Week In Space

Listen now:  thisweekinspace_072609.mp3

It’s been a given that the retirement of the space shuttle would lead to mass layoffs at NASA and its contractors. Job cuts are now beginnning to hit the aerospace workforce, primarily because of the budgets for Fiscal Year 2010, which begin the process of shuttle-to-Constellation transition. Making matters worse, United Launch Alliance announced pending job cuts of over 200 people, mostly involved in Delta II rocket operations. Florida’s Space Coast is bracing for the impact not only of these losses, but thousands more to follow over the next couple years.

Meanwhile, NASA is in a state of uncertainty while the Human Spaceflight Review Committee (the Augustine Commission) completes its work analyzing the space agency’s current plans for Constellation, the launch architecture and the goals of the new manned launch system. With everything up in the air, both from a hardware as well as programmatic point of view, it’s making it impossible to know for sure what’s going to be happening next year beyond shuttle phase-out. For example, the third revision of NASA’s workforce transition strategy essentially leaves out strategy for 2010. Insofar as workforce reductions are concerned, the report simply carries over the number from 2009. Why is that? It’s because nobody can estimate exactly what the workforce requirements are going to be, because we don’t know what vehicles and missions will be in development. That uncertainty is troubling. Five years into the Vision for Space Exploration, the agency should have worked through those issues by now and be moving solidly forward on a long-term plan.

Against that backdrop, the voices calling for wholesale changes to Constellation have reached a fever pitch. The statement “blood in the water” has been used. A number of people, some well-intentioned and some seeking their own personal fame, are urging the Augustine Commission to recommend scrapping the Ares I rocket and restructure the remaining elements of Constellation to fit a different (”their”) architecture. Still others are urging NASA to rely on the existing Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles Delta IV and Atlas 5 to carry the Orion spacecraft to orbit. And yet others are advocating other options. All these options were examined 5 years ago, and yet better minds above have decided the entire issue needs to be revisited, all options re-opened, and, as a result, the whole Constellation project has been thrown into Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt… the dreaded FUD.

Some people seem to be taking glee in this, and extract a perverse joy in proclaiming “the Stick is dead!” while forgetting about or ignoring what that really means, and what it really means for the hardworking NASA and contractor employees who only want to be building a new vehicle and enabling a return to the Moon and other destinations. People who, meanwhile, are left wondering if they’ll even have jobs a year from now… and what kind of jobs those will be. More FUD.

The proponents of the “Direct” alternative to Ares I/V are at the forefront of this gleeful cacophany of personal hatred for Ares I. Their ideas have technical merit, and would, in fact, result in a capable vehicle. However, their presentation, their attack, is filled with personal invective, bachanded accusations (without evidence) of “conspiracies” within NASA, tales (without evidence) of employee intimidation, exaggeration of Direct’s capabilities and development time and cost estimates, and outright mistruths regarding Ares I capabilities and development hurdles and cost. Sometimes, their arguments start to sound more like amateur amrchair engineering than thoughbt-out engineering analysis, and this is a shame. On the one hand, it attracts the kind of “tin foil hatters” who serve only to ruin the group’s credibility. It also makes it more difficult for outside experts to seriously and fairly evaluate their proposals. Meanwhile, nobody, it seems, outside of NASA, is willing to take the group to task for its mis-statements, oversimplifications and exaggerations. Apparently, to do so would mean you will be labeled an “Ares lover” or “ignorant follower of NASA’s party line”. Apparently, if you intelligently disagree with the group, you will be demonized and marginalized as just a sheep of NASA, or worse, part of the Conspiracy. The argument leaves the realm of technical and engineering, and moves into the world of personal attack, the “politics of personal destruction” and invective.

I don’t care. I’m not a sheep. I don’t work for NASA and am not paid by NASA. I don’t stand up and extoll the virtues of Ares I. I will, however, have the courage to stand up and ask hard questions of Direct, and take them to task where their proposal, and actions, fall short. Even more, when they unfairly attack NASA or a contractor or anyone who disagrees with them, I will speak up about that as well. Petty arguments only add chaff to the current debate. It confuses issues. More importantly, it causes people to think with an emotional, rather than technical basis. And that’s a perfect way to make bad engineering decisions.

Those are the topics I address this week. The program runs a bit longer than usual, about 90 minutes, but hopefully it’s worth it. The debate that is ongoing is too important for the future of human spaceflight for any of us to stand aside and not actively participate.

Listen now: thisweekinspace_072609.mp3

Listen Now: thisweekinspace_040608.mp3

 In the news this week, the first European Automated Transfer Vehicle, Jules Verne, docked with the International Space Station last thursday. The cargo ship carried over 7500 pounds of supplies fro the Expedition 16 and 17 crews. Also, NASA’s Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) is entering final testing and preparation for launch on a Delta 2 rocket from Cape Canaveral A.F.S. on May 16.

Commentary this week focuses on a report issued by the Government Accountability Office critical of NASA’s development efforts on the Ares I launch vehicle and Orion crew capsule. GAO identifies several cost, schedule and safety hurdles that NASA will have to overcome in the coming months if the agency hopes to maintain the schedule for bringing Orion online in 2015. Among the concerns are the thrust oscillation problem on the Ares I first stage causing vibrations too high for a manned crew, weight concerns on both the Ares and Orion, and the inability of industry so far to demonstrate the capability to build the thermal protection system that Orion will requires during re-entry. GAO says NASA can overcome all of these issues, but the agency will be hard-pressed to do so before the Ares I and Orion preliminary design reviews this fall.

Listen Now: thisweekinspace_030208.mp3

This week we take a look at the next shuttle mission. Endeavour is scheduled to launch on STS-123 March 11 on a flight to the International Space Station. This is one of the most exciting and complex shuttle flights to date. Endeavour will deliver the first module of the the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s Kibo laboratory to the space station and will also take up the Canadian-built Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator, Dextre, which will act like a remote-controlled hand for doing maintenance work on the station. The 16-day flight will be the longest shuttle flight to the station yet.

Read the rest of this entry »