Like young children who are not yet sure why gravity works, the new alternative space rocketeers keep trying to leap free of Earth?s bonds. Not yet convinced of the power of physical and social gravity, they hurl themselves outward against the odds, and to date most have fallen back to the ground. Yet so far it seems they are bound to this rock, not by gravity, nor even technology, as almost all of the concepts that have made it to hardware development are reasonably possible (with one or two exceptions). Many that didn't are still as plausible as anything the space agency periodically tosses out in its taxpayer-funded "artists' renditions" to the delight of Popular Mechanics and Scientific American techno-junkies. They just don't have the NASA stamp on them, or worse, they are wandering into turf NASA considers its own, and in the company town called the space industry, that usually means death.
We have seen wave after wave of these valiant would-be pioneers since the end of Apollo. And many were inspired by, or nurtured within, the culture of the O?Neillians. The ripple effect of Dr. O'Neill's work cannot be underestimated, and when combined with the driving "go and build it" rhetoric of such science fiction writers as Robert A. Heinlein, Jerry Pournelle and Harry Stine, the spark in many a young engineer?s heart was fanned into a flame. Unfortunately, a fire in the belly doesn?t necessarily translate to a successful ignition on the launch pad.
Right now we are in what might be called the third wave of the alternative space firms' attempts to break free from the surly bonds of Earth. The first round might be dated around the 1980s, when David Hannah, Maxim Faget and Deke Slayton put together their Conestoga rocket line. This series of launchers seemed to have had a chance ? until it got tied into the fate of the NASA Commercial Centers for the Development of Space. After several years developing their system, the team joined in what was called the COMET program with EER systems, who had bought their vehicle concept. Designed to help kick-start the nascent micro-gravity industry by off-loading smaller payloads onto reusable commercial vehicles, the program was an orphan child, doomed from the beginning since it was not invented by NASA. COMET was a classic study in bad planning (they tried to go commercial before they had a well-tested vehicle) misfit management (the University of Tennessee was tasked with management, its first space launch project), overlapping bureaucracies (NASA kept its finger in the mix, of course), combined with supplier issues such as Morton Thiokol?s inability to deliver engines on time that wouldn't blow up (some call the firm Morton Fireball for obvious reasons). The project ended up over budget and was allegedly for this reason killed by NASA (but don't their projects always go over budget too..?) around the same time the agency virtually killed the CCDSs for reasons I will never understand.
At the same time a little firm called MicroSat launch systems popped up in Houston. Formed by Walt Anderson, Peter Diamandis, Todd Hawley, Greg Maryniak and others, it was built around a rocket concept designed by our own Bob Noteboom! I was also in the firm, along with Gus Gardellini, and Jim Davidson. MicroSat started as a simple multi-stage micro-launcher, but soon found itself growing and morphing into something much larger. Eventually the firm was torn by internal issues and was acquired by CTA Inc. where it slowly withered away.
The next round of alternative launch systems blossomed in response to the "little LEO" phenomenon. The idea was a world surrounded with swarms of small replaceable satellites, handing off signals from millions of satellite phone users. Hundreds of satellites were called for in the business plans, and at least a half a dozen firms sprang up to answer the call. Interestingly, almost all of them were created, run by, or led by, those who shared the dream of human space settlement. In fact, many did not hide the fact that the little LEO market was going to be their entry point into space transportation, and that they eventually wanted to grow into people carriers.
Along with re-tooling at some traditional space firms, including the early development of the Boeing Sea-Launch system, answering the call were entrepreneurial firms like Kelly Aerospace, whose rocket would be towed to a high altitude and then launched into space, Pioneer, with its jet engine/rocket plane mix, Kistler Aerospace with its reusable balloon-bottomed lander, Pete Conrad's team working on a reusable vehicle, and of course the ill-fated Roton Rocket of Gary Hudson.
In the end, the little LEOs collapsed. This was largely due to misunderstanding the implications of ground-based cellular networks, and the impact of their much lower cost infrastructure. Unfortunately, it also meant the end of most of the firms listed above, although Kistler stumbled on for a while, and Sea-Launch, with its ability to carry much bigger payloads and the Boeing bank roll behind it, is still in business.
This brings us to today, and the list of firms I rolled off for you in the last issue, which are attending this conference. I think this time things are VERY different from the previous attempts. I trace their beginnings to a couple of elements beyond the sociological make-up of their founders (computer/communications types raised during the space age, with a fondness for sci-fi, lots of money and a strong wish to do something BIG that helps humanity).
First was the signing up of Dennis Tito to fly into space, and the psychological barrier that project shattered in the minds of many. Although we didn't realize it at the time, even as our team was losing the fight to save the Mir (the destination I originally signed him up for) the ripple effects of the deal would end up changing the way people look at space. When NASA tried to stop him from transferring his ticket to ISS, they gave many of us the chance to make the case for the concept of citizen explorers, and the potential market they represented. The second spark was the X-Prize, which started many down the path of trying to build vehicles that could deliver the rides into space for which market studies showed people would pay. I was a Founding trustee of that organization many years ago, and although I parted ways with the team for internal political and ethical reasons, I must acknowledge the project's effect, especially on one man ? Burt Rutan.
So now we have a new cadre of dreamers and doers. And this time they do seem different. For one thing, most of them are largely self-funded or funded by one major angel investor who can afford to keep them afloat and building hardware. They have studied the mistakes of the past, and most are wary of placing themselves in the position of dependency on the mainstream space program. Finally, the timing seems better. NASA is tottering and lost, and our message about the frontier in space is riding on the wave of discontent following Columbia. New paths are clearly needed and new ways of interacting between our government and the private sector are clearly called for - something these firms can take full advantage of, especially the ones who don't need to.
Rick Tumlinson can be e-mailed at: rt@ricktumlinson.com.