Rob Hoyt

Thanks to Ron F. from General Atomics' Electromagnetics Division for inviting me to opine on the challenges and opportunities of space nuclear power and propulsion. As it turns out, we have quite a bit of both. Opportunities first. I've said it before but it's worth repeating: Elon and his superb team at SpaceX have dismantled the LEO bottleneck. And that has opened the door to innovations of every kind - at least in LEO. But what it's really done is enable us to envision how we will go to (and play in) higher orbits, offering us a chance to define what sort of infrastructure we will build the future space economy *on*. The future is not LEO - it's the entire solar system. So: It won't be chemistry or solar power that get us moving, not if we're serious about creating a gold rush to orbit. Both are too constrained and deficient (i.e., insufficiently energy- and power-dense) to rapidly and efficiently connect the dots in cislunar space, and provide the megawatts on demand we know we'll need, whether the use case is civil, commercial, or defense. That leaves us with nuclear - and it's going to be fission for awhile, despite noteworthy quantities of money flowing into fusion. We can make this work - but we have to get to orbit and prove ourselves now. If we don't? Well, sunk cost is very real (see SLS). If you have it, you use it - even if it doesn't make sense. Let's make sure that what we put on orbit makes sense - commercial sense, defense sense, civil sense. Challenges? Well, we're all capital-intensive plays with some uncertainty in our regulatory story and that combo tends to scare the 💩 out of most private investors. I'd love to be introduced to any visionary folks out there with some discretionary dollars who share my passion for the space gold rush and want to find a way to get involved that gets us out and moving during our lifetimes - while we can have some fun. We can do this. 🚀 https://lnkd.in/ezq6yv_G

33

10 Comments

Mass drivers are inevitable for any kind of space industry or solar system civilization at scale—and the US needs to be looking at such systems as a CENTRAL element of Artemis. Nobody is likely to be able to build O’Neill Cylinders (Giant Space habitats) or build out 55 terrawatts of green energy without them. They are conserving of non-renewable resources like rocket propellant and need only electricity to power them. It’s an obvious right move. That said, it’s a technology with a lot of implications…and we are right to be concerned.

44

17 Comments

US Space Command continues to post more data on the debris from the Chinese upper stage that broke up last month. So far they have cataloged 253 pieces of debris (one of which has already decayed). But there is likely a lot more to come. The same kind of Chinese upper stage (CZ-6A) that broke up two years ago created nearly 800 pieces of debris large enough to track. Once all of the debris is cataloged, this could end up being the 5th or 6th largest debris event in history. Explore the data yourself: https://spacedata.aei.org/

16

This article is bogus. #CTPEnergy and the CTP Energy Cycle will constantly keep 'powering' our physical universe. 'What is #CTPEnergy?" - the 'universal engine' (https://lnkd.in/gnmswyyW #newscience #newuniverse #newcosmology #CTP

3

A Space Lesson to start off your week - and why it is important. Lagrange Points are positions in space where objects sent there tend to stay put. At Lagrange points, the gravitational pull of two large masses precisely equals the centripetal force required for a small object to move with them. These points in space can be used by spacecraft to reduce fuel consumption needed to remain in position. In warfighting terms, we can think of Lagrange Points as Key Terrain - where the holder of this terrain gains a marked advantage to whoever controls it. Space is too vast for anyone to control all of it. If someone controls these Lagrange Points, they have an advantage. I think NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration explains it well AND they have a really map that shows these Lagrange Points like a terrain map! What do you think of Lagrange Points as Key Terrain? #space #intelligenceprepationofthebattlefield https://lnkd.in/gBUbXTAb

47

12 Comments

Space Guard and Reserve? There seems to be support from governors, so the question is how much those components contribute to the mission. There is significant cost savings compared to Active components, and it gives vets who go into the Space industry a chance to continue their Service, which provides truly unique networking opportunities compared to other services.

