Well, where do you think all of this stuff came from?

Sure the internet, GPS, and other modern-day technical wonders aren’t NASA-specific developments, but the items that are share a very similar lineage with these items, and that is they were initially funded by a federal program that was funded, in turn, by tax dollars.  Then some bright person had an ever brighter idea about taking said applications and making it useful for the broader civilian population.  No one complains now about the existence of the internet, GPS, fuel cells that produce clean energy, rechargeable batteries, or other technical marvels, but take away the funding that funded the programs that initially created these, and the world today would be a much different, much less connected place.  While some may argue that we could do with a little less electronic connection and a little more face-to-face, the fact of the matter is much of today’s life experience (good, bad, and otherwise), would not be possible without these developments.

Most of the opposition to spending more on spaceflight use the argument that money spent today doesn’t guarantee a technical or financially viable return in the near future.  To that I say “well, duh”.  Think about spending money spaceflight like  spending money in the stock market.  You wouldn’t realistically expect to put in $100 dollars today and get out $1,000 tomorrow, next week, or even next year (unless you’re really lucky).  You put in your $100 with the knowledge that it will take time to grow, mature, and make earnings and interests over the years.  If you apply the same principle to, say, the internet, with it’s far reaching influence over the past decade, you’ll see that the initial dollars spent in the late 50′s and early 60′s (yes, that long ago since a national network of radar sites was created) have literally mushroomed into an unstoppable, life altering force that has affected the lives of billions of people on every continent and in every nation.  A lot of the technology that makes this far-reaching capability possible was developed with tax payer dollars with no clear idea of what the future held.

How about satellites?  That’s one thing that NASA does better than most, besides launching humans on large rockets.  Without satellites, most of the internet wouldn’t be possible.  Naiton-wide cellphone coverage wouldn’t be possible.  You certainly wouldn’t have access to over 500 channels from Direct TV or the like.  Weather prediction would be kinda hard (think about not having advance warning for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Ike) and we can kiss instant news reports from the four corners of the world goodbye as well.

The point is, spaceflight can’t be look at as something that will produce immediate, tangible or financial results (at least this is the case most of the time).  Some things will take years to develop.  Somethings, like the internet, will take decades before their full potential is realized (and I still think the ‘net has a long way to go).  If we spend the money now, our children and grandchildren will reap the benefits of our choices.  However, they will also reap the consequences of our inaction.  Saving money now doesn’t necessarily equate the ability to fast track technological developments in the future.  Space travel is much more than just a bunch of smart guys sitting around trying to figure out how to build rockets and launch people and items into space.  It’s where ideas are born, developed, and ultimately transformed into world-changing ideas and concepts.

Also, let’s not forget the commercial applications.  Already we have private companies launching satellites , and a few are looking at attempting to reach LEO with science payloads and perhaps even ferrying crews to the ISS.  This comes with a need for trained people, which equates to more people being educated to fill technical jobs; jobs that will enable them to spend more on goods and services which, in turn, allows more companies to hire more people, enabling them to buy more…and the cycle continues.  Is space travel the answer to the world’s current economic woes?  Not by far.  But, not spending on space isn’t the correct answer, either, and could do more future harm than future good.

It’s funny how being at a crossroads will change things literally over night.

Ever since the HSF Committee (aka Agustine Committee) was officially announced in May of 2009, national attention has been focused on NASA, it’s budget, and how it spends said budget on various projects.  Those who are used to this sort of attention (aka those usually not associated with NASA) know that it’s all apart of the process.  When a federal agency asks for what amounts to a pay raise, folks start taking stock of how well the agency has performed in the past and if such a hike in money is warranted.   This can cause a very large distraction for people working in the agency, especially when they are not used to such scrutiny.

This fact has not gone overlooked by group leads, managers, center directors and the folks at “NASA HQ” in DC.  About once a week or so, we the workers at JSC will get some sort of email/briefing/all-hands-meeting/talking to from various members of management at various levels about “staying the course”.  In short, they are telling us that while we may be looking forward to the future, past shuttle retirement, into ISS-only operations for awhile, and possibly (hopefully) developing and launching a new capability in space, we still have a job to do.  Even though the shuttle program is almost 30 years old, each mission presents it’s own unique challenges and hardships to overcome.  There are still new problems to solve (remember the knurled knob in Atlantis?), astronauts to train, facilities to upkeep, and orbiters to process.  All of this work requires a uniquely high level of devotion and concentration.

