Category Archives: Space

News From The Augustine Panel

I have it on fairly good authority that one of the subpanels will have an interesting announcement this morning, that some readers may find encouraging. Don’t know much more than that, and I’ll be incommunicado until this afternoon, when we get back to Boca.

[Mid-afternoon update]

I see from comments that there was a strong endorsement of propellant depots for exploration beyond LEO (which, as Jeff noted, should have been so obvious that historians will look back dumbfounded in retrospect that we remained hung up on megalaunchers for so long). I haven’t seen the presentation yet, but Clark Lindsey has a summary.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jon Goff: “The most amazing twenty-five minutes in NASA history.”

Well, that’s probably a slight exaggeration — I think an event that happened a little over forty years ago probably tops it, but I know what he means. The question is whether or not the policy establishment will pay attention. I have an email from someone in the know who notes that everyone on that subpanel gets the Frontier Enabling Test.

I’m sorry I missed the presentation live, but I assume that it will be replayable, or Youtubed. It certainly should be — I think that it probably will prove to be quite historic.

[Update about 4 PM EDT]

What is Norm Augustine thinking
about ISS?

If he was not playing devil’s advocate, then Augustine’s first question indicates a belief that the American public might not be so excited about funding a lengthy and costly mission to Mars that isn’t clearly an American mission. His second question suggests he believes that when you get right down to it, there isn’t much to the space station beyond the great international coalition it has wrought.

There are many strong arguments to keep the space station — most notably that it seems ridiculous to abandon it just five years after it’s completed — but if Augustine believes deep down that it serves no real scientific or exploration purpose, that will carry a lot of weight with Obama.

I think that for current planned uses, and in its current location, it’s not worth the money of keeping it going. If “international cooperation” is so important to Sally Ride and the other politically correct astronauts, let them scrounge up the couple billion a year to do so from ESA, Japan, and others. But I’d like to see some serious proposals to move it to a more affordable location at 28 degrees (it wouldn’t take long to save the money that it would take to move it in reduced launch costs) and use it as a base facility for depot operations and research, as well as a primary base for extended-duration crew research for deep-space missions, perhaps using coorbiting Bigelow modules. With a short-distance cargo-crew tug, this would eliminate the need for a back-to-earth lifeboat, for everything short of a coronal mass ejection or alien attack.

[Evening update]

Jon Goff has posted his white paper on propellant depots, which I would assume played at least some role in today’s results.

“HTML Deleted”

I was commenting over at NASA Watch, and in response to this comment: “I don’t understand why designing one big rocket to launch everything at once isn’t the better idea. Saturn V took the crew and the cargo to the moon…, I wrote something like “Because an approach taken in a race to the moon isn’t the best approach for building a program that is affordable and sustainable,” with a link to my piece at The New Atlantis. All comments are moderated over there. The post appeared, but like this:

Because an approach taken in a race to the moon isn’t the best approach for building a program that is

HTML DELETED

Apparently, Keith not only isn’t going to link to it himself, he’s not even going to allow links to it in comments. I wonder why he doesn’t think that his readers would find it of interest?

A Space Program For The Rest Of Us

I know, you’ve all given up, and just assumed that the piece in The New Atlantis was just another drug-addled Simberg fantasy of grandeur. That when I kept saying it would be Real Soon Now, that it was just vaporware. Well, Now has finally arrived.

As I wrote in an early draft, if extraterrestrial aliens had contacted the White House after the last lunar landing in 1972, and told the president that humans wouldn’t be allowed to move into space beyond earth orbit, and to pass the message on to his successors, but that the public was not to know this, it’s hard to imagine how policy actions would have been much different. Let’s Hope that this can finally Change with the new administration. That (unlike most of the rest of the agenda) would be Hope and Change that I could believe in.

[Late Friday update]

I want to thank everyone for the kudos, but I can’t accept it (did you know that kudos is not plural?) without acknowledging that this was a collaboration. Adam Keiper, the first and only (to date) editor of The New Atlantis, encouraged me to write this piece and, more importantly, played a key role in making it what it was. While we lost some things in editing (that I’ll rectify in a later Director’s Cut, and perhaps expand into a book), he focused it and almost certainly helped make it more influential in getting more to read it now, when we are at such a critical cusp of policy decisions.

