space rocket on Saturday

In the early hours of Saturday morning, a rocket is scheduled to lift off from Cape Canaveral in Florida on a mission to deliver a capsule full of supplies to the International Space Station.

Such launches are unremarkable when government agencies are at the helm, but this flight is different. The launch of the Falcon 9 rocket and its Dragon capsule is in the hands of SpaceX, the first commercial company to attempt a rendezvous with the orbiting outpost.

This will be a momentous step towards the privatisation of space. Even a partially successful mission will strengthen Nasa’s plans to hand industry responsibility for sending cargo and ultimately crewed flights to low Earth orbit, allowing the agency to focus on other missions.

The launch, planned for 9.55am BST, is very much a test flight for SpaceX, the company founded by PayPal entrepreneur Elon Musk, and the chances of something going wrong, from the rocket misfiring to the capsule being lost in space, are real.

The Falcon 9 rocket has flown only twice before, successfully reaching orbit on both occasions. An earlier SpaceX rocket, Falcon-1, failed to reach orbit on its first three test flights, though the company has had no failures since.

“We have to allow for the fact that this is an extremely complex and tough flight. It’s a test flight, not a standard milk run,” said Alan Stern, a US aerospace consultant and former associate administrator in charge of science at Nasa. “Elon Musk and SpaceX have a tremendous track record, and when Falcon 1 failed, they stuck with it and made it work. They will have a failure again, because everyone does, but a test flight is a learning experience. Regardless of how successful the flight is, whether it’s complete or partial, it’s a big step forward. This is a sea change.”

For Saturday’s launch, the Dragon capsule will be stuffed with nearly half a tonne of food, water, clothing, batteries, laptops and lab equipment, but none of it is crucial for the space station crew.

If all goes to plan, the Dragon capsule will reach a preliminary orbit 10 minutes after take-off, deploy its solar arrays, and begin a series of engine burns to steer a course to the space station. En route, the capsule must check its position with GPS, shut down its thrusters and drift for a while, and demonstrate an abort manoeuvre to ensure it can back away from the space station if needed.

On day three of the mission, the Dragon capsule will fly under the orbiting station and make radio contact with the crew. Next, the capsule will loop out in front, over and then behind the space station at a distance of seven to 10km and hold its position – all the while flying above the Earth at 17,500mph.

The following day, the capsule will edge slowly towards the space station, and after a mock abort that orders the craft to retreat to a safe distance, it will approach to within 10 metres, so a crew member, Don Pettit, can grab it with a robotic arm and attach it to the station.

Once docked, the Dragon capsule will be emptied of its supplies, refilled with return cargo and sent back to Earth two weeks later, splashing down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California.

The mission is not private industry’s first foray into space exploration. Nasa contracts engineering firms like Boeing and Lockheed Martin to build its rockets, for example. But previously, companies were paid full costs to make them and a secured profit on top. The new scheme gives companies more initiative and aims to use market forces to drive down costs.

So far, Nasa has paid $381m to SpaceX, but the contract for resupply missions to the space station could ultimately earn the firm $1.6bn. The promise from SpaceX is to reduce today’s market rate per launch from around $150m to just $55m.

“The importance is outsourcing to the private sector things that formerly belonged to the government. The theory is that the private sector is more efficient, lower cost, and perhaps even higher performance,” said John Logsdon, a Nasa adviser and former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University.

The UK and European space industries are keen to see SpaceX succeed. “Companies like SpaceX bring in external investment and take a more commercial, entrepreneurial approach and that is growing the sector. They help other companies see that it is possible,” said John Paffett, director of telecoms and navigation at British satellite manufacturer SSTL.

“The downside is that in the launcher business you expect to have failures and when you are commercially funded, you are a lot more susceptible to risks and loss of investment confidence if you have problems. With the Falcon 9 launch, success is critical, and not just for SpaceX.”

The success of Nasa’s strategy will not be clear for a decade, according to Alain Charmeau, head of Astrium Space Transportation, which manufactures the Ariane family of commercial rockets. Nasa’s shuttle programme promised low-cost flights on a weekly basis, but ran up costs of $209bn on 130 or so missions in 30 years. “I am not being negative, I am just cautious. Space is not yet a market like the car industry, or even aeronautics,” he said.

Ongoing wrangling over Nasa’s budget and plans to commercialise space already threaten future cost savings. Nasa has invited four companies to compete for contracts to build and fly a crewed capsule, including Boeing, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Sierra Nevada. But Congress is pushing for Nasa to choose one. “You need competition to get the benefits of competitive pricing and ideas. Moving to one provider undercuts the whole idea of this initiative,” said Logsdon.

