Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I wasn't aware that there'd been a logo jihad at NASA, though I would have been inclined to sympathize with it had I known. I always had preferred the classic NASA logo over what NASAwatch calls the "worm" logo.

That said, a fixation on logos when there's so much else wrong at NASA seems a perfect illustration of NASA's biggest problem.

Posted by Kevin McGehee at January 2, 2003 04:30 AM

[ And speaking of competition, here's resolution number four: hop on the Metro across the river to the five-sided building, and have a little heart-to-heart with Don Rumsfeld, or whoever's in charge of technology development and acquisition over there, and jointly toss out that ridiculous Clinton administration policy of NASA doing only reusable launchers and DoD doing only expendable ones. ]

My prediction is that the DoD is going to decide that it has to take over launch vehicle development from NASA. Why? Two reasons.

First, because National Missle Defense will require more launches, including Shuttle-sized launches, than NASA will be able to support.

Second, because of the organizational confusion arising from the current proposal to launch the Orbital Space Plane ( don't call it the miniShuttle, y'all ! ) atop either a Delta or an Atlas missile, which are Air Force missiles. This organizational bifurcation is an obvious problem. At least it seems obvious to me.

I predict that if the Bush Admin. decides to go ahead with the OSP, DARPA may be assigned the OSP project.

This may be a good thing. Competition between NASA and the DoD may be the only way to introduce some competition into development of large US launch vehicles.

I don't think NASA is capable of reforming itself without external shocks such as comptetion from the Defense Dept. -- as well as from the Chinese!

Posted by David Davenport at January 2, 2003 08:11 AM

Consider this quote.

"... One of the biggest challenges in the space field, Shelton said, is achieving relatively inexpensive, on-demand space lift. "That's kind of the holy grail we've been chasing for quite a while," he said. "We'd like to reduce the cost of lift, and we'd like for it to be operationally responsive. [But] trying to attain that ... in a resource-constrained environment [is] very difficult." ...

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/beg12312.xml

Aerospace Daily Jan 2, 2003

Air Force Study Of New ICBM Could Begin In 2003, Official Says
By Rich Tuttle

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - A study of a follow-on ICBM will begin in 2003 or 2004 and all basing modes will be considered, according to Brig. Gen. William L. Shelton, director of plans and programs for Air Force Space Command headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base here.

"We will begin an analysis of alternatives within the next year or two to determine what the follow-on ICBM should look like," Shelton told The DAILY.

The formal name, he said, is "'follow-on land-based nuclear deterrent' because we want to open the aperture and consider all possibilities, all basing modes. The mission really is deterrence, so ... we're looking at the optimum way to accomplish that mission."

Air Force Space Command's recently completed "Strategic Master Plan for for FY '04 and Beyond," for which Shelton is responsible, calls for deactivation of Peacekeeper ICBMs in the near term and sustainment of the Minuteman III through 2020. The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review of a year ago says the Air Force also must begin "the requirements process for the next-generation ICBM."

Overall, Shelton said, "we're in pretty good shape in ICBMs. The things that really make us scratch our head are more in the space area."

Gen. Lance W. Lord, commander of Air Force Space Command, indicated as much in his introduction to the master plan. "We may not be able to do everything we want to do in space," he wrote, not mentioning ICBMS. "Technology, budgets and other challenges will limit us, but we will strive to overcome these challenges and limitations."

One of the biggest challenges in the space field, Shelton said, is achieving relatively inexpensive, on-demand space lift. "That's kind of the holy grail we've been chasing for quite a while," he said. "We'd like to reduce the cost of lift, and we'd like for it to be operationally responsive. [But] trying to attain that ... in a resource-constrained environment [is] very difficult."

...

Posted by David Davenport at January 2, 2003 08:23 AM

What was "Number Three?" If it's between--

Number two: Abolish the NASA "Centers of Excellence."
:
:
And speaking of competition, here's resolution number four:

-- I can't find it.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at January 2, 2003 10:10 AM

Doh!

I hereby resolve to learn to count to ten in 2003.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 2, 2003 11:10 AM

National Missile Defense will require launches to orbit? Why? It's a ground-based system. The orbital surveillance elements won't make a dent in the current launch capability.

