Digital Sprocket

Many of us are fans of spaceflight, and we believe that the government and/or private industry should make a greater commitment to developing space capabilities. However, must of us don’t do anything about it beyond complaining to our fellow enthusiasts on message boards and blogs. There are plenty of things we could do, like writing to our Congressmen, joining the Mars or Planetary Societies, even seeking employment in the New Space businesses.

This month I’m taking action to promote the future of spaceflight. Ok, so it’s a little step, but at least it is action. The reason I’m interested in spaceflight is not because of all of the benefits it will have for mankind. Sure that’s part of it, but those reasons are later additions to my core passion for the subject. In reality, I was addicted to spaceflight as a child. NASA documentaries and propaganda on TV, in magazines, in books, and in my school created a desire in most of my classmates to launch ourselves into outer space. In the long run, I think this was a good thing, and want to pass that experience on to future generations. So, I have started a Young Astronauts Club.

I work at an English language immersion camp in South Korea. For our month-long summer program we created a dozen clubs for students to choose between. My creation is the Young Astronauts Club. My wife and I put a short video together to promote the club to the students.

Over the course of the month, we will build a scale model of the solar system, perform an egg drop, build a model space station or moon base, program Lego robots, and launch paper rockets.

I was inspired to set up the club because of the recent flight of Yi So Yeon, the Korean astronaut. I wanted to give my students a stronger connection to her trip to the ISS, and show them how they could do the same thing. I’m just trying to plant the seeds of future spaceflight into the fertile minds of today.

We’ve established that the “stick”, the Ares booster, is not the most desirable launch vehicle for the Orion capsule. But what alternatives are there to the shuttle derived solid rocket booster?

Popular alternatives are the Atlas 5 and Delta IV boosters. The DoD dumped millions of dollars into the EELV, or Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program after the Challenger accident. The military decided they could no longer rely on the Space Shuttle for their future launch needs, especially for classified payloads. Thus the EELV program helped Boeing and Lockheed Martin develop improved medium lift launchers capable of lofting 20,000 – 25,000kg into Low Earth Orbit. The Delta or Atlas would still need to be upgraded to a “man rating”, but at least they have a known flight record with all of the accompanying engineering data.

Unfortunately, the current plans for the Orion capsule put it at 29,000kg. This is definitely over the numbers listed for the current generation of Delta and Atlas boosters. If NASA pursued the EELV rout, they’d still have to design the capsule to fit the booster, rather than selecting a booster to fit the mission needs. Either that, or they must invest in a second round of EELV development.

What other options are there? How about the “New Space” companies? A quick peek at the SpaceX yields interesting returns. Their Falcon 9 Heavy booster is advertised as able to lift 29,600kg to LEO. This is just what NASA needs. Even better, they, “anticipate the first availability of the Falcon 9 Heavy in 2010.”

Unfortunately, SpaceX lacks a proven track record. They have yet to orbit a payload with their Falcon 1, let alone the much larger and more complex Falcon 9. Their third attempt is scheduled to occur in the next few weeks, so they may be a contender, but they have no proven track record, and the Falcon 9 Heavy still needs a great deal of development work before you rely on it for your future plans.

Where am I going with all of this? There are several imperfect solutions to lofting the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. Any one of them could be used with some additional development. NASA would be much better off selecting the booster by establishing criteria, and going through a competitive bidding process. NASA really shouldn’t care how the Orion reaches orbit, as long as it does so safely, and there are several companies that could achieve that result.

NASA should, instead, focus on those things no one else is doing. The current lunar and Martian plans call for a massive heavy lift vehicle that can lift 70 – 150 tons into LEO. This requires a booster on the scale of the mighty Saturn V rocket from the Apollo era. There a re no rockets of this class operating today. Yes, NASA’s expects to fill this need with the Ares V, a Shuttle derived system based on the external tank and a pair of solid boosters.

There’s nothing wrong with this idea except that there’s no real funding for development until after the “stick” is operational. And any large project that is delayed like this faces a real risk of death through budget cuts. While the Ares I is a duplication of existing or soon to be developed commercial systems, the Ares V will provide new capabilities. Without the heavy lift capability, lunar exploration will hit a brick wall. NASA should focus on developing these new capabilities, and let industry design all lesser systems.