Make no mistake about it; launching shuttles is not your run-of-the-mill activity.

But as I sit here in the NBL taking part of STS-129′s last practice for an EVA activity, I’m very aware of the cocoon that seems to surround the astronauts and their trainers.  Sure, everyone is aware that Ares I-X is sitting on the pad just a few miles from Atlantis, but it doesn’t dominate their thinking or their ability to focus on the task at hand.  We are dedicated to the work and readying ourselves for the -129 mission.

And it’s just not the -129 crew and trainers that I noticed.  Everyone I know that trains, or works in MCC as a flight controller are supremely focused on the successful completion of the shuttle program.  Staying the course, it would seem, is definitely not a problem with these folks.

This does, however, raise some good questions that I think should be thought about and discussed.  Firstly, any look toward the future, I believe, should start with a healthy, objective look at our past.  In the past, space flight has been a very competitive venture.  It was all about which country could do what first in spaceflight.  The Russians put the first person in space, the U.S. put the first person in orbit…and the list of firsts, highest, fastest, and longest is spread around from country to country for both manned and unmanned operations.  The point here, however, is that few, if any, of these accomplishments are due to international cooperation.  Fast forward to today and the beginning of the age of international space.  We have the ISS, while be funded mostly by the U.S., the partner agencies have provided numerous and very valuable assets the program.  From training to actual hardware and science experiments, the international community has really come together to support this effort.  Of course, when more than one country decides to do something, there’s politics that come into play, but for the most part, the various agencies involved have been able to coexist and have really learned to work well together.  The question I pose is this; “How important does international cooperation becomes the further out into the cosmos we as a species reach?“  My own personal answer to this is what I think would be the majorities of the answers, and that’s a resounding “Very“, and I think  that it will start with Mars.

The way I see it, the U.S. has the current technology and means (if not the will) to plan and support a full-time moon base.  Consequently, I think this is the way we should go to Mars.  I understand the arguments from the Mars direct folks, but let me put it to you this way:  Columbus didn’t “cross the ocean blue” without first going on some other, smaller voyages to learn how to sail and navigate; Charles Lindbergh didn’t make the solo transatlantic flight without first learning how to fly, and Neil Armstrong didn’t set foot on the moon without first learning how to live and operate in space.  Similarly, we as a species have not figured out how to be self-sustaining on another planet when a quick return to the Earth is not possible.  We’re well on our way to figuring that out, but we’re not there yet.   Just imagine the grimness of the situation if CDRA were to fail halfway through a six-month trip from the Earth to Mars [/soapbox].

It’s not that I don’t think these things can’t be figured out by one country; given enough resources and time, it all can be figured out and operated by one country just fine.  Of course, as we are now finding out first hand, the problem is resources.  It reminds me of the old story “Stone Soup” story in which a starving community is talked into pooling food resources to help them survive.  If we as a species are to reach out to the stars (and I think that’s where we will ultimately end up), then it will be an international cooperation.  As my second-level manager so aptly put it: “We are ultimately all space people.  If you put is into a room, we stop being Russian, American, Japanese, etc. and we start being just space people. “

January 28, 1986 – Challenger: Ellison S. Onizuka, Sharon Christa McAuliffe, Greg Jarvis, Judy Resnik, Michael J. Smith, Dick Scobee, Ron McNair

February 1, 2003 – Columbia: Avid Brown, Laurel Clark, Michale Anderson, Ilan Ramon, Rick Husband, Kalpana Chawla, William McCool

These dates and names will forever be ingrained into the collective consciousness of the US Manned Space Program. On these days, brave men and women paid the ultimate price for furthering America’s presence and dominance in space. The American public saw each event as a disaster; the latter two almost, in their own way, ended America’s manned space program. They all certainly made us all realize that this venture we choose to undertake is not routine nor mundane, and will always carry a certain amount of risk. This week, we honor their lives, dedication, and sacrifice. I urge you to take a moment to remember and reflect on the lives lost, their families, and all of us affected by these losses. In doing so, also remember the in spite of these losses, we move forward.