9

8 Comments

Do you ever wonder why the US launches rockets from Florida? There's a result from orbital mechanics that tells you that launching from a given latitude gives you the best access to orbits of inclinations above that latitude. Basically, the closer your launch site is to the equator, the better access to different orbits you have, so you want to be as far south (in the northern hemisphere) as possible. It's also more efficient to launch to the east. Getting to orbit is all about building up speed relative to the center of the earth, and it turns out the ground is moving relative to the center of the earth. When you launch to the west you have to spend energy going against the rotation of the earth. Launching to the east gives you an extra boost. That puts your desired launch location in a place that's both in the south, and that lets you easily launch toward the east. In the US, safety of civilian populations is a major concern. Parts fall off of rockets both accidentally and by design. In an emergency, the entire rocket may come down. In general, it's safer for these parts to fall in the ocean than on land. That's why in the US, our premier launch facilities are located in Florida, which is both to the south and has a vast range of ocean to its east. In China, the calculus doesn't always include civilian safety. We've seen this a number of times in the past, but rarely as dramatically as the recent video of a Long March booster segment falling on a village, trailing orange smoke behind. Not only is there a risk of death, damage, fires, etc. from this debris, but some of the propellants used in these systems are toxic. In today's world where everyone has a camera on them at all times and events like this can go viral, I wonder how long it will be until some policy changes reduce the risk of this happening in the future. #rocket #launch #China #debris #safety https://lnkd.in/edN_6w-u

3

Several Issues I have with the reporting of the Artemis I heatshield problems in this article: 1) The way NASA is downplaying the seriouness of the problem by the language it is using (e.g., "we didn't expect the small pieces that came off versus being ablated"). The pieces were not small and if NASA would show the actual pictures of the Artemis I heatshield you would see the sizes are several inches square and deep (I estimate to be close to 1/2 the thickness of the AVCOAT block in some areas). 2) The terminology which is being used is representatitive of and similar to that used during both Challenger and Columbia accidents which show hints of "normalization of deviance." A term popularized by sociologist #dianevaughan to describe the behavior which an individual "work group" or organization first identified as technically deviant was subsequently reinterpreted as within the norm for acceptable performance and then officially labeled as "acceptable risk." (e.g., "there was a healthy margin of virgin AVCOAT and the temperature data inside the cabin remained at expected levels, so if the crew was on board they would not have been in danger"). 3) The last statement above indicates to anyone knowledgeable of the sociological and cultural causes of prior accidents that the Artemis Program leads are already considering this "near miss" as a success! Very reminiscent of tile damage and loss and safe returns of Space Shuttle (133 out of 135) as indications of success when really the failure rate was 2:135 or 1:67.5. Instead, authors like Karl Weick suggests that true high-reliability organizations (HROs) should be preoccupied with failures and consider all near misses as failures. 4) Other egregious mistakes in past accidents indicate terminology and terms like "in family", and "acceptable risk" are used by program managers to indicate some sense of real understanding of the root technical causes which almost always proved wrong in both Challenger (O-ring blow by?) and Columbia (ET foam impact) accident cases. So when I see words like "healthy margin" forgive me if I cringe. There is no "healthy margin" if you do not understand the "root cause" of the problem and can prove so by validated intelligent tests with analytical/numerical predictions PRIOR TO THE TEST! Wake up NASA and start conducting an objective external review of the problem with experts whose companies are not or have not been receiving funding from NASA. Start looking at alternate ideas ASAP and appropriately funding such concepts so that they can be matured and evaluated on a fair basis with the block AVCOAT design which you transitioned to based on erroneous reasoning such as cost and schedule. The SLS vehicle will be lucky to fly once every one to two years so filling 300,000 honeycomb cells with AVCOAT is very doable.

104

21 Comments

Really great article on Space! Highlights Rocket Lab and their mission of small launches their Electron rocket has filled. It goes on to discuss the Neutron that is a medium lift vehicle. Rocket lab focuses on the taxi service where it takes individual payloads to specific orbits, but the new Neutron rocket is meant to compete with SpaceX and its Falcon 9. The article further discussed start ups, such as Relativity Space and ABL Space Systems. I was quoted around the maturity of businesses in this segment and discussed M&A activity. I highlighted that, "... for a company to be a consolidation target it needs some enterprise value; it needs sales and employees and contracts." I further went on to say that, "... those pure-play space companies, they are going to have a harder time because it is a slower cycle, versus a company that gets into space with a diversified book of business and will probably be more successful." #aerospace #space #mergersandacquisitions #thefactorydoctor https://lnkd.in/gsNrw2cA