But beyond that, he really helped write it. I was tired when I finished, and had a weak ending. The final paragraph, one of the best in it, if not the best (and it may be), is his.

And I’m grateful for the opportunity that he provided to get this message out, not just with The Path Not Taken five years ago (was it really that long?) but this and other pieces. The links in it are his, which indicates to me that he’s been following this topic closely. The most amazing thing is that this collaboration is a result of a snarky criticism by me of his own space-policy punditry, over half a decade ago. Rather than taking umbrage, he opened his mind to new possibilities, and the result is this (so far at least) collaborative magnum opus.

[Bumped]

Bloggus Interruptus

I was over at the California Science Center this afternoon to hear a panel discussion with Buzz Aldrin and several other speakers, moderated by Howard McCurdy. And I’m on a red eye back to Florida tonight, so probably not much until sometime tomorrow.

[Friday morning update]

Back home, but sleep deprived. Maybe more later.

Apollo Thoughts I’d Missed Monday

From James Lileks:

As I’ve said before, nothing sums up the seventies, and the awful guttering of the national spirit, than a pop song about Skylab falling on people’s heads. “Skylab’s Falling,” a novelty hit in the summer of ’79. It tumbled down thirty years ago this month, and didn’t get much press, possibly because of the odd muted humiliation over the event. But it wasn’t end of Skylab that gave people a strange shameful dismay. It was the idea that we were done up there, and the only thing we’d done since the Moon trips did an ignominious Icarus instead of staying up for decades. So this wasn’t the first step toward the inevitable double-wheel with a Strauss waltz soundtrack, or something more prosaic. Wasn’t that the way it was supposed to work? Moon first, then space station, then moon colonization, then Mars.

If a kid could see that, why couldn’t they?

…Robot exploration is very cool; I’d like more. As someone noted elsewhere, we should have those rovers crawling all over the Moon, at the very least. It’s just down the street. But think how much grander we would feel if we knew that our first mission to Jupiter was coming back next month. (Without the giant space-fetus.) How we would imagine our solar system, how each planet would feel like a blank page in a passport waiting for a stamp. Perhaps that’s what annoys some: the aggrandizement that would come from great exploits. Human pride in something that isn’t specifically related to fixing the Great Problems we face now, or apologizing for the Bad Things we did before. Spending money to go to Mars before we’ve stopped climate turbulence would be like taking a trip to Europe while the house is on fire.

I had forgotten that Skylab fell a decade after the first landing. What a metaphorical fall, in only ten brief years (though they seemed longer at the time, I being much younger).

Oh, and the astronaut punching the guy in the face thing? As long-time blog readers know, it was a hoax. Never happened.

Wrap-Up Session

Jim Muncy is introducing Pete Worden (Ames Center Director), Rick Tumlinson, Jim Logan (NASA flight surgeon) for final session on “Where Do We Go From Here.”

Tumlinson: Not going to reach any conclusions today, will wait for Mr. Augustine who will tell us what to do…

Worden: His view has evolved over the last few years. The only purpose of the space program is to settle space. It is pretty clear that this government, and governments in general are not going to accomplish this. They can enable, but not do it. What is the role of government? Thinks that it’s what the NACA did, and considers his center to be the space NACA. Critical issue is technologies. Don’t develop propulsion technologies, but consider many Ames techs to be critical for living on Mars. Thinks that biotech could be very key, with self replication to spare the need to haul a lot of mass. Talking about Singularity University and that it’s an integral part. Need to follow the water. Know that it’s on Mars and asteroids, and think it’s at the lunar poles. Made a mistake in calling LCROSS a “bombing run,” and got in a little trouble. Can’t resist being a smart-ass. Did it in the context of a readiness review, and thought it was so cool that he put it on Twitter. People thought that Ames was going to start an interplanetary war. Have to enable the private sector with basic surveys and rocket technologies. Develop biotech, and think about getting ready initially by avoiding gravity wells. Also consider one-way missions, which the government will never be able to do, but may be the only way in the near term.