However, this is not the point of this post.

The point of this is to take a look, all allegiances aside, at the issue of Constellation and current alternatives.  The list of potential, and even viable (in my book at lest) options is sizable and growing all the time.  The list includes, but isn’t limited to

1. Giving the Constellation program a monetary shot in the arm to speed up testing and development and decrease the amount of time the U.S. will be without a launch vehicle.
2. Giving the Constellation program a smaller monetary shot while simultaneously extending the shuttle program to cover the “gap”
3. Just extending the shuttle program
4. Contracting with private space industry (i.e. Space -X) for launch services
5. Using current military/military-funded rockets to replace Ares all together.

While some of these are more viable than others (as far as I know, no private industry space program has orbited, or docked with another space vehicle yet), all are pretty good alternatives to at least investigate, if not actively pursue in some manner.  Each option listed above (and those not listed) have their advantages and disadvantages:  Throwing money at a problem generally doesn’t work very well, except for wasting someone’s money; in this case that “someone” happens to be U.S. tax payers and as a member of this population, I’d say that probably isn’t the way to go.  The shuttle is, well, old.  Extending it is probably the most technically feasible option at this point, but it doesn’t come without some measurable risks to the astronauts who fly it.  There is also the issue of learning exactly how much of the supporting architecture has been destroyed or dismantled per the 2010 retirement date.  This last point affects both shuttle options, obviously, and could wind up costing more money and being more difficult technically than is currently known.

Speaking of technical difficulty, that is what the private space industry option affords us, in  my own humble opinion.  It is exciting, it can be more cost – effective, but has any private industry space venture orbited yet?  Straight shots up to approximately 300,000 feet and landing safely is one thing.  Orbiting the earth and docking with another orbiting spacecraft is something different entirely. So is launching large payloads.  The point is, private space industry, as it stands right now, isn’t quite up to par with what NASA needs in the next few years.  I, for one, would be overjoyed at the news of a privately owned spacecraft orbiting the earth, conducting science experiments for long durations of time…but they aren’t there yet.  I will admit that I’m not up to speed on the latest developments in the private space industry, but I do know that what NASA needs and what the private space sector can offer right now are a bit disjoint.  Also, we’d have to consider what government involvement would do to private space ventures.  Anyone who works in or with the government knows about the dreaded red tape that comes with, well, everything the government does.  I recall a personal memory I had while I was still a wet-eared co-op here at JSC that involved a certain test chamber, torque settings for a torque wrench and having to do two-days worth of paper work to include torque “ranges” instead of torque “values”.  I’ll spare the details, but suffice it to say it was quite infuriating.  I say this to make the point that private space industry is able to take more risks than government run space ventures due to the reduction, or total lack of, red tape.

The final item on the aforementioned list is using current military-spec hardware to launch crew and cargo into space.  Somehow this sounds very familiar…oh yes! Redstone rockets, the Mercury program…the glory days of hardcore test pilots riding (very) unstable rockets all while smoking a pack a day.  Talk about risk takers, these guys had guts to voluntarily ride a rocket with a near 60% failure rating…(source: astronautx).  They say history repeats itself, and in this case, it very well may.  Using current mil-spec EELVs for launching crew and cargo definitely isn’t a new idea, and could be a smaller time-hit than waiting on the full development of Constellation.

With so many options out there against Constellation, it’s easy to see how one can wonder what NASA (aka Mike Griffin) is doing sticking with Constellation.  I’m not going to venture a guess, as I don’t know everything that goes on with a decision like that.  All I do know is that the Constellation program, in it’s current incarnation, has some rather stiff competition.  Not to mention an increasingly (it would seem) defiant NASA administrator and a new president who is likely to change multiple things in multiple agencies, NASA included.  Whatever happens, no one can argue that NASA is definitely in a crossroads in its existence.

The Apollo missions helped pave the way for studying long-duration space flight, which brought about Mir, Skylab and the ISS. Each of these programs has roots in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo eras. As we take this time to take a much-needed break to visit with friends and family, think about what this year has held for you, what you’ve learned and accomplished, and take the time to imagine what people will be saying about what we’ve done for the space program 40 years from now.

