Bethejustin.com

In what I suspect is another good omen for a decidedly space/Twitter filled weekend the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket lifted off on its first successful launch, today at 2:45pm EST. Not only was it a successful launch but both the first and second stages worked as expected and the Falcon 9 was able to put the mocked-up Dragon capsule into orbit. Going into the launch many had expected that reaching orbit was a very lofty goal for the first ever launch of a never before launched vehicle. Congratulations are in order to the entire SpaceX team for such an impressive first test flight. It seems to me this bodes very well indeed for the future of completely independent commercial launch services. 

To be sure it was a day of learning many new things. This was a vehicle that had never flown before it wasn't a Delta IV or a Shuttle this was something completely new. We learned about the importance of things like FTS aka "flight termination system." Not many people realize it but every rocket that lifts off from the cape (including the manned Shuttle) includes an explosives package so that in the event of a failure the Air Force can explode any errant rockets before the land in downtown Orlando. Then we waited for some boats that had wandered into the safety zone to make their way back out. SpaceX commentary was very tight-lipped and Twitter and the KSC scanner feeds served at primary information sources. We also learned that the cape needs a lot more bandwidth, the webcast struggled to keep up with demand.

Beyond learning lots of new things about a new vehicle I was struck in particular by two things. First, during an interview Elon Musk (founder Paypal, Tesla, SpaceX) mentioned in regards to what SpaceX was about to go and do that this was something "only a few countries have done." Think about that for a minute countries, until today launching things into orbit was something that had only been achieved by entire nations* as the result of several billion dollars, tens of thousands of people, and decades of R&D. Today SpaceX a privately held company with a 1000 or so employees and a couple hundred million dolars accomplished that same feat. Make no mistake it is not to be overlooked, a change is coming, there will be setbacks for sure but this was something different, the first hint that a different model may yet exist. A lesson, of today I think is that sure SpaceX is one company but it still takes a tremendous amount of coordination by several different groups and organizations to launch something into space and do it safely with success. Regardless of who's operating it's a feat which should never be taken for granted.

Lastly as I watched some pretty amazing views of the launch of this new vehicle I was struck by the level of emotion I experienced. I've been critical of commercial space and SpaceX's seemingly endless pushing back of the launch up to this point. I'll admit part of me I dunno felt like I was cheating on NASA and the Shuttle a bit be being emotional over a "commercial" launch, but why? Why can't some company do it, why does it have to be any less cool or momentous if they do? I won't say I'm all the way there but as I watched Falcon 9 rise from the pad and then the first stage separate and you could see the Earth behind I did tear up a bit. This surprised me, sure I'll tear up when the Shuttle launches but that's different that's a patriotic thing and the Shuttle is an old friend. This was something new, but I think perhaps that's the point... what struck me was the uniqueness of what I was seeing, the newness, this is something different and it heralds a great deal of potential.

In the end though I had the thought, "Lesson: space is cool no matter how we get there?" Perhaps that is the whole point of this new era we are supposedly moving towards, we have an emotional bond with the Shuttle because it is that old friend, it's all we've known, but going forward is it really about the vehicle? Perhaps the next chapter of spaceflight is not about how we get there, but where we go. The jury is still out but today the defense made a heck of an opening statement.

Once again Congratulations to SpaceX and their entire team and everyone who supported their launch today! 

* Yes I know Boeing/Lockheed/ULA but those are part of the military industrial complex supported by taxpayer defense dollars.

With my arrival back from the STS-132 Launch Tweetup (a truly once in a life time trip and my first ever launch in person) and the landing of Atlantis and end of the STS-132 mission today many have been asking me "What's next?" What's next for NASA? What's next for the shuttles after the next 2 (or 3) missions? These are questions that I've certainly been giving a good deal of thought to lately. What I'll frequently do is think about it in two different ways what is actually next and likely to happen, and what if I could wave a wand for the shuttle program would I like to happen.

"It belongs in a museum!" -Dr. Indiana Jones

I'll start with my thoughts on how I feel about what is most likely to happen to the shuttle next in reality. If you weren't already aware NASA has put out requests for proposals from museums interested in displaying one of the remaining shuttle orbiters. There are technically four orbiters up for grabs, Enterprise (glide test prototype never flew in space), Discovery, Endeavour, and Atlantis. Now it should be noted that it is an all but foregone conclusion that the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Annex in Washington, D.C. will get Discovery. The Annex is currently home to Enterprise and engineers recently gave Enterprise a check-out to make sure that it was carrier-flight ready when the time comes for it to make way for Discovery. So in reality Enterprise, Endeavour, and Atlantis are up for grabs by museums.