This would have been a decent argument back in the days of Brilliant Pebbles, when several hundred Titan launches would have been necessary to orbit the space segment. But no one was discussing the annexing of NASA by the Dod then, either.

Posted by David Perron at January 2, 2003 06:50 PM

[ National Missile Defense will require launches to orbit? Why? It's a ground-based system....]

It will grow to include space-based shooters as well as detectors.

[... The orbital surveillance elements won't make a dent in the current launch capability. ]

How do you know that? Please explain what you base that statement on. NMD needs include more than SBIRS high and SBIRS low. For one thing, the Defense Dept. is realizing that it needs lots more broadband satellite communications capacity.

For another thing, the DoD wants to launch additional large optical and radar orbital platforms -- more big spy satellites, in other words. These big loads may require a Shuttle, or the functional equivalent thereof.

Posted by at January 3, 2003 07:21 AM

It will grow to include orbital elements? How do you know? There isn't anything even in the proposal stage, as far as I've heard. Which places deployment at least a decade in the future; more likely half again that much. It will have taken THAAD fifteen years at least from concept development to start of fielding, and THAAD is much simpler than an orbital missile defense asset.

"Space-based shooters" have proven much more difficult to gain uninterrupted funding for than ground-based defense. And the development cycle will be longer. The whole reason for space-based defense in the first place was to take out a whole bus full of RVs before the PBV could dispense them. If the threat is now unitary nukes and chem/bio weapons, it's no longer as much of an advantage to have orbital defenses.

As far as the surveillance/communication assets go, just how many do you think we'll need to orbit? I'm thinking no more than a couple of dozen satellites, total, over a decade or so. I really doubt this would be troublesome even for the Shuttle to absorb, never mind the defense-sector Delta and Titan vehicles. If you think there'll be more of a load than that, you'll have to tell me how much and why, because I'm not seeing it.

But all that is essentially irrelevant. DoD already has a couple of workhorses for defense sats. It'd make much more sense for them to gear up on production of those resources than it would for them to attempt a coup of NASA. You think the NASA beaurocracy has some attraction for the DoD? They've got enough of their own.

Posted by David Perron at January 3, 2003 07:38 AM

[ The whole reason for space-based defense in the first place was to take out a whole bus full of RVs before the PBV could dispense them. If the threat is now unitary nukes and chem/bio weapons, it's no longer as much of an advantage to have orbital defenses.]

That was the 1980's. The way to sell polar orbiting kenetic energy kill vehicles *now* is as a form of late-boost stage defense -- shoot downhill, so to speak, amd get the delivery bus before it can dispense decoys.

Mr. Perron, do I detect some philosopical hostility on your part to NMD?

As far as the DoD not wanting any of NASA's current tasks, that depends on whether or not the DoD can get funds that would otherwise go to NASA. For example, if the Air Force can get the OSP, a.k.a. ( excuse me, Rand) miniShuttle, without having to make any budgetary scarfices, well then, I suspect that the Air Force would gladly sign up for the OSP.

It's a question of whethor or not the DoD can steal NASA's lunch, not whether or not NASA is "attracted" to DARPA or USAF.

Posted by at January 3, 2003 09:36 AM

The gu'ment has no current plans to give the DoD any of NASA's biznezz or to fruther militarize space? Well, plans change. Consider, for instance, the irony of this golden oldie:

http://www.space.com/news/spaceshuttles/x33_hearing_990929.html

NASA Plans to Keep Using Shuttles Through 2008
By Jonathan Lipman

Special to space.com
posted: 06:51 pm ET
29 September 1999

WASHINGTON (States News Service) ? NASA?s Deputy Associate Administrator Gary Payton said that the earliest date that the space shuttle could be retired for manned missions in favor of the Venture Star would be 2008.

The cordial hearing before the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee concerned a recent report on the X-33 from the General Accounting Office, the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress. The report raised some concerns about the delays and cost overruns that have plagued the X-33 program, and questioned whether it was clear that the X-33 program would, even if it failed, further the overarching NASA goal of reducing the price of lifting a payload to orbit.

...