Just a quick note that NASA has released the schedule for  the final 8 Shuttle flights to be distributed over 2009 and 2010.  Here’s the full release:

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:42:03 -0500

From: info@JSC.NASA.GOV

Subject: NASA SETS LAUNCH DATES FOR REMAINING SPACE SHUTTLE MISSIONS

July 7, 2008

Kyle Herring

Johnson Space Center, Houston

281-483-5111

John Yembrick

Headquarters, Washington

202-358-0602

Report #H08-167

NASA SETS LAUNCH DATES FOR REMAINING SPACE SHUTTLE MISSIONS

HOUSTON — Following a detailed, integrated assessment, NASA selected target launch dates for the remaining eight space shuttle missions on the current manifest in 2009 and 2010. The manifest includes one flight to the Hubble Space Telescope, seven assembly flights to the International Space Station, and two station contingency flights, planned to be completed before the end of fiscal year 2010. The agency previously selected Oct. 8 and Nov. 10 as launch dates for Atlantis’ STS-125 mission to service Hubble and Endeavour’s STS-126 / ULF-2 mission to supply the space station and service both Solar Alpha Rotary Joints on the port and starboard end of its truss backbone that supports equipment and solar arrays.

The approved target dates are subject to change based on processing and other launch vehicle schedules. They reflect the agency’s commitment to complete assembly of the station and to retire the shuttle fleet as transition continues to the new launch vehicles, including Ares and Orion.

SHUTTLE FLIGHTS IN 2009

Feb. 12 — Discovery (STS-119 / 15A) will kick off a five-flight 2009 with its 36th mission to deliver the final pair of U.S. solar arrays to be installed on the starboard end of the station’s truss. The truss serves as the backbone support for external equipment and spare components, including the Mobile Base System. Lee Archambault will command the 14-day flight that will include four planned spacewalks. Joining him will be pilot Tony Antonelli and mission specialists John Phillips, Steve Swanson, Joseph Acaba, Richard Arnold and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency astronaut Koichi Wakata. Wakata will replace Sandy Magnus on the station as a flight engineer. STS-119 marks the 28th shuttle flight to the station.

May 15 — Endeavour (STS-127 / 2JA) sets sail on its 23rd mission with the Japanese Kibo Laboratory’s Exposed Facility and Experiment Logistics Module Exposed Section, the final permanent components of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s contribution to the station program. During the 15-day mission, Endeavour’s crew will perform five spacewalks and deliver six new batteries for the P6 truss, a spare drive unit for the Mobile Transporter and a spare boom assembly for the Ku-band antenna. Mark Polansky will be Endeavour’s commander with Doug Hurley as pilot. Mission specialists will be Christopher Cassidy, Tom Marshburn, Dave Wolf, Tim Kopra and Canadian Space Agency astronaut Julie Payette. Kopra will become a station flight engineer replacing Koichi Wakata, who will return home with the STS-127 crew. It will be the 29th shuttle flight to the station.

July 30 — Atlantis (STS-128 / 17A) launches on its 31st flight, an 11-day mission carrying science and storage racks to the station. In the payload bay will be a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module holding science and storage racks. Three spacewalks are planned to remove and replace a materials processing experiment outside the European Space Agency’s Columbus module and return an empty ammonia tank assembly. The mission includes the rotation of astronaut Nicole Stott for Tim Kopra, who will return to Earth with the shuttle crew. The remaining crew members have yet to be named. STS-128 marks the 30th shuttle flight dedicated to station assembly and outfitting.

Oct. 15 — Discovery’s (STS-129 / ULF-3) 37th mission will focus on staging spare components outside the station. The 15-day flight includes at least three spacewalks. The payload bay will carry two large External Logistics Carriers holding two spare gyroscopes, two nitrogen tank assemblies, two pump modules, an ammonia tank assembly, a spare latching end effector for the station’s robotic arm, a spare trailing umbilical system for the Mobile Transporter and a high-pressure gas tank. Canadian Space Agency astronaut Bob Thirsk will return home aboard Discovery with its crew, which has yet to be named. STS-129 marks the 31st shuttle mission devoted to station assembly.

Dec. 10 — Endeavour (STS-130 / 20A) will close 2009 with its 24th mission to deliver the final connecting node, Node 3, and the Cupola, a robotic control station with six windows around its sides and another in the center that provides a 360-degree view around the station. At least three spacewalks are planned during the 11-day mission. The 32nd station assembly mission by a shuttle does not yet have a crew named.