Source BY rawstory.com

Dirty secrets: What's behind carbon's rise?

Late last week, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), which hosts the US's official emission-counting agency, released data showing a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions from 2009 to 2010.

Now, consultants Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) has an analysis showing that greenhouse gas emissions rose by more than economic growth.

And this in a world where the vast majority of governments have endorsed reports saying that man-made climate change is set to bring serious impacts to societies and economies unless it's checked.

So what's going on?

The ORNL data shows a much higher growth in developing countries than in the developed world.

We're talking about CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture here.

And on that basis, China's emissions rose 10% in a year, India's 9%, the biggest contributers to a global leap of 6% - as ORNL says, making 2010 "by far the record year" for these emissions.

On a per-capita basis, of course, the two Asian giants are still some way behind the US and especially the Gulf states.

Graph The Energy Collective's graph from ORNL figures shows China taking a clear lead in emissions

But on a national basis, China has extended its lead over the US, with India now confirmed in third place.

Asia didn't feel the effects of the recession anywhere near as keenly as Europe and North America, and even in 2009, its emissions rose along with economic growth.

What's startling in the PwC figures is that as the world in general started to emerge from its economic woes, the carbon numbers rose faster than the financial ones.

Economic activity expanded by 5.1%; CO2 output by 5.8%.

In the jargon, this is an increase in carbon intensity - the exact reverse of what just about every government has pledged to bring about in their promises to the UN climate convention (UNFCCC).

PwC then asks the key question: in the light of these figures, what has to be done now to ensure emissions fall fast enough that the target of constraining the rise in global average temperatures below 2C from pre-industrial times can be met?

The answer they calculate is that it will require a cut in carbon intensity by 4.8% per year between now and 2050.

That's a rate that has hardly ever been achieved, except in the context of the collapse of communism or a major war.

The one big exception is China, which decarbonised at 5.8% per year during the 1990s, although it started from the standpoint of very poor fuel effiency and massive reliance on coal, so could be said to be plucking "low-hanging fruit".

In a sense, the numbers aren't a surprise. They're a logical extension of the twin-track approach that governments in general have had; we want to curb emissions, but we also want to grow.

Very few have implemented a policy framework that would enable this circle to be squared.

Analysts far more learned than your humble correspondent will assess feasible pathways and policy mixes in much more detail than here.

But in essence, I think there just is a small number of options on the table if the rate of decarbonisation and the 2C target are to be seriously pursued:

* rapid and widespread adoption of nuclear power (France decarbonised at 4.2% per year during the 1980s through this approach)

* rapid deployment of renewables and energy efficiency

* the development of a radically new technology that could deliver vast amounts of cheap electricity - nuclear fusion is the only clear contender

* cleaning up using geoengineering.

Some might add shale gas to that list as an intermediate step on the way to true low-carbon technologies. But the recent revelation that shifting from coal to gas has very little climatic benefit should surely give people making that argument pause for thought.

Exploring the fusion option would need above all a big injection of government investment.

While the estimated $18bn pricetag for building Iter, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, at Cadarache in France might seem steep, it's trivial compared against the vast sums being found in various back pockets to shore up the eurozone, for example.

Nuclear fusion explainer There are several approaches to nuclear fusion - but is society investing enough in them?

Given the unique potential of fusion, should equal sums not be going into other methods of reaching it, including laser fusion, so eggs are distributed between different baskets?

The second option would be the one favoured by many experts in the field.

But it's politically the hardest, because the economic levers to drive low-carbon investment barely exist anywhere in the world.

I can hear a sharp intake of breath from hundreds of government and government-linked experts, particularly in Europe, at that last comment, but I'd stand by it. At the scale identified by PwC (and it's far from alone), the economic carrots and sticks just aren't there.

It's proven by the ORNL and PwC figures. If the levers were there, the figures would be different.

PwC notes that a political agreement that could drive a high carbon price and other levers was expected to emerge from the Copenhagen summit.

But it manifestly didn't, and there's precious little chance of it any time soon.

And the fact that big CO2 rises and big economic growth are happening in developing countries makes it less likely than ever, because increasingly the developed world is looking at them and asking "why should we be the only ones to take a hit?"

Meanwhile, every investment in a new coal-fired power station, in tar sands and shale gas, locks those fuels into place for decades to come.

There is, of course, a fifth option in addition to the four I gave above, and increasingly it looks like being the one humanity is taking.

It is that we don't make the policy choices needed to meet 2C, and leave future generations to deal with the consequences.

Source BY bbc.co.uk