MarsBlog.net

I’m at Michoud this week on business, and had the opportunity to visit the factory today for the first time in nearly a year.

What a change ten months can make.

While last year, the dome tooling was still mostly in place (a few of the mechanical assembly pedestals had been pulled up), most of the mechanical assembly area and associated material cribs have been cleared out, leaving behind only the more complicated tools used for NC machining of the SRB fittings. Last year, there was still a pair of LOx tanks in post-proof inspection near the end of the production line, and an LH2 tank which had just had its forward dome (the last major segment) welded on. Today, all of the weld tools (domes, barrels, ogives, and major weld) had been mothballed and wrapped up, along with the large milling machines and lathes used to trim the various segments – it was like walking through a winter storage facility filled with shrink-wrapped boats.

What impressed me the most, however, was that for the first time in twelve-plus years, I saw areas of the factory with the lights turned off.

What this suggests is that there isn’t any hardware work going on to extend the Shuttle program beyond the number of tanks currently on-hand or in final assembly. If, as rumored, NASA is directed to extend the Shuttle program, they’d better start soon if they don’t want to end up with the long gap such an extension would be meant to avoid or minimize – due simply to the time lag in tank manufacturing.  And if what I was told about spares is true, it may only be possible to manufacture two additional tanks, assuming at that that everything would go perfectly and none of the spare components on order or in house have unrepairable defects or damage. With the one flightworthy tank I’m told will be left over at the end of the Shuttle program, that means an extension of at most three flights before the supply chain would need to be restarted — at considerable expense and delay.

Posted on March 15th, 2010 under Moon-Mars Plan, Space Policy, Space Technology. Tags: cancellation, extension, External Tank, Michoud, nasa, Shuttle. Comments: 1

It seems our representatives here in Colorado have suddenly noticed that the cancellation of Constellation (and Orion in particular) might mean the loss of jobs in their districts. Which you’d pretty much expect…the only surprise here is that it took them longer to get around to it than it did the delegations from Texas, Florida, Utah, etc.  Colorado’s ineffectual Senators, Invisible Mark Udall and “Senator Who?” Michael Bennett, have yet to weigh in, but then it’s a tossup as to whether anyone actually cares what they have to say or even remembers that the state has a pair of Senators in D.C..

Mike Coffman, my Congressman and the one in whose district most of Colorado’s LM facilities happen to be located, paid us a visit yesterday to discuss the efforts to stay the cancellation. He is a signatory to the letter calling for a halt to the cancellation based on language in the FY2010 budget forbidding NASA from cancelling Constellation or initiating new programs – Congressmen from the space states are threatening to use the 1974 Impoundment Control Act to reverse the new policy, at least through the end of the current fiscal year.

The meeting consisted of management giving Rep. Coffman a short briefing on the history of Constellation (and in particular Orion), what it is and is intended to do. Lots of the standard rah-rah stuff: space is cool and cutting-edge, it’s a national security issue (engineering skill and innovation), and has spinoffs to the broader economy (thankfully, Tang and velcro were not mentioned). The usual.

Then the Congressman took questions. Here again, I was a disappointed by my coworkers and their attitude of entitlement when it comes to the program. Most of the questions were about what we might do to help save our jobs by persuading Congressmen to preserve the Constellation program as-is, unchanged. This focus on job security is understandable among people who might in a few months be looking for new employment in a crappy job market, but it seems awfully short-sighted in that it ignores the potential for the new policy (if actually implemented and not just happy-talk from the Obama administration) to create a much bigger industry (and thus more job opportunities) than we currently have in manned space.

There were only a few really novel questions. In one case, some guy asked earnestly whether the violation of the law implicit in the cancellation (see above) meant that Congress could now impeach Obama. Coffman seemed to get a kick out of the absurdity of this question, and kept making joking references to it afterwards (fortunately, no mention was made of the birth certificate – this was eye-roll inducing enough).