]]> http://www.opennasa.com/2008/12/22/histroic-anniversary/feed/ 2 http://www.opennasa.com/2008/12/16/comment-on-changegov/ http://www.opennasa.com/2008/12/16/comment-on-changegov/#comments Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:02:08 +0000 iMensah http://www.opennasa.com/?p=196 So there’s been much ado about transparency and how Change.gov is helping ordinary people voice concerns to Obama and Biden on a wide range of issues and topics. Of the topics listed, there is a Coalition for Space Exploration section (link below) that had one lone comment in it. While the link to my comment is listed below, I’ve posted the text here for ease of discussion/debate:

I would like to take this time to stress to the President-elect and VP-elect how important technology advances are to the American public today. Back in the 60′s and 70′s during the hay-day of the American Space Program, many young children (as well as the rest of the nation) looked to the stars with awe as they realized for the first time that they had the technology, know-how, and will to send a man where no other human had ever been before in history; and this motivated generations of people, even today, to pursue careers in math, science, and engineering. While only a fraction of them actually worked for the space program, they were, never-the-less, inspired by it, and we are reaping the benefit of that inspiration today as those original generations of people are currently leading our country (and most of the world) in technological advances and breakthroughs. However, one must ask “will todays children pick up that same mantle I’ve carried for all these years? What will future generations do to further America’s presence at the forefront of the technology curve?” It is a question I’ve asked myself repeatedly during my matriculation through college. I grew up in awe of Neal Armstrong, John Glen, Sally Ride, and other idols of the American Space Program. Who will my little brother look up to when he gets to college? Who will inspire your own two daughters to pursue a career in the sciences, math, or engineering? Who are the idols of today’s American Space Program? Searching for names? A lot of the American public would be right along with you, searching for the name of a current astronaut who would inspire our future leaders to keep us at the front of the technological race.

I say all of this to say that while I understand our current financial crisis, I must, as an advocate of manned space exploration, implore you to continue funding of America’s Space Program. Do so smartly, and with due diligence, but please do so. For with out it, I am afraid that you will find it hard to inspire young people to become educated in the sciences, which will lead to America relinquishing it’s place as world-wide technological leader to foreign powers. Thank you for your valuable time
Isaac Q. Mensah Jr., Houston, TX: Proud member of Generation Y

The link to the site is here (link opens in new window).  Let me know what you think and if any of you have posted anything on Change.gov.  I’d love to hear/read about it.

I bring this issue up for a few reasons:

1. I think a few people who’ve posted comments here are trying to get across to my Gen Y peers how this initiative is being perceived by those who are in the mid – high level management.
2. I happen to know of a similar effort (but not quite as organized) at Lockheed – Martin from a mid-level manager. Their point of view is the same point of view that has been expressed both here and on NASAWatch by Gen X’ers and older people.

The crux of the matter, as I understand it, is how Gen Y’ers, who are relatively young, unexperienced, and know relatively ltttle about the nuances of how such organizations are run, are almost demanding that their (our) voice be heard and headed to some extent.  Many, including some detracting commenters here at OpenNASA, complain that many of the presentations generated by the Gen Y effort are mere eye candy that offer no new technical suggestions or solutions to current problems facing the Agency.  To that, I would have to say “I agree”.

In speaking with the L/M manager about the people they manage and their experiences with them, I got the impression that many of the issues brought forth by the Gen Y effort at NASA (and more specifically JSC) are also being expressed at L/M.  The reaction the manager had to this really opened my eyes to how the “other side” thinks about this and can be summed up in two simple words: “slow down”.

Note, this doesn’t mean “stop” or “quit” or “give up” or any other synonym one can come up with for ceasing current activities.

In the explanation the manager gave me for their feelings, they mentioned that the 20-somethings working under them were very bright, but had rather unrealistic expectations that what they (the 20-somethings) had to say would somehow influence the direction of the engineering juggernaut that is L/M and that they would be VP of some division in the next two – three years.  While I haven’t quite identified any large delusions of grandeur in any Gen Y presentation to date, I can see where some have stated that their “knowledge” can, and should, be used to influence the future direction of NASA.