This raises the question though what's the best way to display such an amazing vehicle as the shuttle? After all this is the most versatile spacecraft ever constructed and the only manned reusable spacecraft that can land on a runway that has ever been put into service. CollectSPACE has a good article with pictures on some of the proposed exhibits.

"Boy that's the world's greatest electric flying machine I'll tell ya that!" -John Young, Commander STS-1 on landing of Columbia

In my opinion an exhibit must maintain the highest level of respect for the legacy of the shuttle program and the magnificent and really beautiful vehicles. Here are a few proposals I would make for any exhibit:

1. Shuttle Orbiters must be displayed in their own free-standing building or in a dedicated wing of any existing building.
2. No exhibits will be placed around the orbiter that are any higher than the height from the ground to the underside of the orbiter. No exhibits will be hung over the orbiter. In other words the orbiter must stand alone in it's own open space so that it may be appreciated in its entirety from any angle.
3. Under NO circumstances shall the orbiters be carved up or opened up for as a walk-through exhibit of the flight-deck, mid-deck, or payload bays. History was made time and time again on all three and we should respect that and appreciated it without traipsing 100s of visitors through. Note that the ability to provide access should be maintained by the museums for authorized/credentialed historical, academic, or engineering research purposes.

Ideally I would like to see something along the lines of what has been done with the three remaining Saturn Vs the orbiters are no less historically significant and more than worthy of as prominent display. Where would they go? Well with Discovery already going to the Air and Space, that makes sense. Additionally I would like to see at least one remain at a NASA facility. Kennedy or Johnson seem the most likely choices. Geographically Johnson would allow for one in the middle of the country. Lastly Palmdale seems like a significant choice since that is where the orbiters were originally constructed and reconditioned. Exactly locations may be up for debate but I think it would be nice to see one on the ease coast, one some where in the central part of the country, and one on the west coast.

The bottom line is however the orbiters are exhibited it should be with the highest possible level of respect and reverence for the history the represent. While it is admittedly heartbreaking to imagine them sitting in museums instead of up among the starts performing their mission more tragic would be to imagine them not receiving the respect the truly deserve.

"Many said she was old and past her prime. Still, she had only lived barely a quarter of her design life; in years, she was only 22." - Bob Crippen, Eulogizing Columbia after her lost and the loss of STS-107

As we face the end of the shuttle program as a whole many have echoed similar sentiments about the remaining orbiters. It is true that each orbiter was built for a flight life of 100 flights. However this assumes many more flights a year than occurred in reality and that those flights would be completed within a 20 year time frame. In other words our beloved fleet of orbiters isn't getting any newer.

What to do now truly epitomizes the old saying about being between a rock and a hard place. I could not believe more firmly that NASA and all involved are as good at flying the shuttle as they have ever been. Indeed the last several missions have been a testament to that I can't remember any significant technical delays and there have been very few on orbit issues as well.

As if to complicated matters further it is simply a fact there there is no vehicle in existence or on any publicly available design board that comes even close to the shuttle in terms of capability. I simply can't imagine how we would do something like repair Hubble or build a space station without the orbital workbench the shuttle as provided time and time again. Then there's the issue of down-mass, or the ability to bring large payloads and amounts of supplies back down from the space station. That just isn't possible without the shuttle, a huge handicapping of the space station program is the result. The shuttle's fuel cells are also used on orbit to produce large quantities of oxygen, water, etc. for resupply far more than can be shipped up in the proposed capsules. Truly the shuttle was build for station and station was built for shuttle.

I firmly believe the way forward is shuttle derived. We take the SRBs and the Main Engines and the ET we reconfigure them and we could end up with a heavy lift vehicle (which the shuttle already is by the way) and a crew transfer vehicle. If we do it right and reuse enough of the technology and lessons we might yet save large portions of the workforce and infrastructure.

What we need to be doing and we need to be doing YESTERDAY is this proposal. Then we take the X-37B and we expand it make a crew rated version using all the lessons learned and latest in materials science and technology so that it can launch in a stacked configuration and land on a runway and we have something that gives us back some of the shuttle capabilities like down mass, etc.