Jim Logan: Wants to echo what Pete said. Starting to hear biology, biology and biology. Have to not just use biotech, but make machines behave like they’re biological organisms. We have to assume that we are going out with the central goal of settlement, and if we’re not going to, then don’t send people. Have to learn how to “bioneer.” That’s what humans have been doing from the beginning of time. Taking the resources you find and use them for building blocks for plants and animals. We will have to take our own environment at least in the beginning, including gravity. Don’t expect people to adapt to the hazards, including weightlessness and radiation. Initially we have to build the first tool from non-terrestrial materials, even a lever or can opener, though we can’t do it in LEO. Have to rethink the skill set and mix in both NASA and the private sector if we’re focusing on biology. Need a lot more bioengineers, life scientists, geneticists. Machines have to act like organisms. Need cross-cultural flow. Engineering and life-science culture don’t mix well at NASA, but there has to be more cross fertilization. Engineers Newtonian, life science quantum mechanics. Neither is wrong, but have to use what is appropriate. This is year 48 of human spaceflight. We cannot do flags and footprints again. There was a good reason to do it the first time, but not a good reason the second time.

Tumlinson: Was asked (again) by a reporter what the destination should be. Told her it’s not about where we go, but why. It’s not about destination but motivation. Tried to give her the frontier philosophy on the air. Saw the article and read it. He wasn’t in there. The story was “moon, Mars, asteroids.” She was unable to comprehend a story that wasn’t about that. Until we can get the media to talk about why, we will continue to go in circles, and have programs that start and die, and will not see progress and potentially even the end of private activities, because it will be characterized as rich people and their toys. There has to be a drive that is understood by the people. Has talked to Hollywood and Kiwanis, and when he does so, they get it, but in the national dialogue and the media, they don’t get it. That has to change. Need to have “philosophical air cover” for when someone dies. How does panel recommend we begin changing the conversation?

Worden: Keep saying the wrong thing (settlements) until he gets fired (which will be fine, because he’ll make more money). NASA’s science has to be done with robots. Everything we discover shows that we know less than we thought, which is job security. Next decade will be biology. NASA does things to help the earth (uncovered the climate change issue). Starting to develop green airplanes. But the third thing that it has to do is settlement of the solar system. We may be triggering mass extinction so we need to have backup plans.

Tumlinson: Every NASA administration rolls out the space colony pictures, and have the rhetoric. Thinks that Bush really meant that we’re going to go and stay in space, but what NASA heard was “go build a vehicle.”

Worden: It’s like training a dog. Every time it comes up, we hit it again, and eventually it stops peeing on the furniture, and starts to hunt or whatever we want it to do. Can’t expect a right-angle turn, but right now we’ll make a little progress. We’re much closer now than we were twenty years ago, and will continue to get there slower than we like.

Logan: NASA doesn’t do visions. It does vehicles, and that’s how it’s organized. Life Sciences at JSC tried to reorganize itself to the Vision, and Human Resources didn’t allow it. Most people are pro-space, but some segments of society (particularly young people) are actually hostile to space, because they don’t get it, because it hasn’t been presented it to them in a way that they can relate to, because NASA is uncomfortable in doing it. Shuttle has had a program office for almost forty years, but the program has been a failure by its own goals. Fear is that we’re starting another twenty-year program in which the justification becomes the vehicle. The goal for ISS became “finish the ISS.” “We don’t get fooled again.” Angry that his youth was taken away from him by marching in step. Not nearly as far along in 2009 as he thought we would or should be.

Worden: Stop talking about rockets and start talking about why we’re building them.

Tumlinson: The generation that is supposedly anti-technology just made a blockbuster out of the new Star Trek movie. Same generation that is twittering is hungry to see something exciting, and they’re seeing it in the private sector ventures, but what would you say to NASA to excite this generation.

Worden: Need to restate that the only one purpose of sending people into space is settlement. The president needs to tell people that we are going to space to live there, and not worry about what the rocket looks like.