"I think we?ve done a lot of that already," Lockheed Vice President Jerry Rising said. The metallic skin designed to protect the X-33 during re-entry is very sturdy and easy to maintain, "so this is a very robust thermal protection system, more than anything that?s out there." He said the system could be retro-fitted to the shuttle, which has an older and more fragile shield of tiles.

The X-33 is scheduled for six months of test flights starting in summer of 2000. If it completes its flights successfully, Lockheed will go ahead and build the VentureStar, a fully reusable, single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.

Only after the vehicle has flown 17 or 18 trips, Payton said, would NASA consider purchasing flights on the Venture Star to send crew members up to the International Space Station. That could be as early as 2008 or as late as 2012 under current estimates, Payton said, and there would be additional years needed for the transition of vehicles.

Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) expressed support for the program at the start and close of the meeting, and said afterwards that "certainly all the questions are answered, not certainly all the concerns are answered." Rohrabacher has opposed what he thinks is NASA putting "all its technological eggs in one basket" by concentrating too much on the X-33.

"I haven?t seen anything that would suggest this program is in disarray," he said in his closing statement. "I?m grateful for that. Usually, we don?t have these proceedings unless there?s something very, very wrong."

Posted by at January 3, 2003 10:03 AM

Happy new year, Rand. You wrote:

> The theory, you see, is that duplication of
> government functions is wasteful, and an
> example of inefficiency of government that can,
> and must, be stomped out. So if there were two,
> or three NASA centers doing similar things,
> they would all be consolidated at a single
> center, thus promoting more efficiency.

> Of course, in the real world, duplication of
> services is called "competition," and it's what
> tends to improve performance, and reduce costs,

I agree about competition generally being a positive thing as far a *commercial* programs are concerned. But government space efforts tend to be a zero-sum game, alas. If NASA and USAF were "competing" for funds, previous experience (e.g. the 1980s Advanced Launch System debacle) suggests the outcome will be decided not on the launch pad but in the corridors of Capitol Hill. NASA wanted Congress to pursue a Shuttle-derived ALS while USAF wanted a low cost heavy lift rocket for the Strategic Defense Initiative. So they were squabbling for two years while spending $500 million on paper studies, before somebody figured out ALS would be too expensive and nobody really needed a heavy-lift capability anyway.
---
The European and Japanese civil space programs are probably more cost effective and focused on utilitarian benefits for the Euro/Jap taxpayer than NASA's "flagship" efforts -- yet the vast majority of space executives frown on duplication of effort. The Japanese are currently merging NASDA and ISAS to save money, while the consensus view on this side of the ocean is we won't gain anything by having ESA compete with the major national agencies (ASI, CNES, DLR etc.)
---
Unless you radically change "The System", I think duplication of effort will do more harm than good.

Marcus Lindroos
Liljendal, Finland

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at January 3, 2003 10:22 AM

[ I think duplication of effort will do more harm than good. ]

In that case, why not merge the EU with the USA?

Posted by at January 3, 2003 10:54 AM

[ The European and Japanese civil space programs are probably more cost effective and focused on utilitarian benefits for the Euro/Jap taxpayer than NASA's "flagship" efforts ]

But isn't the European and Japanese current civil space "flagship" goal to put their people on the ISS seven or eight at a time? Are you very confident about the utility of that?

I think we're debating philosophy here. I suggest that Let's-all-cooperate doesn't always lead to an optimum result.

Posted by David Davenport at January 3, 2003 10:59 AM

Happy New Year to you, Marcus.

ALS is a poor example, because that was a situation in which the government wasn't going to fund anything, other than studies. Competition doesn't usefully occur until systems become operational. Competing paper studies are pointless. Unfortunately, a lot of government funds that could go to flying hardware, if spent sensibly, goes instead to generating piles of viewgraphs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 3, 2003 11:16 AM

[ Unfortunately, a lot of government funds that could go to flying hardware, if spent sensibly, goes instead to generating piles of viewgraphs. ]

A good point. Furthermore, he American space Establishment has gotten into a comfortable homeostasis or local minimum whereby space Establishmentarians get adequate contracts, grants, and grist for academic papers without having to take any real professional risk.