Today, April 12th, marks 29 years to the day that Astronauts John W. Young and Robert L. Crippen climbed through the hatch of Space Shuttle Columbia and rocketed of pad 39A a top the worlds largest solid-rockets...they were the first human beings ever to do so. It was 1981 and the space shuttle had arrived at operational status a few years behind schedule, it had been six years since America had last launched a vastly different spacecraft on the Apollo-Soyuz mission.

What I call the "early shuttle program" (basically pre-challenger) has always fascinated me it's always seemed like a time with such innocence. When Young and Crippen climbed into Columbia on STS-1 it boggles the mind how little we knew about the craft that we were launching them in. The shuttle had great promise of 100 flights per orbiter (currently the entire program has just over 100 flights combined) and launch turnarounds of just a few weeks (in reality that turned out to be more like months). On STS-1 we strapped the astronauts into some SR-71 ejection seats wearing some SR-71 pressure suits and sent them on their way. Their lives were in the hands of a whole host of technologies that had never been tested operationally on orbit.

So many of the regulations and safety procedures associated with the shuttle we take for granted today weren't in place in 1981 or really before the 1986 and the Challenger disaster. For example after the first few flights crews didn't even wear any kind of pressure suits on launch just a simple oxygen mask. In addition the early shuttle program featured interesting experiments like the "Carbonated Beverage Dispenser Evaluation payload or CBDE" otherwise known as Coke and Pepsi's specially developed cans for space. Something that would seem a bit out of place in the current shuttle program. Another striking example I saw from STS-1 is the image of Young and Crippen climbing down a standard set of aircraft stairs onto the tarmac after landing at Edwards. Today there is lots of "safeing" that must occur before the crew exits the shuttle. It was a different time.

Only the first few shuttle flights were considered "test flights" after which it was declared operational ejection seats removed, pressure suits discarded. In hindsight it is amazing how little we knew about this almost incomprehensibly vehicle we'd built. Looking back over everything we've learned about the shuttle both as a result of the two disasters and just flying it 100 or so times there's probably an argument to be made that we had no business flying such a complex vehicle operationally in the first place.

There are numerous examples just from STS-1 but one that sticks out to me is that it was discovered after landing that a "tile gap filler" had protruded and caused additional heating in one of the landing gear wells. In fact as a result of one of the holes punched in Columbia's side heat traveled through the landing gear compartment and into the main part of the shuttle, ultimately causing it to breakup and be lost. More striking though is that on one of the post-Columbia flights, STS-114, an EVA was actually done to remove a protruding gap filler because of concern that it might cause increased heating.

Just to recap in 1981 on the first ever flight we had heating in the landing gear well eerily similar to what destroyed Columbia and then a protruding gap filler which after Columbia was deemed so dangerous that it would be removed with a special EVA. Post-Columbia disaster on every mission that has flown there has been a full inspection of all tiles on the shuttle every nick, ding, divit, regardless of size is photographed and down linked and scrutinized by the engineers on the ground. Even more astounding is that most of the technology (digital cameras as an example) that enables this inspection process to occur during the flight didn't even exist in 1981 when STS-1 flew. The list goes on from there for example tiles were routinely missing on the early shuttle flights. Columbia in particular was plagued with tile adhesion problems. More than a few missing tiles in 2010 and you would probably end up with an extended stay on the space station.

There's no question that Young and Crippen strapping into Columbia, which had never been flown on orbit, for STS-1 is a brave feet worthy of the great steely eyed missile men. Off we went in this new vehicle in the best swashbuckling tradition of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs which had blazed the trail before. However in my opinion the heroics of Young and Crippen become even greater with the hindsight of 100 flights and 29 years worth of things we know now that we couldn't even speculate on at T-0 of STS-1. It almost defies explanation that the first flight went as smoothly as it did with such a complex vehicle and no operational record what-so-ever. History it seems is littered with moments and men that defy the odds, odds that if played out differently would have had drastic consequences on the history we know. 

For that I salute John W. Young (Commander),  Robert L. Crippen (Pilot), and Hail Columbia!

