Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Private Space Technology Powers Up

Former astronaut Franklin Chang Diaz says the private sector can help NASA, and reckons he has the rocket to prove it.

By Brittany Sauser

Monday, October 05, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

In the coming weeks the Obama administration will decide the future of U.S. human spaceflight. A summary report by the committee tasked with reviewing NASA's current plans and providing recommendations suggests utilizing the commercial sector for unmanned, and perhaps manned, missions as a way to reduce government costs. Franklin Chang Diaz, a former NASA astronaut and founder and president of Ad Astra Rocket Company, agrees.

Rocket science: Franklin Chang Diaz (top) is a former NASA astronaut and founder of Ad Astra Rocket Company. The company has developed a prototype plasma rocket, the VX-200 (bottom), that recently achieved 201 kilowatts of power.
Credit: José Díaz, La Nación (top); Ad Astra Rocket Company (bottom)

Diaz spoke at the Space Investment Summit in Boston last week. His company--spun off from his work at NASA--is developing a propulsion system called the variable specific impulse magnetoplasma rocket (VASIMR) to replace traditional chemical systems, which are less suitable for deep space missions to Mars and beyond (read a previous interview with Diaz, in which he explains the technology.) Last week, a prototype VASIMR engine, the VX-200, achieved a significant target: 200 kilowatts of power, the amount necessary for the company to start developing its flight version, which is expected to be ready in 2013.

Technology Review spoke with Diaz at the summit.

Technology Review: In your talk today, you said that "NASA is a victim of its own success," and that now is the right time for the private sector. Could you expand on this?

Franklin Chang Diaz: The agency really transformed the world in space with the achievements of the moon landings, but the whole world changed, and NASA didn't change. NASA remained in the glory days of the past, and 40 years have gone by, and NASA is still the same NASA as the 1960s. And I don't mean it in a bad way. It was so wonderful what was done, and people were completely fascinated by it. But a new opportunity has been created because NASA's fascination with its own past in the present has created a gap, a hole, which is perfect for the private sector to move into.

The private sector is going to fill the void in rapid access to low earth orbit, allowing NASA to be NASA, to do what NASA was really meant to do, which is look forward to the frontier. Let the private enterprise build the base camp now that we know how to do it, and NASA can go conquer the summit.

Story continues below


TR: There are a lot of companies building technology for access to low earth orbit, but some still have years of development work and need funding. Can the private sector realistically get it done soon?

FCD: Absolutely. Rockets are not a new invention. Reliable rockets were built in World War II, and they were perfected by NASA in the 50s and 60s, and other countries as well. Also, the technology for rocket propulsion is not rocket science anymore. However, we do need advanced propulsion, which is a completely untapped area of research; very little work has been done, and we need to move into that realm because we are not going to get to Mars on chemical rockets. It is going to be too fragile and too dangerous [of a mission] for chemical rockets.

Comments

  • >>> NOT all the "commercial space" is interesting like the VASIMR and (surely) NOT "cheaper" than "old.space" >>>
    .

    as clearly explained in my comment to this Technology Review article [ http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22869/ ] NOT all the "commercial space" is interesting like the VASIMR and (surely) NOT "cheaper" than old.space hardware

    in fact, the new.space cargo-to-ISS will cost between $60M to $95M per ton, that is a price HIGHER that the (already very high) Shuttles and EELVs cargo payloads costs, as explained here:

    http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/042moneywasted.html

    and here: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1447/1

    in other words, the "new.space" companies can't "save" NASA then NASA (absolutely) can't rely on them to replace the Shuttles, Ares, Orion, etc.

    it's only a big and sad illusion... like the Ares-1

    .
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Gaetano Mara...
    10/05/2009
    Posts:139
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • A Rocket Is a Rocket
    Nice interview. It feels good to see such passion for space exploration. The human species is naturally curious. We have exploration in the genes. I found this argument by Mr. Diaz rather interesting:

    Absolutely. Rockets are not a new invention. Reliable rockets were built in World War II, and they were perfected by NASA in the 50s and 60s, and other countries as well. Also, the technology for rocket propulsion is not rocket science anymore. However, we do need advanced propulsion, which is a completely untapped area of research; very little work has been done, and we need to move into that realm because we are not going to get to Mars on chemical rockets. It is going to be too fragile and too dangerous [of a mission] for chemical rockets.

    I very much agree with this. Chemical rockets must go. Too dangerous and expensive. But are magnetoplasma rockets the solution to the solar system colonization problem? I'm not so sure and here is why.

