Category Archives: Space

Space, Space History

Losing A Champion

4 Comments

I didn’t see Len Cormier at Space Access in March, though he has rarely missed one in the past. Now via an email from Pat Kelley, I learned why:

I’m sad to announce that Len Cormier is losing his battle with cancer. I spoke with him today, and he’s in a hospice awaiting the end. I’ve had the privilege of his friendship and professional partnership for over ten years, and I hate to see this come to an end before my goal of at least giving him the satisfaction of seeing a project birthed from his incredible intellect at least get started.

Len is not terribly religious, but I know he would not be offended by good wishes, prayers, or whatever means you may choose to honor him. I will miss him.

I don’t know how far from the end it is, and where there’s life there’s hope, so I won’t talk about him in the past tense. But if he doesn’t make it, it will be a damned shame. No one living has been talking about affordable access to space, and worked as hard at it as Len, having been an advocate for almost half a century. He was also one of the gentlest men, in the gentleman sense, that I’ve ever met, always gracious, even in the face of unreasonable criticism and often vituperation.

It’s a tragedy that he is leaving us just as the funding dam is starting to break on the kinds of projects that he has been advocating for so long, and that he won’t see the results. He should go knowing, though, that he played a significant role in laying the ground work for it, and inspired many who will carry on in his stead. Despite his failure to achieve his audacious goals, I think that he’ll be far more than a footnote in the history of astronautics.

[Update a few minutes later]

Another email comment from Rick Jurmain:

Len’s a man with dreams too grand for a single lifetime. That’s as it should be.

Or, to paraphrase Sunset Boulevard: He is big. It’s the space program that got small.

It’s been an honor to work with Len. I’ll remember him.

History, Space

One Man, One Way

7 Comments

Phil Bowermaster has some thoughts on what I think is actually quite a likely scenario for the first human on Mars. It won’t be done by NASA, though, or likely any government space agency. They simply can’t afford to take the risk when it’s funded by taxpayers, as we’ve seen when the nation gets unreasonably hysterical over astronaut deaths. It will be a privately funded expedition, which will be able to do so without the intrusion of politics.

And of course, this will be more in the nature of such exploration. After all, the vast majority of polar exploration (e.g., Peary, Scott, Amundsen, Shackleton) was privately funded. Once we get the cost of access to orbit down, and establish an orbital fueling infrastructure, it will be quite feasible to raise the money for private adventures such as this.

Sadly, NASA is contributing almost nothing to those goals, instead spending billions developing expensive government-owned/operated launch vehicles and capsules that will likely become obsolete before they first fly.

Space

Beautiful Launch

2 Comments

We’d considered driving up, but I read at the Flame Trench that it was the biggest crowd since return to flight (probably because it was a beautiful day, and a Saturday), and we didn’t want to fight the throngs and sit in the car all day. I’ve never been able to see a launch from here in Boca–maybe it’s too low on the horizon with all the obstructions (the fact that they launch northerly probably doesn’t help), so we watched on television. Looked flawless to me, other than a couple specks flying back along the tank.

I think that if they don’t have any more problems for a while, there will be a lot of pressure to close the “gap” by extending the program, now that it looks like NASA has wrung the bugs out of it. Particularly given what a mess Ares/Orion seems to be.

General, Space

Senseless

4 Comments

I just got some bad news. When I saw this story at NASA Watch, I recognized the name, but hoped that it wasn’t the Darren Spurlock with whom I’d worked three years ago on the CE&R studies for NASA, back before Griffin came in and decided to implement his own ESAS architecture. That Darren was at least a decade younger than fifty, and he worked at Boeing. But it seemed unlikely to me that there would be two aerospace engineers in Huntsville with that name.

Sadly (though of course it would be tragedy regardless of which Darren Spurlock died) I just got off the phone with one of his Boeing former colleagues. The paper got the age wrong, and he had left Boeing to work for Marshall only three weeks ago. I never met his wife, but want to extend my condolences to her. I believe he left a young family. I’ll be getting info about memorial services, and post them when I get them, for those interested in the Huntsville area.

I didn’t know Darren that long–the CE&R study was my only work with him, but he was a good man, a good, smart hard-working engineer, and he worked very hard to come up with and document architectures that would be affordable and sustainable in getting us off the planet, in consonance with the president’s Vision for Space Exploration. He was as frustrated as anyone when NASA basically ignored everything we’d done under Steidle to come up with the current…plan. But he moved on, obviously, and must have been looking forward to doing good things at the agency itself. Now, senselessly, a valuable career and valuable life have been cut short.

[Evening update]

This post now comes up numero uno in a search for “Darren Spurlock.

Who knoweth the ways of Google?

Political Commentary, Space

Externships

8 Comments

Jon Goff has some thoughts about outsourcing NASA employees to private industry.