It's no secret that I have been a space enthusiast/geek/dreamer since I was a teenager. At the age of 13 my boyhood dream was to be among the first to see the Red Planet with my own eyes. Since that time I've followed NASA's efforts, their triumphs and at times deep tragedies, I've always remained adamant that the ultimate goal of humanity should be to expand our civilization beyond our home and I believe Mars is the next logical choice.

February 1 marks seven years since the tragic events of the Columbia disaster. It also marks the day when what is now several long weeks of debate, anxious waiting and wondering about the details of President Obama's plans for the future of America's human space flight efforts have come to an end.  Despite being an avid space fan for most of my life I have found it hard to find a voice with regards to all the rumors of what the Obama plan may or may not do/fund/cut/etc. While struggling to find the words to consolidate my thoughts on the matter I thought it best to wait until the real announcement had been made. Today we have some answers and it seems, I must admit discouragingly, that they do not differ drastically from what has been leaking out over the last week or so.

I am puzzled by the manner in which this new plan was rolled out. Initially we had been told the NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden would hold a live press conference at NASA Headquarters.  Over the weekend that was hastily changed to a conference call for reporters. Well by now there are numerous summary stories outlining things but essentially it boils down to what we had been hearing, Constellation (NASA's replacement for the Shuttle) has been canceled (despite rumblings from Congress I have to think that today will probably represent the end for Constellation) and the focus of NASA will shift to: ISS expansion through 2020, championing efforts for commercial crew launch providers, earth sciences, robotic missions, and aeronautic projects. Additional work on things like propulsion technology, yet more study of human physiology in space, and work on a new heavy lift vehicle were skirted around in vagaries.

"A clear destination."

Like much of the human space flight community what all of this may ultimately mean is swirling around as an ocean of thoughts in my head. What keeps bubbling to the top as my biggest concern with this new plan is the lack of any real goal or clearly defined mission/destination.  Throughout the nineties and indeed after the Columbia disaster we were told that the big problem with NASA was that there was no clear mission no ultimate goal. The merits can be debated but for all that Constellation was or wasn't it was a clear destination. It was a line in the sand to work towards.

As best as I can tell the Obama plan offers no insight into the issue of what our end goal might be.  We're told that perhaps in time we will develop the technologies to take on and tackle bigger more ambitious missions. However I've not seen any indication of what that timeline might be and what ends for thes potentially newly developed means might be. What will drive that research if we have no guidance on what those missions will be? It is very hard not to feel like we've been here before and we are going to be once again confined to low-earth-orbit feeling around in the dark for some glimmer of light.

It isn't that I don't believe that efforts like earth sciences, and encouraging a commercial space industry aren't valid or even very important, they absolutely are. However what worries me with regards to these announcements and the usual dialogue around commercial space efforts is that there is a focus on things like tourism or LEO transport and very little talk of exploration. 

One of the primary definitions of exploration is "the investigation of unknown regions" I can't help but feel like after 50 years we should know low earth orbit reasonably well. Whatever happens, hardware and programs aside, it is my strongest deepest belief that we must continue to have a clear plan for reaching beyond LEO and to a destination that allows us to expand our civilization beyond this planet, push ourselves to the limits, and to live up to that human desire to truly be explorers.

"Too hard."

Another thing that really gets me going are suggestions that some how Mars is too hard, or beyond our reach with current understanding and technology. Witness the comments of NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden below speaking in Israel.

"We’ve got a lot of work to do before we can responsibly send humans to Mars. The biggest thing, the biggest challenge right now, there are two big challenges, one is propulsion and propulsion is a challenge because of the biggest challenge, which is radiation. We don’t completely understand the radiation environment between here and Mars but we know it’s bad. And we suspect, based on past experience and the limited data that we have, that if we put humans into a normal spacecraft now and have them embark on an 8-month one-way mission to Mars they’re going to die unless we spend a lot of money and a lot of metal on tremendous shielding for the vehicle. We know that.

“So, we cannot responsibly put humans in a spacecraft and say next year we’re going to send them to Mars. Can we conquer that? can we overcome that? Yes we can. I don’t know how long it is going to take.” (Source)

Who are we to say this is too hard? Quite literally when we committed to landing humans on the Moon we barely had a handle on how to launch to Earth ORBIT!  For all we knew the lunar lander would touch down and sink into the sandy surface of the Moon.  More over why not let the humans who will make the journey decide whether they are willing to accept the risk? I'd wager that if you put out the call you'd find a number far in excess of any crew compliment of people willing to go even on a one way journey. I don't think the problem is a lack of creative solutions to these problems or the ability to find them it is the lack of the will to do so in the aggressive tradition of Apollo. 

