As we head into Fall, it needs to be noted that we will be electing officers for another two-year term coming up at the end of 2014. Please consider getting active and running for an office. Related to this, we will be having a planning meeting sometime in the next month. This will be in addition to our regular meeting. Anyone can attend, but it will be mostly to discuss future events, meeting topics, special projects, etc. Start thinking about what you’d like to see this group do. When we come up with a date and location, we’ll send an email out and post it here as well.
Commentary by Mike Mackowski
NASA will soon select which company will build America’s next manned spacecraft. The winners of the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) Program are expected to be announced any day now. Here are my thoughts and predictions (as if they matter).
I think there are a small number of key factors to consider when picking a new crew carrying spacecraft. Ideally we’d have two designs carried into operational use in case one is grounded for some reason, so they should have some fundamental differences.
- You want two different launch vehicles (i.e., don’t pick two that use Atlas V)
That means SpaceX and either Boeing or Sierra Nevada (Dream Chaser)
- You want two types of landing modes (i.e. don’t pick two capsules)
That means Sierra Nevada and either Boeing or SpaceX
- You’d like to avoid rough landings (Boeing uses airbags on land)
That means Sierra Nevada (runway) and SpaceX (rocket assisted landing)
Based on these simple criteria, I’d pick SpaceX and Sierra Nevada. But based on intangibles, I think NASA will select SpaceX and Boeing. There is this rule:
- You want at least one experienced company with a history of manned spacecraft.
That means Boeing. Also Boeing (and probably SpaceX) has better marketing (bigger budgets) than Sierra Nevada. While I personally would like to see a lifting body in the mix, I’m afraid Sierra Nevada will be left out.
So we’ll see.
For more details on this program there is a good article here:
Commentary by Michael Mackowski
A year ago I posted a note here about the upcoming busy summer. Just about all of those missions were successful, although at that time SpaceX was planning on a dozen or so launches in 2014 along with the initial test flight of the Falcon Heavy. It does not look like they will hit that launch rate and Falcon Heavy certainly won’t fly this year.
I give SpaceX a lot of credit for investing in the development of reusable rockets. I am enthusiastic about a company that spends a lot of its own resources on this type of R&D. The spectacular recent test failure of the Falcon 9R Dev 1 test vehicle was a setback, but not a fatal blow to that effort. You learn from failures. The level of sophistication to include an autodestruct upon detecting an out-of-limits condition is impressive.
I see a lot of comments on line downplaying the impact of this setback. I wonder if it was a NASA test vehicle that crashed, would critics cut them the same slack? People seem to be eager to jump all over NASA when they have a setback (like the announced delay in the first flight of the SLS heavy lift rocket). But SpaceX gets a free pass, or even enthusiastic support for pushing the envelope. NASA, being taxpayer funded, has gotten into a situation where failure is not tolerated, thus testing may be more conservative, and progress slower.
Earlier this week, the Space Launch System passed a design review that enables the program to move forward. Unfortunately, the first flight slipped yet again. I have mixed feelings on this program. I think the US needs a big rocket, and I understand the problem that NASA doesn’t have enough money to develop a big rocket and the payloads to go on it. Maybe you do it in parallel. What are the options? You could not develop a big rocket and try to figure some other way to get beyond low Earth orbit (BEO). Lots of small rockets may work but look at the trouble it took to build a space station that way.
You could rely on a private firm to develop something that may or may not meet NASA requirements (like the SpaceX “Mars Colonial Transport” which is a viewgraph rocket). The Falcon Heavy doesn’t provide the capability of SLS but it’s a lot cheaper. The design and control of that vehicle is in private hands but the first BEO missions are undoubtedly going to be government sponsored. I hear arguments that a government developed and owned rocket will be ridiculously expensive, and I can’t argue that. But politically, I don’t think NASA (and its Congressional sponsors) can sit on their hands and do nothing, or wait for an Elon Musk to develop a big rocket. Doing nothing would be self-defeating – admitting that you cannot afford deep space manned exploration. Maybe we can’t.
So we end up playing “pretend” that we can afford to explore BEO. I think that SLS (and similarly the Asteroid Redirect Mission) is an attempt to do what we can with the resources we are given. It may not be a complete program, but the alternative is to do nothing. I don’t agree that hoping some private entity is a politically acceptable alternative. It may be a practical and realistic one, but politics and the workings of Washington DC are often neither practical nor realistic.
This stuff is hard.
SpaceX finally launched a commercial payload on July 14 after a couple of months of delays for various reasons. They had originally planned for about a dozen launches in 2014 but as of mid-July they have only pulled off two.
We recently reached the ten year anniversary of the first private suborbital spaceflight with SpaceShip One. Folks are wondering what happened to that promise of passenger trips to 60 km within two years. Virgin Galactic has only had one test flight this year, and reports are that they may need to redesign their main propulsion system.