My own question focused on the commercial alternatives, and was the ONLY one which seemed to favor them. I pointed out that the new policy provides “subsidies” (bad choice of words, but not entirely inaccurate) to help new companies enter the market for cargo and crew delivery to station, which was a good thing and something exceptionally surprising to see coming from the Obama administration, and then asked whether he and the other Congressmen fighting against the cancellation would consider keeping and supporting this element of the new policy. (Which is a watered-down expression of my views on the matter, but the best I could do extemporaneously and in that specific environment.) In his answer, Rep. Coffman asserted that his first concern was preserving constituent jobs in the district, and that meant keeping Orion and Constellation going — other considerations, like new business possibilities, would have to take a back seat. Which I found disappointing from someone who claims to be a capitalist, but not surprising from someone who is a politician. Implied in his response was the belief that any of the new jobs created by the shift to commercial services would not be in CD-6, or Colorado generally, which is surprising given the new engineering work and increased launches that Tech Center-headquartered ULA would see under the new policy.

The last memorable question was a response to mine. Someone asked, his voice quavering with either nervousness or anger, if the entire policy shouldn’t be thrown out, asserting without making any supporting argument that privatization was wrong, that it was wrong wrong wrong to privatize the space program. Oh, and we shouldn’t privatize the space program…because that would be wrong…somehow. (Never mind that privatization is not even on the table.) I don’t know if his objection was merely an emotional response to the threat to his own job, or whether he was some sort of die-hard statist/Von Braunian who considers space a sphere of activity in which only the government should be permitted to operate. Or possibly both.

Posted on February 19th, 2010 under Constellation, Economics, Orion, Space Policy. Tags: capitalism, Coffman, Constellation, nasa, Obama, Orion, policy. Comments: 2

I found this video via NASAWatch just now — apparently it’s been making the rounds but hasn’t reached my work inbox as of yet:

While it was amusing to see one of my friends from New Orleans and what I think was the back of my boss’ head in a couple of the clips, I have to agree with Keith that the video is propaganda. And not merely propaganda aimed at saving Constellation, but saving Ares I in particular – made clear by the emotional manipulation towards the end of the vehicle, where images of children set to funereal music segue into an image of Ares I, equating it with The Space Program and describing it as “America’s Rocket”.

But nearly as apalling in this regard is the map which appears at about 6:25. Notice anything missing from this map purporting to show the players in Constellation? It isn’t ATK, Boeing, or Pratt & Whitney. While Turzillo may have merely scavenged this animation from other public video, the way that it is used here suggests that these contractors, with NASA, are the only ones taking part in Constellation. It is spliced in under the “Who Are You Guys?” segment, after all, the question in-context implying Constellation as a whole – were this video explicitly showcasing Ares I, I’d see no problem with it, but as it very clearly attempts to encapsulate the whole program it comes across as a slap in the face to the rest of us.

About three or so years ago, when Ares I’s many, many problems really started coming to light andthe fixes started to eat away at other areas of the agency’s budget, I cynically speculated that at some point all other money at NASA’s disposal would be used up, and Orion itself would have to be cancelled in order to fund the development of the vehicle meant to launch it. In Gift of the Magi fashion, we might eventually end up with a rocket that worked, but it would come at the cost of sacrificing the purpose for which it was supposedly built.

I may be reading too much into this single video by a Ares I engineer (made on his own time, and not sanctioned by his employer), but I have to wonder if this is what it will come to when the new space policy is taken up by Congress.  I’m certainly no less cynical about such things than I was three years ago, so I can readily imagine the absurd prospect of the rest of Constellation getting the axe, while Ares I is saved by grace of its stronger Congressional backing – despite being shorn of its stated reason for being.