16

I am not a current drone pilot, but I've become increasingly interested in it since the start of the Ukraine war. The Senate is holding a vote on the NDAA today and this is part of that bill. “Countering CCP Drones Act” (HR 2864) could pass and ban the only high quality drone sold to the US consumer market. I've been learning about types of drones, transmitters, headsets, builds and mods. It started as watching FPV (First person view) flights, moved to product reviews and then build videos. That's my level of knowledge. In that time, I've found that DJI is the premier (by a lot) commercial and consumer drone maker in the world. They are the entry for most recreational drone pilots. This all started here before the US recognized that the PRC is positioning themselves as an adversary, and DJI built a relatively benign to positive reputation. That is solid now and the lack of viable competitors is certainly a factor. They also have decent social media capabilities. So their customer base is standing up for them. People love flying their drones, and don't want to give it up! That's totally understandable too. The difficulty here is that drone piloting is a critical, yet unrecognized skill. Ukranian pilots have shown just how powerful this skill can be. It is also a way for young people to make money. There are entire industries rising from various aspects of drone piloting. DJI is a legitimate threat due to their CCP ties, the sending of data back to China, to include high res images of areas where the drones fly and data it accesses through the phone app. But we need a US or at least a friendly company to step in to supplant DJI for consumer use, not only commercial. And then there's the FAA and its unfriendly attitude towards drones, but that's a rant for another day...

10

11 Comments

Newest CHIMERA Specifications now Posted I have posted both the latest revised CHIMERA specification (IS-AGT-100 Rev A) and the TESLA variant (IS-AGT-101) at https://lnkd.in/gTi-z39p. Hopefully, NTS-3 will be broadcasting these in the very near future, from orbit, like outer space. These signals could significantly improve civil spoofing resistance and more. #GPS, #GNSS, #spoofing, #resilience, #authentication

39

3 Comments

As you know, I've been following the defense efforts in Ukraine rather closely for a long time, along with the role of tech therein, which has included many elements of automation, unmanned aerial vehicle tech, and the like. That's why it was such a privilege to get to talk to Josh Lospinoso, CEO at Shift5, about the power of automation tech in defense. Josh helped provide more insights into the cybersecurity updates his team helped provide for the MQ-9A Reaper, the UAV utilized by the U.S. Department of Defense, along with other insights. Shift5 collaborated with General Atomics Aeronautical Systems to add onboard cyber anomaly detection and predictive maintenance capabilities to the drone. This was an enlightening conversation and I'm curious to learn more as the field develops. #automation #defense #technology #drone #UAV #cybersecurity

4

Those 'pretty lights' on the outer-hull of the #CTPcraft: those are not 'lights'. Those 'lights' are the CEMAS™ Arrays which are part of the CTP Propulsion Systems. (https://lnkd.in/e4ttQtMW) #newscience #propulsion #propulsionsystems

1

Synchronization of oscillatory growth prepares fungal hyphae for fusion In fungi, oscillations are a well-described feature of hyphal tip extension, where calcium ions control vesicle accumulation, actin depolymerization, and vesicle fusion with the tip membrane .

1

2 Comments

Appreciating James Orgill in his youtube com@TheActionLab, for an almost more logical definition of "Entropy", which I've yet heard in ~40 years. Bravo! So, does my use of the "almost" clause, make my result of seeing that video, a higher 'Entropy of Entropy' result? 🤔 Seems to me, in having a practical engineering expectation: Entropy as a metric, is only a means to correct something from any numerical theory, which routinely doesn't match measurements well enough. Arising from the observers POV, represented as a numerically modeled system. Defining the "Entropic Force" of a elastic band in tension, which most engineers would define as the spring-equation (delta-F = K x delta-L). So, when has spring-force with stored-potential energy, ever been redefined fully as an "entropic force" of restoration at the molecular assembly ensemble scale, and/or the multi-atom ensemble scale levels? Wow, POV and system definition assumptions, really affect the calculable actual measurable work/energy, plus entropy value. (E g., Total Energy is still being defined by potential + kinetic + entropic energies of all continuum-scales at a fixed instant? ) Thus, the term "Entropy of Entropy', is not just a nonsensical meandering of a chronically scientifically ignorant, engineering-POV person. (Am I alone in this whim?) https://lnkd.in/eJZk6sdw

1