A report was issued by the National Research Council that downplayed the significance of 3D printing as used to support manned spaceflight. Sure, such a printer is headed to the space station and that’s a great step, but 3D printing is not anywhere close to the point of say, building a replacement circuit board with all the electronics on it. Maybe you can print a toothbrush, but this technology is not yet a game changer as some people would have you believe.
Images of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenk as seen by the approaching Rosetta space probe show it to be dual-lobed, possibly a binary object with a respectable spin rate. This will make it a challenge to drop the Philae lander on it, and give pause to folks wishing to start mining asteroids.
A GAO report suggests NASA has not been provided sufficient budget to implement the Space Launch System program. That is not surprising, as Congress often imposes strict program requirements on agencies like NASA then fails to provide adequate funding. The agencies try to cut corners to meet the budget, which results in missing problems or just poorly managed programs. Then Congress asks why the program is in trouble.
All the news isn’t bad. SpaceX had another successful first stage landing test on their latest launch, and the Orbital Sciences Antares and Cygnus had a trouble-free ISS resupply mission. My point is to keep in mind that space flight isn’t simple, even after fifty years.
This stuff is hard.
Commentary by Michael Mackowski
Athena has compiled links to the videos that Chuck showed at our meeting here:
Commentary by Michael Mackowski
On June 4, 2014, the National Research Council issued a congressionally authorized report on the future of human spaceflight. (The report was requested in 2010.) The bottom line of their recommendation is that NASA should focus on Mars as their ultimate goal, but they allowed that there are various options and stepping stones needed to get there, including lunar and asteroid missions. Yet they did not recommend which path to follow. They also acknowledged that the current trend of flat budgets is not likely to be adequate to successfully carry out such a program. So to me, the message is that NASA has many options, we don’t know which one is best, and NASA isn’t likely to get enough funding for any of them to result in putting people on Mars. Thanks and have a nice day.
The report lists all the possible space exploration destinations (Moon, Mars, asteroids, etc.) and makes the obvious conclusion that a human landing on Mars is the most challenging, so that should be the ultimate goal. It took a committee of experts to figure that out?
They also addressed the reasons to send people to Mars. Personally I found it interesting that the list pretty much matches what I have found and presented in my own “Hard Road to Mars” presentation. They conclude that none of those reasons are compelling enough to “justify the value of pursuing human spaceflight”, yet when taken in combination, it makes sense to support the effort. In my presentation, I had a similar list of reasons to go to Mars and a similar conclusion. Here is a mapping of my “Hard Road to Mars” motivators versus the committee’s.
|NRC Report||Mackowski’s Reasons for Going|
|National stature and international relations||Geopolitical|
|Inspiration of students and citizens||Exploration|
|Shared destiny and aspiration to explore||Exploration|
They, like many studies before, found that public interest in space is favorable but shallow. It’s neat but not a priority, and by the way, don’t spend too much money on it until you solve all our other problems first.
The committee suggested NASA’s current plan of developing a beyond Earth orbit capability (which sounds like Orion and SLS although those programs were not mentioned by name) is too vague. They claim that NASA’s plan does not have a “stepping stone” architecture with clear milestones that will result in a sustainable program. NASA sees the ARM project as a sort of stepping stone mission, or at least a demo of some of the capabilities needed for a deep space mission. Yet the committee makes a point that the Asteroid Redirect Mission has no direct benefit to a human Mars mission and suggests that a return to the lunar surface would have more value in reducing the risk of a Mars mission. [From my view, this may be true, but currently NASA has no budget for putting people back on the Moon, but could pull off ARM within existing budgets.] Since the NRC report calls for increased budgets to do these things, how can NASA plan for more ambitious missions (lunar excursions, for example) until the budget is there?
As the report says NASA is on the wrong path to Mars, what is the right path? They propose a “pathway” with stepwise markers that make it clear progress is being made. They don’t like the “flexible approach” (which has no specific destination) and suggest a focus on Mars would be a more efficient use of resources. Then they propose several options to get there including guidelines on how to develop such a pathway but they don’t make specific recommendations as to which path to follow.
Fortunately they do recommend including commercial and international collaboration and an emphasis on sustainability. But the report was too weak and vague in that area. There is almost no consideration of boosters other than SLS, for example, nor how the development of low cost launch vehicles could play into all of this. Some other pathway studies (such as the NSS) are strongly based on commercial involvement to result in a sustainable space infrastructure that is less dependent on unpredictable government funding levels.
The most specific recommendations were to develop some necessary technologies that will be required for deep space missions (power, propulsion, Mars entry, descent, and landing, etc.). This sounds like a plan that is still very infrastructure-oriented, driven by capabilities, and still smells like the “flexible approach” with an acknowledgement that Mars is the ultimate goal. My concern is that if the technology development focuses on Mars only, that may leave out thedevelopments needed to create a sustainable cislunar space economy.
They also make the obvious conclusion that whatever plan is chosen, it must be adequately funded and supported across multiple administrations. We all know those are the problems but this report provides no solutions.