Logan: Young people are not excited because no American astronaut has been any further from the earth in the last thirty-five years than the distance from San Francisco to Santa Barbara. Stop calling going to LEO “exploration.” Where is the world-class science that was supposed to come from the Shuttle and Station? He doesn’t see it. It’s a self-licking ice-cream cone. He likes ice cream, but not when it licks itself. When he got to JSC in the early eighties, he sought out Apollo veterans, and got the sense that it was a lot different. At the end of Apollo they felt very lucky, and had almost gone a bridge too far, and were grateful that they had gotten by unscathed and were ready to take a deep breath and come back down to earth orbit.

Audience question: 19-25 generation guy wants to know what NASA should do to motivate him. They motivate the scientist in him, but not the explorer or entrepreneur in him. That inspiration is all coming from X-Prize, Armadillo, entrepreneurs, but not from NASA.

Worden: NASA needs to be NACA and midwife new industry (which Ames probably does more than any other center). The entrepreneurs come here for testing in wind tunnels, etc. NASA shouldn’t be building the systems. He thinks that NASA should be doing more, smaller things, like LCROSS.

Logan thinks that opens source contests are important (to applause). Who can send a robot to the moon and make a tool?

Tumlinson: Get into the game. It’s not the government’s job to provide that sort of excitement. Believes in the Lewis and Clark model, because he doesn’t know how to put together a business plan for that sort of thing that won’t get laughed out of the board room.

Logan: What never fails to get people involved is mining the asteroids or mining the sky scenario. Everyone is totally wowed by that concept. Giving kudos to John Lewis, whose book he carries in his briefcase. Always excites people when he talks about it.

Worden is optimistic after three years at NASA. Thinks a lot of cool things are going on.

Logan was on operations task force to go around to centers that transitioning from Shuttle to station that they would have to do things differently. But all they wanted to know was how to change the charge code from Shuttle to station with the same staff and facilities.

Tumlinson: Have to get out there and talk to people about motivation, that there is something bigger, greater going on, and that Branson and others is about more than rich people.

Muncy at end of discussion. Presenting General Worden with Pioneer of NewSpace award. Only given it to entrepreneurs in the past (David Hannah, Tom Rogers) and gave it to people who were doing these things before anyone knew what NewSpace was. No one working for the government more entrepreneurial than Pete Worden. Has led more teams to more results for less money than anyone else, many of which we will probably never even know about. Was pioneering this way of doing things long before the foundation existed. Both DC-X and Clementine one won other foundation awards. Getting standing ovation from the audience.

Another, not-so-pleasant award. Gary Barnhard awards him a “frog a day” calendar to the sound of the Darth Vader theme (an inside joke that I’ll have to explain later — someone remind me).

Bob Werb presenting a “Service to the Frontier” award to Jack Kennedy (in absentia in China) for his work in Virginia with “Zero-Gee, Zero-Tax” and liability limitation for spaceports. Got Megan Seals on a Zero-G flight. He’s not trying to get government to design or build anything, he’s trying to get government to set good rules and use its purchasing power. Megan Seals coming up to accept on his behalf.

One more award to Bob Werb’s wife for putting up with all of this craziness for so many years, and the conference is over, except for tonight’s black-tie gala. No, I’m not going, except perhaps to take notes in the back, sans tux.

Augustine’s Scenarios

Jeff Foust has a post on what the panel is considering. As some of my long-time readers might guess, my choice would be Option 5 — Flexible Path. We don’t need a destination — we need a vision, and infrastructure. Once we have the capability to get into the vicinity of various locations, and developed depoting capabilities, we can then figure out the best way to get in and out of the wells. And the easiest resources aren’t in deep gravity wells — they’re in shallow dimples.

[Update a few minutes later]

I would note this paragraph, having now read the full document:

The transportation infrastructure decisions (decisions 4 and 5) will be examined as a comprehensive trade space of launcher vehicles, depoting and destinations. That is, we will examine the possible in-space transportation infrastructure to all likely destinations for each of the launch vehicle classes, with each of the depoting concepts.

That is, they have accepted depots as interesting options to consider as a fundamental part of an infrastructure (which one must to have any truly promising options).