It’s an interesting concept, and not to discourage him from out-of-the-box thinking, but it has several flaws, more than one of which is almost certainly fatal.

Where would they work? Senator Shelby is not going to countenance a program that ships a Huntsville employee off to Mojave (and there are a lot of NASA employees who don’t want to move to Mojave). It’s not just the jobs that are important, but where they are. So it may necessitate moving the company to places like Huntsville to take advantage of it, even though it may be a terrible location from most other standpoints (e.g., flight test). In addition, a lot of the jobs that Congress wants to save aren’t just NASA civil servants–more, probably many more of them are contractors. How does that work? Does Boeing send you an extern and get reimbursed by NASA? How do you work out proprietary issues (among others)? How do you ensure that they send you the best employees, and not the ones they were going to lay off?

Also, there will be a huge discontinuity with skill matches. The current Shuttle work force, for the most part, knows very little about vehicle development, and what they know about vehicle operations, from the standpoint of a low-cost launch provider, is mostly wrong. Also, while a lot of people work for NASA because they’re excited about space, many there do so because they like the civil service protections and pensions. They don’t necessarily want to work the long hours often demanded of a startup, and they come from an employment culture that may be quite incompatible with the fixed-price private sector. I won’t say any more than that, but this is one of the reasons that the Aldridge Commission’s recommendation to convert the NASA centers to FFRDCs went over like a lead blimp.

And how would one qualify to get these “government resources” and how many would you get? As many as you ask for? After all, if the product is free (and contra the paragraph above, desirable) surely demand will exceed supply. How will you allocate the supply. It won’t happen on price, obviously, so some other solution will have to be developed. Would a company “bid” for an extern (and would they be able to bid on a specific person, or would they have to take pot luck?) by putting some kind of proposal to demonstrate how worthy their cause and their use of her will be? Who will be the equivalent of a source selection board for such a process? Can the current acquisition regulations even accommodate something like this? I know that this currently occurs for a few individuals, where it is mutually agreed, but I’m not sure that it would work for an entire work force.

Just a few thoughts, off the top of my head.

Political Commentary, Space

John Adams Must Be Smiling

8 Comments

This post, linked by Glenn from the ISDC, reminds me of this post I wrote when this blog was only four months old. It’s not that long, so I’ll repeat. It was titled (as shown over in the left sidebar) “Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff”:

As a follow up to today’s rant over our “allies” in Europe, over at USS Clueless, Steven den Beste has an excellent disquisition on the fundamental differences between Europe and the U.S. They don’t, and cannot, understand that the U.S. exists and thrives because it is the UnEurope, that it was built by people who left Europe (and other places) because they wanted freedom.

I say this not to offer simply a pale imitation of Steven’s disquisition (which is the best I could do, at least tonight), but to explain why I spend so much time talking about space policy here. It’s not (just) because I’m a space nut, or because I used to do it for a living, and so have some knowledge to disseminate. It’s because it’s important to me, and it should be important to everyone who is concerned about dynamism and liberty.

And the reason that it’s important is because there may be a time in the future, perhaps not even the distant future, when the U.S. will no longer be a haven for those who seek sanctuary from oppressive government. The trends over the past several decades are not always encouraging, and as at least a social insurance policy, we may need a new frontier into which freedom can expand.

Half a millenium ago, Europe discovered a New World. Unfortunately for its inhabitants (who had discovered it previously), the Europeans had superior technology and social structures that allowed them to conquer it.

Now, in the last couple hundred years, we have discovered how vast our universe is, and in the last couple decades, we have discovered how rich in resources it is, given will and technology. As did the eastern seaboard of the present U.S. in the late eighteenth century, it offers mankind a fertile petri dish for new societal arrangements and experiments, and ultimately, an isolated frontier from which we will be able to escape from possible future terrestrial disasters, whether of natural or human origin.

If, as many unfortunately in this country seem to wish, freedom is constricted in the U.S., the last earthly abode of true libertarian principles, it may offer an ultimate safety valve for those of us who wish to continue the dream of the founders of this nation, sans slavery or native Americans–we can found it without the flawed circumstances of 1787.

That is why space, and particularly free-enterprise space, is important.

Media Criticism, Space

Way To Go

8 Comments

Thanks for discouraging live blogging of space (and other) conferences (not to mention anything else), Keith.

[Saturday morning update]

The lesson here is that you have to be careful to delineate your editorial comments from the reportage (I usually do this with parenths, I think, though I’d have to go back and look at some from the past to be sure–I might use square brackets) when transcribing, because it is easily confused otherwise. But as I said, we shouldn’t let things like this discourage us from doing it. This is the first conference like this that I’ve missed in a while, and I really appreciate what Clark and others are doing. I’ve always wondered if what I was doing was worthwhile when I live blogged other conferences, and now I know that it definitely is. Well, at least when others do it…