Risk? Consider the following:

Oh, this is melancholy, cry in your beer stuff:

"... Toward the end of the press conference, Gene Austin characterized the X-33 project as the "most significant program in a long time" and the "best assignment of my career." He then announced his retirement from the program and from NASA effective January 3, 2001, and his return to Alabama during the summer of 2001. ... "

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/2000.htm

Key X-33 Events in 2000

Click on the date to go to a related news release and any associated photos.
Many thanks to Dill Hunley, Historian, NASA Dryden Research Center, for some of the information found here.

...

2000 December 13

NASA and its business partners presented a positive and optimistic report on the X-33 at a press conference broadcast over NASA TV. Cleon Lacefield, Lockheed Martin Vice President for X-33, emphasized the importance of the aerospike tests that began earlier this month and pointed out the program's major achievements to date, namely, successful testing of how the lifting body will react with the aerospike engine, successful testing of the liquid oxygen fuel tanks and the thermal protection system, and successful testing of the avionics and vehicle software. Gene Austin, NASA X-33 Program Manager, added that certification of the vehicle's lifting body design through the entire flight regime in wind tunnels was another key program achievement.

Don Chenevert, NASA X-33 Program Manager for Aerospike Engine Testing, Stennis Space Center, reviewed the successes of aerospike engine testing to date, then explained briefly the kinds of tests that already began earlier this month. The main test objective now is to evaluate how the dual engines operate. Mike McKeon, X-33 Aerospike Engine Program Manager for Boeing's Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power division, Canoga Park, CA, outlined the planned program of 11 tests and explained how the firing of the two engines will be used to assist the X-33 in various flight modes, including banking. The longest planned test will last 212 seconds. Toward the end of 2001, the engines would be shipped to Palmdale, CA, for fitting into the X-33 vehicle.

In response to reporters' questions, Gene Austin explained that the 90-day extension to the original cooperative agreement will expire on March 31. Lockheed, however, has submitted a proposal to continue the program starting April 1, 2001, and the firm, according to Austin, has a "good chance of success in extending the program." He also announced that the aluminum liquid hydrogen tanks had completed their Critical Design Review (CDR) and that their construction has begun, with some of the tank panels already completed.

When asked about the status of the VentureStar full-scale operational vehicle, Cleon Lacefield replied that it remained a "top effort" and that the firm's Space Launch Initiative proposal has the VentureStar architecture. However, he added, the VentureStar was not the only architecture proposed by Lockheed for the Space Launch Initiative. Lacefield further explained that the aluminum tanks were "exactly what we want for VentureStar." They would give the vehicle the same weight per cubic-foot of volume as the composite tanks, because the liquid oxygen tanks are "really state of the art." Moreover, the aluminum tanks would give the VentureStar architecture an acceptable design margin to build the vehicle. Lacefield stated that VentureStar risk reduction efforts would take place during the period prior to 2005, and that the first VentureStar flight would take place sometime in 2010 to 2012.

Toward the end of the press conference, Gene Austin characterized the X-33 project as the "most significant program in a long time" and the "best assignment of my career." He then announced his retirement from the program and from NASA effective January 3, 2001, and his return to Alabama during the summer of 2001.

Posted by David Davenport at January 3, 2003 03:33 PM

Dave, I'm not sure what the point of this post is. X-33 never stood much of a chance of flying, because Lockmart never gave a damn whether it flew or not.

X-33 is exactly why it's dangerous for NASA to set up monopoly centers, and monopoly contractors. There should have been a flyoff in that program if they were serious. To say they didn't have the money is no excuse. They should either have requested enough funds to do two, or backed off on the requirements to afford two, or told Congress that they couldn't do it right for the funding available (something that should have happened with Shuttle development as well).

As it was, a billion dollars of taxpayer funds was flushed down the loo. And Lockmart continues to make billions on Shuttle and Atlas (and occasionally Titan).

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 3, 2003 05:46 PM

> But isn't the European and Japanese current
> civil space "flagship" goal to put their people
> on the ISS seven or eight at a time? Are you
> very confident about the utility of that?