SHUTTLE FLIGHTS IN 2010

Feb. 11 — Atlantis (STS-131 / 19A) begins its 32nd mission as the first flight in 2010, carrying a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module filled with science racks that will be transferred to laboratories of the station. The 11-day mission will include at least three spacewalks to attach a spare ammonia tank assembly outside the station and return a European experiment that has been outside the Columbus module. It will be the 33rd shuttle mission to the station. The crew has yet to be named.

April 8 — Discovery’s (STS-132 / ULF-4) 38th mission will carry an integrated cargo carrier to deliver maintenance and assembly hardware, including spare parts for space station systems. In addition, the second in a series of new pressurized components for Russia, a Mini Research Module, will be permanently attached to the bottom port of the Zarya module. The Russian module also will carry U.S. pressurized cargo. The first Russian Mini Research Module to go to the station is scheduled to launch on a Russian rocket in the summer of 2009.

Additionally, at least three spacewalks are planned to stage spare components outside the station, including six spare batteries, a boom assembly for the Ku-band antenna and spares for the Canadian Dextre robotic arm extension. A radiator, airlock and European robotic arm for the Russian Multi-purpose Laboratory Module also are payloads on the flight. The laboratory module is scheduled for launch on a Russian rocket in 2011. The mission marks the 34th mission to the station. The STS-132 crew has yet to be named.

May 31 — Endeavour’s (STS-133 / ULF-5) 25th mission will carry critical spare components that will be placed on the outside of the station. Those will include two S-band communications antennas, a high-pressure gas tank, additional spare parts for Dextre and micrometeoroid debris shields. At least three spacewalks are planned to be carried out by the crew, which has yet to be named. The 15-day mission will be the 35th to the station.

For the shuttle launch manifest, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/iss_manifest.html

For details on upcoming shuttle missions and their crews, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/shuttle

I’m about to criticize NASA’s planes for the near future, so I’d like to state for the record that I am a fan a NASA and all that the organization has accomplished. I love NASA, and have no desire to see it dissolved, undercut, or otherwise destroyed. Having said that, I’d like to point out that the current steps being taken for our follow on vehicle to the Space Shuttle, are all backwards.

When planning a space mission, you usually start by determining the goals of the mission. The goals may be “to search for the evidence of past water on Mars,” or, “before this decade is out, to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth.”

Once you have your mission objectives you can start to decide what tools and systems are needed to fulfill the mission. These become the engineering specifications that determine the size and shape of the spacecraft. Then you can go out and buy launch services on a Pegasus for small payloads, a Delta II or IV for larger payloads.  Or if you need to, you can start designing a new booster that fits the needs of the mission.

In pursuing President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration, NASA started with the booster design, not the mission objectives. This has lead to an odd design cycle. Once they decided to use a shuttle derived solid booster for the crew vehicle launcher, that drove the design of the Crew Exploration Vehicle now known as the Orion capsule. Unfortunately, once they determined the mission objectives, they realized the “stick” lacked the thrust to push the Orion into space. NASA was forced to add a fifth segment to the solid booster to achieve the required thrust. They also discovered that using a Space Shuttle Main Engine for the upper stage was impractical. So they swapped the SSME for a to-be-redesigned Saturn era J2 engine.

The whole point of using Shuttle derived hardware was that it was already man rated. Thus it would dramatically reduce development and testing time and money. With the modifications now in place, everything must follow the full proofing process, and loses the advantages of using derived systems.

Few NASA observers thought the stick was a great solution when it was first proposed. We were willing to accept it because development was supposed to be quick, inexpensive, and take advantage of technical continuity with the Shuttle program. Now that those benefits are quickly dissolving, we should reexamine whether the stick is the right booster to put the Orion in orbit, or even if the Orion is the right vehicle at all.

In my next post, we’ll explore possible alternatives based on one simple idea: NASA should do those things that only NASA can do.

Planet, dwarf planet, Plutoid… What a mess. I was fortunate enough to hear Dava Sobel speak shortly after Pluto’s initial demotion. She was part of the committee that was tasked with developing a definition for planet. Let’s just say that the formally announced definition was not what the committee recommended. Further more, over half the astronomers had left the convention before the definition came up for a vote. With a large number of scientists feeling left out, and disgruntled after the last debacle, it’s no real surprise that they are once more tackling this issue.