Posted on February 3rd, 2010 under Constellation, Orion, Space Policy. Tags: ares, Constellation, nasa, Orion. Comments: 2

Well, you would have thought so from some of the nailbiting hall talk and email at work today concerning the announcement that the Obama administration will push for the cancellation of Constellation, replacing it with initiatives aimed at bringing the nascent commercial spaceflight industry into bloom. The doom and gloom around Orion was in (understandable) contrast to the delight (or simple satisfaction) seen around the space blogosphere.

I think Michael Mealing comes closest to my own attitude towards this development:

President Obama’s new policy for NASA is the most fiscally conservative and downright capitalist policy to come along since the agency was founded. 

And yes, it really boggles my mind that that should be the case. Obama? Capitalist? Who’da thunk? As one co-worker quipped today, Obama seems confused: he wants to nationalize a private industry in healthcare, but privatize the national program in manned space. One thing that has really surprised me today is how many of my friends have called or emailed me, expressing shock and disappointment that we are now “abandoning” space – unwittingly accepting the premise that a government program is our only possible means of getting people there. The perception that government is the sole entity capable of conducting manned spaceflight is so ingrained and unquestioned that it doesn’t seem to occur to even those who claim to be capitalists to question it.

But of course, I have to temper my surprise and excitement at this prospect, much as I did regarding the newfound enthusiasm for nuclear power Mr. Obama expressed in his SOTU last week. There’s going to be a lot of haggling to get the Congressional NASA caucus on board with this (although one Senator who could have been expected to be among the biggest roadblocks seems to be climbing on board – however reluctantly). It’s going to take some time, and who knows, just as ESAS made a dog’s breakfast of the VSE, so too could Congressional compromises and NASA resistance turn the promise of this new policy direction into yet another dead end.

Posted on February 1st, 2010 under Constellation, Economics, Moon-Mars Plan, Orion, Space Commerce, Space Policy. Tags: altair, ares, cancellation, commercial space, Constellation, nasa, Orion. Comments: 3

It was an acronym frenzy  at Libery on the Rocks – DTC tonight. The PPC reportage was done by El Presidente, mostly via the People’s Press Twitter feed.

As with the big healthcare speech back in September (the occasion of the NPR incident), my commentary was delivered in the more transitory medium of live heckling of the teevee screen. This time around there wasn’t a neighboring table of kool-aid-guzzling Obama worshippers hissing and whining back at me, unfortunately, which took a bit of the fun out of it.

Apart from Fox’s amusing Drudge-like juxtapositions of lines from the speech with camera shots of topically-relevant politicians, there was only one thing that I liked about this SOTU: Mr. Obama’s promise to push for next-generation nuclear power in the U.S.. Of course, just like his promises to freeze (parts of) federal spending, expand government transparency, and usher in a new bipartisan civility, I realize that we are as likely to see any action on that promise as we are to see the National Mall host unicorn chariot races.

The rest of the speech was a nauseating stew of all-things-to-all-people statism and incongruous attempts to steal the fiscal responsibility and small government themes the Republicans are gearing up to campaign on in the fall, seasoned with the usual Democrat pathos and anger and garnished liberally with Mr. Obama’s trademark nose-high smugness. Noticeably absent yet again was any mention of NASA or space policy in general. “So what’s new?”, one might ask. Amid all the yammering about green energy trendy greenwashing scams and investment in taxpayer subsidization of (politcally sexy) science and technology, it’s still a little surprising that federal space policy didn’t merit a mention this time around, especially if the rumors are true that a change in that policy towards more climate monitoring (green!) and commercial services (jobs!) is imminent.

Posted on January 28th, 2010 under Constellation, Moon-Mars Plan, Orion, Space Commerce, Space Policy. Tags: Constellation, LOTR, nasa, NPR, Obama, PPC, SOTU, state of the union, TOTUS. Comments: 1

Since Keith put up his post last week announcing the imminent (and long anticipated) death of Ares I, I’ve been waiting for the obituaries to appear.

So far nothing official, although his subsequent Kremlin-watching post suggests the Congressional supporters of the Stick are getting out the paddles and adrenaline for heroic measures.