ESA and NASDA have spent about 15% of their total budget on human spaceflight during the past 20 years. In contrast, NASA and the nonmilitary Soviet/Russian space program have always been 40-50% manned space.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at January 4, 2003 01:30 PM

> ALS is a poor example, because that was a
> situation in which the government wasn't going
> to fund anything, other than studies.
> Competition doesn't usefully occur until
> systems become operational. Competing paper
> studies are pointless.

I guess your "government competition" concept might work better if there were a large prize or award... Unfortunately, Wales Larrison and others have outlined why prizes -- at least large ones -- are incompatible with the government's current way of doing business. So I think prize advocates should start small, e.g. by lobbying for U.S. government support of the X-Prize. Maybe established aerospace companies would like to support the effort, in the same way as Toyota & co. have their young engineers work with Formula One auto racing teams on engines etc..
---
By the way, Rand -- do you think a weak but extremely valuable prize might generate enough excitement for bankers and investors to pay for new low-cost launchers...? Let's assume the government announces it will transfer *all* USAF, NASA and NOAA space payloads to the first launch vehicle that can reduce transportation costs to $1000/lb. I.e. a market guarantee of sorts, although there is no real guarantee that a future Congress actually will reward the lucky winner.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at January 4, 2003 01:45 PM

[ ESA and NASDA have spent about 15% of their total budget on human spaceflight during the past 20 years. In contrast, NASA and the nonmilitary Soviet/Russian space program have always been 40-50% manned space. ]

Yes, but usn't ESA and NASDA counting on the USA or Russland to provide the manned launch vehicles and thereby subsidize Euroville and Japan?

The opinion of some vulgar Americans, such as moi, is that the ESA is not contributing its fair share to the manned space program, so this 15% instead of 40-50% is not something to brag about. If ya want a ride to the ISS, you fellow 1st Worlders ought to pay the full fare.

Here's one suggestion: wouldn't it be a good idea if ESA and NASDA offered the Ariane 5 as a platform for the proposed Orbital Space Plane, with the ESA and NASDA paying its fair share of OSP/Ariane 5 development?

Posted by David Davenport at January 4, 2003 02:38 PM

[ Dave, I'm not sure what the point of this post is. X-33 never stood much of a chance of flying, because Lockmart never gave a damn whether it flew or not. ]

What's the point? One point is, I'm afraid NASA may repeat the same mistakes with the Orbital Space Plane and its launch vehicle. Therefore, NASA might benefit from more public scolding and shaming for its abysmal mismanagement of X-33.

Otherwise, the NASA behavioral tendency is and will be,
"Lessons learned from the X-33 VentureStar fiasco? We can't remember much about the X-33. That was a long time ago, in a previous decade. Lessons learned? Fiasco? Sorry, but we can barely remember anything about that old deal.

... Lessons? What lessons? Do you need some lessons? We're NASA, and we're here to help."

Posted by David Davenport at January 4, 2003 02:52 PM

Depends on the threat. I've been out of the missile defense world for a couple of years now, but in the early '90s the threat we were concentrating on shifted from Soviet multiple-RV ICBMs to (loosely speaking) third-world unitary devices. It's possible things have shifted back to placing some emphasis on defending the multiple RV/PBV-bearing threat.

And the role you're portraying as a recent innovation has been around since the early '80s, if not longer. Space-based interceptors were being designed that could intercept top-stage boost, PBV midcourse, RV dispense and RV prior to reentry. Oh, and you don't need a polar orbit to do that; it just helps (or did help, back when the Soviets were the one and only bad guys).

Mr. Perron, do I detect some philosopical hostility on your part to NMD?

I hope not. If you do, your detection software needs a little work. It should have been crystal clear that I have spent no small amount of time in strategic defense. Also, NMD is a program, not a philosophy (or even a doctrine).

Depends on whether the DoD think these activities support any of their defense-related goals. The DoD could find all sorts of government funds to siphon that aren't related to defense. If they are related to defense, then they're in the bailiwick of the DoD to start with, aren't they?

It's a question of whethor or not the DoD can steal NASA's lunch, not whether or not NASA is "attracted" to DARPA or USAF.

Already addressed this one. And I'm not seeing any support in fact for this behavior you've attributed to the DoD.