What is surprising is that the scientific community is not taking a scientific approach to labeling Pluto and other bodies in our solar system. Here’s what I mean. If you call Pluto a plutoid, it is a label that really only makes sense in our solar system. We are in the middle of a great hunt for extra solar planets. Let’s take a page from Launius and create a system to describe these bodies wherever we find them in the universe. A good system should describe both the origin of the body, and its relationship to the system in which is exists. Let’s take a stab at creating one such system.

First, if it’s round by it’s own gravity, let’s call it a planetoid. If not, we could call it an asteroidal body. How about composition? Is it mostly solid, liquid, or gaseous? We should probably add a tag line for with crust. We might want to describe the primary composition of the body as well. Is it mostly water, iron, methane, etc? We should also consider their size. Anything smaller than 3000km in diameter could be micro, while anything up to 20,000km is dwarf, bodies up to 80,000km are large, and over 80,000 is a giant. Thus the Earth might be a planetoid, iron liquid (with crust), dwarf body, while Mars is a planetoid, iron, solid, dwarf body. These could easily be abbreviated PILD, and PISD. The system is also useful, because as soon as you look at the descriptors for Mars and the Earth, it’s obvious that the two are similar, but not identical.

Next, we need to describe the relationship between our objects and their orbital system. If it orbits a star, it’s Solar centric. If it orbits a planetoid or asteroidal body, then it’s body centric. Next we have eccentric orbit vs. round orbit. Maybe we need to distinguish between highly eccentric like comets and more moderately eccentric. We should probably include a comment for objects that periodically change what body they orbit. I’m not sure it matters if they’ve “cleared their orbit” as it’s described in the planetary definition, but we can include a cleared or shared orbit. Then we also need to label how closely the body orbits its center. There are many ways we could do this. We could list the orbital period, or average orbital diameter. My initial proposition is that for solar centric bodies we break them down by inner, habitable, outer, and far outer zones. Others may disagree with that designator, but it’s a nice human-centric designator. So the Earth might be designated cleared orbit, habitable, solar centric body, or CHS for short.

Now that we have a meaningful system, when an astronomer speaks, his fellows will immediately and accurately know what he is talking about. If, at a conference, he proposes a new space telescope to search for extra solar PCHILDS, the other astronomers will nod their heads sagely, the media will complain that we need spend our money on P-children in this solar system, and the congressmen will ask if it can be built in their district.

There was a day, long ago when no human lived inside a house. That’s a difficult concept to wrap your head around, because most of us spend most of our time inside houses, offices, factories, or other man made environments. In the past hundred years we’ve also built a wide variety of mobile environments like cars and airplanes. These structures provide many benefits. They help keep us warm in winter, cool in summer, improve food storage, protect us from predators, and generally make our lives better. It’s hard to picture life without even a grass hut or an improved cave, but there was a time before these inventions.

Humans lived for centuries before we invented structures. People were born under the stars, squatted in the wind and rain, found mates, and propagated the species without the benefits of buildings. The eventual shift from living under the canopy of the heavens to the ubiquitous use of buildings had a profound impact on human society social structures. Social interaction tends to shift from the family to the community of people living near each other. Hierarchies based on possession can evolve like city-states, and monarchies. Even warfare makes more sense when the warring parties own towns and cities. The changes that moving into structures has caused or contributed to are so widespread that they are often hard to identify.

Human society is on the cusp of a similar change. We are moving from physical environments to digitally manufactured environments. Now I’m not saying we live in cyberspace, but we are spending more and more time in electronically generated spaces of our own choosing. What is making this possible is the ubiquitous spread of portable digital hardware, especially networked devices. When I drive down the street, I see many people with head bowed and headphones in their ears. They are text-messaging friends, playing video games, or watching videos. The first thing many of us do when we return home, or enter our office is turn on the computer and jump into our email.

Other authors have previously noted how online relationships and communities are affecting society. They tend to be geographically dispersed, open to new members, but insular in ideas. New cell phone applications and handheld devices that take advantage of wireless networks are starting to allow us to take these communities with on the road, outside our structures. Add to that the ability to constantly choose our own audio input, whether that’s rock and roll, ocean waves, or an audio book, and the ability to choose video for visual stimulation, and you have something as profound as building a house. We do not know what impacts this will have on our society. After all, it took millennia for us to build houses with air conditioners, refrigerators, indoor plumbing, even furniture, and just as long to build the society I was born into. What form of society will our children be born into and inherit?