Reports suggest that the new NASA budget could cancel elements of Constellation and replace the ISS crew ferry missions with commercial vehicles, accelerated to flight by government funding.  Which is excellent news, overall, though it could make things very interesting on the job front in the near future should Orion be one of those elements.

While I’d much rather see commercial space services develop organically, to the extent that the new policy resembles the “Air Mail” scenario promoted by many commercial space advocates it’s at least a sizeable improvement over the NASA-centric program of record.

Posted on January 25th, 2010 under Constellation, Moon-Mars Plan, Orion, Space Policy. Tags: ares, budget, congress, Constellation, nasa, Orion. Comments: 2

Reading the fisking of Griffin over at Vision Restoration (via Rand Simberg), this little tidbit caught my attention:

… If no USG option to deliver cargo and crew to LEO is to be developed following the retirement of the Space Shuttle, the U.S. risks the failure to sustain and utilize a unique facility with a sunk cost of $55 billion on the U.S. side, and nearly $20 billion of international partner investment in addition.Why is Dr. Griffin so concerned about the ISS when he got rid of most of the ISS science and non-assembly engineering?

Why is he so concerned about the ISS when his exploration plan requires the ISS to be abandoned in 2016? If the commercial COTS cargo services do not get built, Griffin’s plan already leaves us with no ability to get cargo and crew to the ISS until 2017-2019, after the ISS is abandoned! Even if the ISS is kept until 2020, and funding appears out of the blue to both support ISS and develop Ares I/Orion at a “brisk” pace, having Ares I/Orion in, say, 2018 does not make that much a difference. Plus, let’s be clear: keeping that schedule is highly unlikely given the funding needs of the ISS.

The notion of abandoning the ISS just five years after completing it has been getting a lot of attention lately, but I have to wonder, what does “abandon” really mean? If the international partners wanted to continue funding and servicing and using it for…umm…whatever ISS is actually used for beyond being a self-licking lollipop, would NASA permit it?

More interestingly, if NASA decides to terminate its own involvement with ISS, and a private company wants to make use of the station for space tourism or other commercial purposes, would NASA stand in the way? Or would it mulishly insist on deorbiting the station despite (or to spite) the offer of commercial utilization? After the fiasco with Mir, it’s a valid question.

Posted on September 13th, 2009 under Constellation, Economics, Space Commerce, Space Policy. Tags: almaz, bigelow, Constellation, COTS, deorbit, excalibur, international space station, ISS, mir, mircorp, nasa, space adventures, Space Commerce, spacex. Comments: 1

By NASASpaceFlight.com. At their subscription site.

Jon Goff has a few interesting details from his first look at the appendices:

Now, having seen some of what’s in them (I’ve mostly been focusing on the 300+ page appendix to Chapter 6, that details all of their launch vehicle related decisions), I can understand why some people might not want that data to see the light of day. I was hoping to get permission to post a screenshot or two and some direct quotes, but for now you’ll have to get a subscription and check it out yourself.

Some gems to look for when you get a chance, all within the first 40 pages:

• Exceptions given in the ground rules and assumptions on maximum dynamic pressures to In-line SRM based crew launch concepts that weren’t given to any other vehicles (without the exception, all of the five-segment Stick concepts would’ve been ruled out from the start).
• Unrealistically assuming a fixed LAS mass regardless of first stage characteristics (like T/W, max-Q, and whether you can shut them down or not).
• Inaccurate dry mass numbers for existing EELV upper stages (just as some of the guys on NASASpaceflight.com had been saying for years now).

Hmm… It’s almost as if the study was rigged to generate a particular outcome…

I can’t wait to see what other “gems” are buried in the full text. Of course, I will wait, since I’m not going to pay for a “level 2″ subscription at NSF to obtain copies of information that I’ve already paid for (that, and I’m not going to help support a site which I loathe for its constantly-flickering animated ads).