Don’t get me wrong here; I totally agree that if NASA wishes to reach a new generation of young people, then seeking the advice of people in that age group is the right thing to do.  However, when it comes to technical and managerial issues, I say our place is to watch and learn.  Look at what works and what doesn’t work.  Personally, I would be lost here if it were not for the guidance of my mentor and manager who have been here for almost 20 combined years.  I admire the passion and dedication that my peers take to wanting to change the world beyond their fingertips and encourage them to keep up the drive.  But be willing to learn from those people who have tread the path before you; they know the pit-falls and nuances of the road before us.  Leaders, even natural born ones, are also amazing learners.

.::. iMensah

Fast-forward a few years, a Ph.D. and the start of an astronaut career, and you have one Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz, taking this idea of massive electromagnetic fields and transforming it into the next-gen space propulsion system.  The unique thing about VASMIR is it’s simplicity in concept (of course, the physics and mathematics behind it are a bit more complicated). Essentially, Dr. Chang-Diaz is taking some inert gas, using strong magnetic fields to transform this gas into a plasma by stripping away electrons and allowing nature to follow its course.  This course includes some electrons and ions swirling at various angles, gaining momentum, and finally transferring that circular motion into axial (or longitudinal) motion.  At this point, Sir Isaac Newton takes over with basic laws of motion (“equal and opposite reactions and such), and the bigger, heavier ions produce small amounts of moment on the engine, thus propelling it forward.

Sill with me?  Good.

Initially, Dr. Chang-Diaz convinced Johnson Space Center to house his VASMIR rocket hardware on sight.  This is notable because JSC is not a propulsion research lab.  However, JSC and NASA management agreed to let Dr. Chang-Diaz house, and test, his rocket on sight.  Fast forward again through a few more years of research and shuttle flights, and the now Former Astronaut Dr. Chang-Diaz is the president and CEO of Ad Astra (Latin for “to the stars”) Rocket Company.  His rocket is now bigger and better.  During the presentation I attended today, there were no mention of the actual amount of thrust produced at the nozzle by VASMIR, but he did mention that VASMIR was close to producing enough thrust to provide a reboost capability to the ISS.

VASMIR, however, isn’t without it’s limitations.  Perhaps the biggest one is that it’s a space-only system.  In other words, it needs the microgravity of space to operate.  It simply doesn’t have enough power to get off the ground in a large gravity  field like the earth has.  However, what it lacks in raw power, it more than makes up for economically.  Without giving away any numbers (because I simply don’t remember them and I don’t want to misquote Dr. Chang-Diaz), let’s just say that Dr. Chang-Diaz and Ad Astra is doing the same thing his competition is doing for a fraction of the cost.

So here is a NASA project turned private company that could very well help NASA and the private space industry reach out into space.  How cool is that?  By the way, this lecture was the first in a series of lectures being produced by the Advanced Planning Office at JSC.  The APO is tasked with, among other things, producing a 20 year plan for JSC and coming up with a plan to implement that plan.  From my own personal understanding, this 20 year plan is to include ways in which JSC can further the reach of man into space, among other, center-specific items that they will tackle.  So if you’re at (or have access to) JSC, I would suggest you attend these series of lectures and speeches.  There is sure to be some good information coming from them.

One thing I believe everyone here should realize is that NASA has been, since it’s conception, a government organization.  Thus, it adheres to certain government models (structure, executions of plans and procedures, and communications).  On the whole, our government tends to hold information very close to the vest until that information has been combed, scrutinized, structured, and approved for release.  NASA, being first and foremost a government entity, also follows this model.  What we (Gen Y) are asking for is that NASA modify it’s external communications model by becoming more transparent to the public.  After all, being a government organization means we are a public organization.  We are funded only by the taxes the American people agree to pay; thus, we are responsible, first and foremost, to the public we serve.  How does NASA serve the public?  Well, everyone today is in love with GPS enabled cellphones, navigation systems in vehicles, satellite TV, advances in the medical field, environmental research, the list goes on and on.  However, if you were to go to your neighbor and inquire about what they know about NASA, I would guess that the list would be rather short.  Can this be rectified?  Absolutely.  How do we go about doing this?  That requires change, and changing an organization requires individuals to do something that most people are very uncomfortable with, and that’s change themselves.