Some of my Korean friends are concerned about criticisms they have been hearing about Yi So Yeon’s recent visit to the ISS. Apparently, some commentators in the media claim that she’s not an astronaut at all. I have not read any sources making this claim, but it is upsetting to many Koreans.

First they felt great pride in joining the space faring nations. Now they see the event with some bitterness. And it has caused some discussion as to whether or not the trip was a waste of money. Now Yi So Yeon is in the hospital with back pain. The whole experience is starting to sour.

Korea has every right to be proud of their new astronaut. According to every dictionary I look in, an astronaut is someone who travels to space. Space is defined as that area higher than 100 km in altitude. Some definitions go on further to say an astronaut is someone who is trained to live and work in space. Let’s see…do these criteria apply to Yi So Yeon? Absolutely.

Was she merely a tourist along for the ride? No. She conducted 18 experiments while on orbit. Her selection process in Korea was as rigorous as that of any NASA astronaut. It included both physical and mental tests, even a Marathon, and an English language exam. She worked hard to earn the chance at this flight. She performed well on orbit, and even had an easier time adapting to microgravity than some of the other professionals.

Perhaps the greatest value of her mission was not the science experiments that she completed, nor in the national pride generated. More importantly, The Republic of Korea now has enough experience to decide if they should invest in a space program. Before her flight, they had no real meter stick against which to measure various options. Now the South Korean government can evaluate the costs and benefits of investing future flights, and make decisions wisely.

Astronauts and Cosmonauts aboard the International Space Station spend two hours a day exercising to keep bone and muscle loss to a minimum. Bones become brittle and muscles waste away in microgravity without constant work. Current exercise regimes include a bicycle ergometer (stationary bicycle), a treadmill for running, and the Resistive Exercise Device that simulates weight lifting with elastic bands. That’s not a whole lot of options. How could we increase the variety with increasing the equipment?

I would like to suggest we add yoga to the list of exercise regimes. When you think of yoga, you probably think of guys turning themselves into pretzels, but the art is really good at building a core of strength as well as flexibility.

Most yoga positions rely on gravity, but not all do. For example there is a version of uttanasana, forward bend, where you lock your fingers around your big toes before straightening your legs. No gravity needed there to stretch the back, and put stress on the leg joints and muscles. Other positions could be similarly modified to make them more effective in micro, or lunar gravity. A trained yoga instructor with a strong foundation in physiology should also be able to develop sequences to help alleviate back pain, which is a common orbital complaint.

I did a little research, looking for any references to yoga in space, or NASA studies, but there’s almost no information out there. In 1984 Squadron Leader Rakesh Sharma of India spent a little over a week on Russia’s Salyut 7. One of his experiments was using yoga to combat motion sickness. If anyone knows the results of his experiments, I’d love to hear about it.

Yes, it’s been twelve months since my last post. So, I thought I’d give a quick run down of spaceflight activities for the past year. It’s been a busy one with many exciting developments.

Let’s start with the ISS’s growth spurt. The installation of ESA’s Columbus module, and JAXA’s Kibo Pressurized Logistics Module, and NASA’s Node 2 Harmony greatly expanded that habitable volume of the orbital outpost. It also means that. ESA and JAXA activated their own control rooms to support their modules. ESA also wins bonus points for finally getting Jules Vern, their first ATV cargo ship off the ground last month. After several rendezvous tests, the unmanned vehicle automatically docked to a Russian port. Just the other day, Jules Vern fired two of its four engines to boost the Space Station’s orbit.

Canada also has new hardware on orbit. Dexter, a two-armed extension for the Canada Arm II, accompanied the Kibo module on STS-123. It’s designed to complete some of the maintenance and repair tasks usually handle by space walking astronauts. Considering how dangerous those activities are, Dexter is a welcome contribution to this great experiment in space.