    As Mr. Diaz observed, rockets are not a new invention. A rocket is a rocket. They are all based on the same basic principle of propulsion. A spaceship powered by non-chemical rockets still has to carry fuel and/or propellant on board. This puts a severe limit on both speed and travel distance. The problem with any kind of rocket is that you have to spend as much time accelerating as you spend decelerating. And the faster you travel, the more fuel you're going to need to carry for acceleration and deceleration. Finally, it's a good bet that magnetoplasma rockets will be just as expensive as traditional rocket technology because it's also going to require complex control and containment machinery and subsystems. Complexity implies lower reliability.

    The only way for the space transportation industry to free itself from the technological shackles of the baby-boomer century is to abandon rocket propulsion altogether. Obviously, this will not happen any time soon if the industry is forced to rely on 20th century physics for a solution. But that's what you get for thinking inside the box and your technology is only as advanced as your thinking. Well, thinking outside the box is what I've been doing. And I mean, way outside the box. I have excellent cause to suppose that physics is about to undergo a radical paradigm shift that will forever transform the way we travel and generate power.

    A reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion leads to the inescapable conclusion that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. Soon, we'll use the lattice for both propulsion and clean energy production. We'll have vehicles that can go almost anywhere at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring any damage due to inertial effects. Floating cities, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That's the future of energy and travel.

    My advice to all policy decision makers in the global transportation arena is to take a careful look at the writing on the wall and prepare yourselves for the coming changes.

    The Problem with Motion
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Mapou
    10/05/2009
    Posts:86
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Energy Storage?
    The big problem seems to be energy storage. Since VASIMR uses electrical energy to energize the plasma, the question remains where the electrical energy will come from. A little poking around reveals that they are considering solar power and nuclear power for a potential martian voyage.

    Solar power would obviously be problematic for voyages to Mars. Also I would be concerned about the panels failing, and leaving humans stranded in space. Nuclear would work, but then I don't understand why we would need VASIMR, instead of a nuclear thermal system, which have already been developed.

    Sorry if I've misunderstood the issue.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    knb01
    10/05/2009
    Posts:6
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: Energy Storage?
      Nuclear would work, but then I don't understand why we would need VASIMR, instead of a nuclear thermal system, which have already been developed.

      Solid-core nuclear thermal has an exhaust velocity of ~12,000m/s as an absolute maximum. NERVA, (which you are alluding to), tops out at ~8000m/s using hydrogen.

      VASIMR gets ~29,000m/s in high-thrust mode, and ten times that in high impulse mode.

      The amount of deltaV you have is directly proportional to the exhaust velocity. This means that your propellant efficiency is determined by exhaust velocity, the faster your propellant flies out the back the less you need.

      To get NTR into the efficiency range of VASIMR means going to open-core designs. Even then, NTR can't match VASIMR in high-impulse mode.

      (For scale, the space shuttle main engines get 4400m/s and you can't do much better.)
      Rate this comment: 12345

      rwpikul
      10/05/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      • Re: Energy Storage?
        NERVA had an ISP of ~825s in a vacuum. Vasimir, when fully implemented, has a reported ISP of 30,000s to 50,000s.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Shootist
        10/12/2009
        Posts:6
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • Promising Promises
    Very interesting and promising technology for deep space propulsion.

    On the commercial is chepaer front, the REAL issue, as identified by Mike Griffin a few weeks ago, is "What Commercial Sector?"

    The CURRENT problem is that until orbital space tourism becomes commonplace, there will not be the economies of scale to significantly reduce launch costs.  The commercial space launch business is currently tiny, (about 1 launch per year per firm) and these startups are struggling to survive.

    Of course, they are quite willing to canabalize our manned space exploration program in order to stay in business.

    In another decade the picture may be very different, but for now, NASA is the only real ticket beyond LEO.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    NelsonBridwe...
    10/05/2009
    Posts:6
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Promising Promises
      I find it interesting that the post critical of privatespace referenced a SpaceReview article written by a Lockheed Martin drone in direct competition with same. 

      Funny, actually.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      DocM
      10/07/2009
      Posts:1
  • Not Renewable Propulsion
    We still need something that can take us far out into the solar system.

    Nuclear particle propulsion, ion plasma propulsion and other non-renewables cannot do the job.

    Solar sails using solar winds/particles would work if could effectively control direction in space.

    We need renewable propulsion. Here is one example that uses the collection of cosmic particles as resuable propulsion accelerating mass.

    http://nlspropulsion.net/Documents/propulsion_poster.pdf

    Dr. Diaz is on the right path but feel further improvements need to be made on his technology to achieve renewable propulsion in space.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    holoman
    10/07/2009
    Posts:25
    Avg Rating:
    2/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.