[hat tip to the vactioning-in-our-home-state Rand Simberg]

Posted on May 3rd, 2009 under Constellation, Moon-Mars Plan, Orion, Space Policy, Space Technology. Tags: altair, appendix, ares, Constellation, ESAS, launch vehicle, Mike Griffin, nasa, Orion. Comments: 2

One of the nice things of having few other temptations over the holidays (and spending a lot of time in airports and airplanes) was that there was time to read a few more chapters of Hayek’s Constitution of Freedom,  a project I’ve been working on in fits and starts since March 2003.

This passage on monopolies in Chapter 15, “Economic Policy and the Rule of Law”, struck me as applicable to NASA’s track record in spoiling earlier attempts to develop a private manned space industry:

In general, a free society demands not only that the government have the monopoly of coercion  but that it have the monopoly only of coercion and that in all other respects it operate on the same terms as everybody else.

…All these activities of government [ie: surveying, standardizing weights and measures, and other activities of government compatible with the "generality" attribute of the rule of law] are part of its effort to provide a favorable framework for individual decisions; they supply means which individuals can use for their own purposes.  Many other services of a more material kind fall into the same category.  Though government must  not use its power of coercion to reserve for itself activities which have nothing to do with the enforcement of the general rules of law, there is no violation of principle in its engaging in all sorts of activities on the same terms as the citizens.  If in the majority of fields there is no good reason why it should do so, there are fields in which the desirability of government action can hardly be questioned.

To this latter group belong all those services which are clearly desirable but which will not be provided by competetive enterprise because it would be either impossible or difficult to charge the individual beneficiary for them… And there are many other kinds of activity in which the government may legitimately wish to engage, in order perhaps to maintain secrecy in military preparations or to encourage the advancement of knowledge in certain fields.  But though government may at any moment be best qualified to take the lead in such fields, this provides no justification for assuming that this will always be so and therefore for giving it exclusive responsibility.  In most instances, moreover, it is by no means necessary that government engage in the actual management of such activities; the services in question can generally be provided, and more effectively provided, by the government’s assuming some or all of the financial responsibility but leaving the conduct of the affairs to independent and in some measure competitive agencies. [emphasis added]

There is considerable justification for the distrust with which business looks on all state enterprise.  There is great difficulty in ensuring that such enterprise will be conducted on the same terms as private enterprise; and it is only if this condition is satisfied that it is not objectionable in principle.  So long as government uses any of its coercive powers, and particularly its power of taxation, in order to assist its enterprises, it can always turn their position into one of actual monopoly.  To prevent this, it would be necessary that any special advantages, including subsidies, which government gives to its own enterprises in any field, should also be made available to competing private agencies.  There is no need to emphasize that it would be exceedingly difficult for government to satisfy these conditions and that the general presumption against state enterprise is thereby considerably strengthened.

In application to NASA, this suggests that its role (particularly as NACA) in developing basic knowledge for the general benefit, without a particular end use or user in mind, is a legitimate undertaking.  While private companies or privately-funded institutes could develop wing profiles or new materials, for example, Hayek’s view here would find nothing wrong with NACA/NASA doing it, so long as they did not use their privileged position as a government agency to limit or prevent other players from providing the same services.

What is particularly interesting, though, is the treatment of the ongoing appropriateness of the government providing a service.  Where initially the government may be the only entity willing or able to provide a particular service, this can’t be assumed to always be the case…technology changes over time, making it possible for private entities to profitably provide a particular service, and the earlier actions of the government entity itself can “bootstrap” a new (private) industry into being.

The question is, how does one persuade the government agency, when the time comes, to give up the monopoly role it has enjoyed to-date and share a particular undertaking with a nascent private industry?  Especially (in the case of NASA’s manned space program) when the identity and prestige of the agency is so intertwined with the undertaking in question.

Posted on January 9th, 2009 under Space Policy. Tags: coercion, Constitution of Freedom, Hayek, monopoly, NACA, nasa. Comments Off