The ISS also played host to numerous international astronauts. Germany’s Hans Schlegel helped install ESA’s Columbus module on STS-122. Frances’s Leopold Eyharts also rode up on STS-122 and remained on orbit for a month to configure Columbus before returning on STS-123. Japan’s Takao Doi flew aboard STS-123 to deliver and install the Kibo PLM. South Korea also sent its first astronaut into space. Engineer Yi So Yeon joined Russia’s most recent Soyuz taxi flight. She spent ten days on orbit, and introduced the crew to some Korean foods including spicy kimchi, and fermented soybean paste. Both of which I can personally confirm are delicious, as I currently reside just north of Seoul. Soon the ISS may boast both an international cuisine as well as an international crew.

In other news, NASA’s project Orion is proceeding. The mockup capsule for the launch abort test is complete. Orbital Sciences is building the abort tower that will cap the module. Launch pad modifications are under way for the Ares I-X test. The dummy upper stage for the test is also complete. NASA also conducted numerous airbag tests to see if the vehicle can safely perform a landing on dry ground. They performed drop tests for the larger parachutes needed for the extended five segment solid booster. It’s great to see real hardware under construction and in tests.

The private sector hasn’t been sitting on its laurels either. Bigelow Aerospace successfully launched Genesis II, and is pushing forward with plans for full-scale inflatable orbital modules.

Armadillo Aerospace again failed to capture the Lunar Lander Challenge at the XPrize Cup. However, they were the only team to field a vehicle, and their repeat attempts were the highlight of the Cup. They also posses an experimental launch permit which has allowed them to log a great deal of low altitude flight time beyond tethered flights. They also have a modular sub-orbital design, which looks like it could be a commercial success.

SpaceX still hasn’t orbited any hardware, but progress continues on the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9. Flights of both are still scheduled for this year, and the company has plenty of paying customers lined up. They’ve improved their Merlin engine with a regeneratively cooled version that increases the available thrust, and their engine test stand has been keeping their neighbors on their toes. SpaceX is still on track for the COTS program, and has past several critical reviews and funding milestones. NASA also awarded them an indefinite quantity, indefinite time contract for launch services to be specified as needed.

Scaled Composites/ The Spaceship Company has had the roughest year. They had an engine blow up on a test stand. The accident resulted in two deaths, and has slowed down development work on SpaceShip II. Burt Rutan is in it for the long haul, and is an experienced aircraft designer. They will investigate the causes of the accident, and prevent it from occurring again. This will not end the SpaceShip II program. One interesting idea to come out of Virgin Galactic is that this model could be used for point to point supersonic flights as well as space tourism.

One last note: NASA finally managed to get rid of Rocket Plane Kistler and re-award their portion of the COTS contract to Orbital Sciences. RPK failed to make required funding deadlines. Few space insiders really believed RPK had the muscle to launch any hardware into space. Their K-1 vehicle has been “90% complete” for the past five years, and they haven’t done anything in that time but burn money. Orbital Sciences was a new aerospace startup during the Reagan administration. They still think like a small, young organization, but they have a successful development track record including three launch vehicles.

Of the seven launch vehicles mentioned below, three have experienced terminal failures in the past twelve months. This is just a reminder that what these people do is difficult, and success cannot be taken for granted.

April 7 - ISS Expedition 15 launches in a Soyuz-TMA From Baikonur Cosmodrome. The crew includes Commander Fyodor Yurchikhin, Flight Engineer Oleg Kotov, and Spaceflight Participant Charles Simonyi.

April 19 – Bigelow Aerospace will launch Genesis II, their second subscale inflatable demonstrator aboard a dnepr rocket from ISC Kosmotras Space and Missile Complex near Yasny, Russia.

April 28 – UP Aerospace’s SpaceLoft will carry commercial and student payloads, including the remains of Gordon Cooper and James Doohan on a suborbital flight from New Mexico’s Space Port. This will be their second attempt after their launch failure in January.

Also in April, Armadillo Aerospace plans several test flights of Pixel, their Lunar Lander Challenge vehicle. The flights will take place at the Oklahoma Space Port.

In May or June, Space Shuttle Atlantis mission STS-117 should lift off From Cape Canaveral. The flight will flesh out the space station with the addition of new solar arrays.

SpaceX has two more launches scheduled for this year from their facility on Omelek Island in the Kwajalein Atoll. The first could be as early as August and will carry TacSat 1, a US military demonstrator. Their second flight, in the fourth quarter, will carry a Malaysian communications satellite.

After their last launch ended in a launch pad explosion, Sea Launch is repairing their floating facility and plans to be ready for their next launch in October.