A lot of the report is stuff that space advocates and aerospace industry leaders already knew. No really new ideas are proposed, and no new insights or answers are offered. They don’t think NASA’s current flexible approach is going to get us to Mars but it’s all the agency can afford. So from my perspective, this is another space policy report that is going to sit on the shelf and collect dust.
… or Kicking the Same Can Down the Same Road and Getting Nowhere
In my earlier post on the recent NSS International Space Development Conference (ISDC), I mentioned that not much has changed since my more frequent opportunities to attend the ISDC over twenty years ago. It would seem that we (the NSS and like-minded space advocates) have been using the same sales pitch for the last thirty years and we are getting the same results. Not much. I found similar sentiments in commentaries posted by space historian Dwayne Day (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2516/1) and policy analyst Jeff Foust (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2510/1).
One example was Mark Hopkins’ talk with the headline “Space is Our Future” (in black Helvetica text on a featureless viewgraph background). Wasn’t that our tagline in 1980? After over three decades of grass-roots and Washington, DC-based advocacy, the US still does not have a coherent long term space strategy. Similarly, the American public has not bought into the concept of an expanded space exploration and development effort with any sort of passion or excitement. Maybe that’s why we don’t have a coherent policy.
I submit that we need to update our approach and our message, or at least find a new way of summarizing our vision in a short statement. If “Space is Our Future” was true in 1980, and we still try to use that line today, it dismisses all the progress of the past 34 years. In 1980 there were precious few planetary missions planned, the only space station was Russian, and the Shuttle had yet to fly. Now we have a functioning research lab with a crew of six in orbit, robots crawling around Mars and heading to Pluto, and a burgeoning private space industry. I contend that space is not just in our future but is well-established today. We should stop the negative thinking and mindset that we have made no progress. We may not have tourist flights to 100 km yet or factories in space, but we have come a long way.
On the other hand, Hopkins painted a rosy picture of how well the NSS is doing. I’m not so sure about that. NSS membership is simultaneously dwindling and aging. The Society has not adapted to the internet and that is hurting chapters and recruiting. We still have not been able to articulate our reasons to send people into space at all. There are many reasons but none have proved compelling or else we would be further along.
Advocacy groups also need to keep their message up to date. NSS-types (and L5 veterans in particular) have always been enamored with living in space. They want to go into space. I understand that – it’s awesome and cool. Their original reason the L5 Society supported space based solar power (SSP) satellites was that it would take hundreds of astronauts on-orbit to build the giant structures. That would be the ticket to space for ordinary people – the need to manually build gigantic power satellites. A fall out of the SSP model was that they were so big you needed giant rockets to launch them (to take us to space cheaper!) or you had to mine extraterrestrial resources. Both developments would foster a huge growth in space based industry.
The latest concepts for SSP take advantage of advances in performance and robotics, however, and no longer require space colonies as assembly bases or ET materials. That puts a big hole in that original plan go get more people in space. There are still concepts for large scale habitats in free space but the economic case for building them is still rather fuzzy. Lunar and Mars colonies are touted as ways to ensure we establish ourselves as a multi-planet species so as not to go the way of the dinosaurs should some catastrophe make our home planet uninhabitable. That is a noble goal, but it has yet to be established that humans can thrive (or even reproduce) in those low gravity environments.
Another example from the ISDC was Rick Tumlinson, who gave another one of his preacher-style sermons where he explains his vision of humanity’s future in space. He has even developed his performance to the point where he includes peppy background music to work the audience. Most notably, Tumlinson’s ultimate reason for supporting manned spaceflight isn’t economics, or exploration, or survival of the species, it’s “because we want to”. Sorry, that seems so infantile to me. I want to live in a nice cabin in the mountains, but I can’t afford it. So I should usurp national technology development policy just so my friends and I can go live on a mountaintop, just because we like the view? We’re not even pretending we can make a living there, or provide a useful service, we just want to go. I can imagine how well that message will go over with the single mom with two jobs or the married dad with none. That may inspire the faithful but it won’t bring in new parishioners.
So what is the right way to convey this message? The current NSS Vision statement is the closest thing I could find for a summary of the “message”:
“People living and working in thriving communities beyond the Earth and the use of the vast resources of space for the dramatic betterment of humanity.”
That statement is a good summary of the long term goal (i.e., vision) of the Society, but I’m not sure it does well as a marketing slogan. When you include phrases like communities beyond the Earth people are going to roll their eyes and dismiss whatever follows because you are clearly out of touch with reality, or at least the reality of the man on the street.
My bottom line here is that space development has always been difficult to sell to the public. It’s been that way for the over thirty years I have been involved with this movement, and frankly we should only expect that to change when the space “ecology” (technology, business models, commercial utilization, etc.) changes. That’s starting to happen but it is a very slow process and folks are understandably running out of patience.
I’m afraid I don’t have any good answer, but thanks for listening to my observations on this topic.