I still maintain that NASA doesn't have much that the DoD wants or needs, when it comes to missile defense. This might change, of course, if the DoD decides to revert to the old SBI concept (depending on whether it comes with a "some assembly required" label). Emphasis on might; the DoD tends to do things its own way, even if it means reinventing a few simple machines.

Posted by David Perron at January 5, 2003 10:36 AM

Almost forgot about this one:

No. Titan IV (admittedly, no longer in use) can carry up nearly as much as the Shuttle, and any of the ELV candidates have top ends that exceed that of the shuttle by a factor of 2.5. The DoD and NASA develop space vehicles cooperatively, not competetively. If DoD has a funded set of increased requirements for payload, those payload requirements will get filled (probably) by ELV. If DoD were to somehow commandeer sole ownership of heavy-lift vehicles for itself, commercial comsat manufacturers would be royally screwed. Which is not going to happen, IMO.

Posted by David Perron at January 5, 2003 11:11 AM

[ ... any of the ELV candidates have top ends that exceed that of the shuttle by a factor of 2.5. ]

I didn't know that. I thought -- my mistake -- that neither the new Atlas nor the new Delta could launch as heavy a load as either Titan or the Shuttle.

[ ... And the role you're portraying as a recent innovation has been around since the early '80s, if not longer. Space-based interceptors were being designed that could intercept top-stage boost, ... ]

It seems to me that BMDO ought to revive that design concenpt now, as a reply to critics who fret about attacking missiles deploying decoys.

Posted by David Davenport at January 5, 2003 02:43 PM

> Yes, but usn't ESA and NASDA counting on the
> USA or Russland to provide the manned launch
> vehicles and thereby subsidize Euroville and
> Japan?

> The opinion of some vulgar Americans, such as
> moi, is that the ESA is not contributing its
> fair share to the manned space program, so this
> 15% instead of 40-50% is not something to brag
> about. If ya want a ride to the ISS, you fellow
> 1st Worlders ought to pay the full fare.

Actually, ESA and NASDA do provide services and hardware in return for receiving "free" rides from the Americans and Russians. The typical NASA-ESA barter deal involves Europe contributing additional hardware (=logistics modules, cupolas, nodes, experiment racks etc.) in return for NASA launching ESA's primary contributions such as the Columbus Orbiting Facility lab. Sometimes, the Europeans have also agreed to build (and pay for-) modules when the Americans no longer could afford to do the job. E.g. the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module was originally going to be commercially procured and Boeing & co. lobbied hard against foreign involvement a decade ago. The Italians are now providing the MPLMs, and they are getting free training and additional flight opportunities for their astronauts in return. Italy was also the leading contender to take over the ISS habitation module following NASA's money woes last year, but it seems NASA now regards their demands (=free launch of an ASI scientific satellite) as unacceptable.
---
I think the Orbital Space Plane is a spectacularly bad idea...such designs always end up being heavier and more costly than ballistic capsules. ESA should really revive its own manned capsule program (we had one in 1992-95, before Dan Goldin started the X-38 project).

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at January 6, 2003 04:24 AM

I didn't know that. I thought -- my mistake -- that neither the new Atlas nor the new Delta could launch as heavy a load as either Titan or the Shuttle.

Neither the Atlas nor the Delta have, to my knowledge, yet demonstrated such capacity. But that's the spec. I believe both contractors have elected to achieve that spec by a modular design where they can just add on more boosters. I'm not sure what the cost per pound will end up being. As far as Titan goes, I think Lockheed Martin ditched it and put all its eggs in the Atlas basket.

It seems to me that BMDO ought to revive that design concenpt now, as a reply to critics who fret about attacking missiles deploying decoys.

Well, that's the scientific community for you. If you're talking about groups like Union of Concerned Scientists, those people aren't trying to keep the contractors honest, they're trying to totally eradicate missile defense. UCS squawks about tests not being representative of existing threats, but when pressed can't define what existing threats are. UCS will squawk about that even when it's the first test in a sequence designed to be progressively harder. And finally, once you've answered all their issues, UCS will invent new ones that have no basis in intel. I was going to go into a spiel on layered defense and where boost and PBV intercept fit into that, but if I did I'd have to kill you all.

Posted by David Perron at January 6, 2003 05:17 AM

Post a comment