More than that though I think this kind of rhetoric is damaging to our culture and to one of NASA's newly prescribed missions, to encourage kids to pursue careers in engineering, science, math, etc. What message does this send? We'll do something that's hard but only after we've spent multiple lifetimes analyzing the dangers? Should 13 year old me temper his dreams of visiting Mars because there are too many unknowns involved?

This is directly counter to the American tradition of exploration and the "can do" attitude not only America but NASA has stood for.  I would wager that we probably know more about what we will find when we get to Mars and what we will find on the journey than Lewis and Clark did when they started west into their unknown.  What would American history look like if they had chosen to study every possible permutation of wagon design for sixty some years before embarking?

When we set out for the moon we had less computing power than my car does today in the Apollo modules and we had no idea what-so-ever how to put a square peg (the Command Module CO2 scrubber) into a round hole (the Lunar Module CO2 scrubber) but we figured it out and we are the better for it. If we're saying we're not only not willing but flat out incapable of tackling that challenge today then I don't think it is at all unreasonable to wonder what have the last 50 years meant? What stewards are we of the memories of those who have given their lives in the name of tackling those challenges?

"Hindsight."

It is interesting that as all of this has come about I have once again picked up the book "Deke!", Deke Slayton's autobiography. I wanted to pick it up again because when I was watching some of the Columbia memorial footage I was struck by Bob Crippen mentioning that he was at Kennedy Space Center when Columbia arrived escorted by Deke Slayton in a T38.  I forget at times that Deke was involved in the development of the Shuttle as well of course as virtually all aspects of our space program that came before. I'm currently working my way through his discussions of the Apollo and lunar programs.  There are casual mentions of the "Apollo Applications Program" as a framework for what the Apollo hardware might have been used for after the initial lunar missions wound down. 

I need to pause here and say that I grew up with the Shuttle, I have nothing but respect for the amazing vehicle it is and has been.  If it were up to me we would keep flying the Shuttle for as long as we fly the ISS it doesn't make sense, in my view, to extend the ISS and cripple it by eliminating the additional capabilities the Shuttle represents.  I also have tremendous respect for the Shuttle workforce, more so now than ever as a result of my interactions with the Space Tweep Society.  It will be hard to watch as the program winds down after all it's the program I grew up with, it was the Hubble missions that really truly inspired me to be as passionate as I am about human space flight.

Hindsight is 20/20 and I'm not an expert on the decision making process that lead to us abandoning Apollo in entirety and going with the Shuttle. It is my understanding that it was originally intended that they were to compliment one another, the Shuttle for example as I've heard it was hoped to be ready in time to boost Skylab to a higher orbit.  A part of me imagines the alternate universe were this was born out. Where we kept the Apollo hardware in place and maintained the heavy-lift capabilities of the Saturn V.  Apollo seems like it was a versatile architecture with capability for LEO, Lunar missions, a space station, and as a heavy-lift perhaps even Mars.  Indeed Von Braun himself dared to dream a program that had humans on Mars by 1982!!

"Wake-Up"

My hope for the future comes from the fact that there has been progress in the last fifty years. There has never been more ways to communicate and the Internet has brought a community of hundreds, if not thousands, of passionate space enthusiasts, and stakeholders together. People are passionate about the belief that we do need to expand into the stars and are represented online by countless groups, organizations, and efforts. 

If this group is able to mobilize then I am hopeful that for perhaps the first time our direction in space might be determined by, in the best traditions of democracy, the people. I believe the the online community could serve as a powerful catalyst but I truly believe that even the more mainstream audience takes pride in our space program and in the Shuttle and our Astronauts.

When the Shuttle program comes to an end soon I believe America as a nation will be dealt a stiff wake-up call and the general public will start to ask why we have allowed the state of affairs to devolve to the point where the first and only country to land humans on another terrestrial body no longer even has the ability to launch its citizens into space.

Have I agreed with him on every point? No. But the words of George W. Bush in the aftermath of Columbia ring as true to me on this matter as any I've heard and I truly believe they're not just lofty rhetoric but an imperative and absolute…

"This cause of exploration and discovery is not an option we choose, it is a desire written in the human heart."