Tag Archives: Apollo

Space Exploration Isn’t Profitable, It’s Transformative

16 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by in Apollo, Business, Economy, Education, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Generational, Government, Higher Education, History, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, NASA, Passionate People, Politics, Pride, Saturn V, Space, SpaceX, Taxes, Technology, Travel, United States, Universities, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Space exploration ROI (return on investment) sucks. Exploration doesn’t make money, it costs money. It’s not a place for private business. If the question of space exploration is, “What’s in it for me?” you’re asking the wrong question. Space exploration isn’t profitable, but it is transformative.

Apollo Saturn V

The five massive Rocketdyne F-1 engines of the Apollo Saturn V first stage booster. Twice the lift of SpaceX’s 27-engine Falcon Heavy

Exploration Creates Economic Growth

In the 15th century, when the government of Spain financed Columbus to explore a new trade route to the markets in Asia, he discovered the Caribbean. He brought back a few captured natives from the Bahamas, some gold, and a few birds. It didn’t pay for the cost of the voyage.

But what came next transformed Spain and Europe. The year of the discovery of the Americas (1492) is considered the start of the Golden Age of Spain. After Columbus first voyage to the new world, Spain continued with more voyages, and eventually the full exploitation of Central and South America. Most historians focus on the resources that were returned to Spain, but what happened at home was even more important. 

Shipbuilding entered a new phase of design and construction. Jobs at home created a new wealth for the working class. Craftsmen, as well as sailors, became vital to the needs of the Age of Discovery. That new wealth created secondary jobs, along with new businesses selling imported goods. All of this economic growth was a direct result of the exploration pushed forward by the government of Spain.

Exploration created massive economic growth for decades, but exploration didn’t give an immediate ROI for Spain.

The Model Space Program

Not all space programs are successful. The Soviet space program became mired in conflicts between good science and engineering versus political priorities. The administration was pushed into risky decisions and failure was not without punishment. In addition, new technology was considered a State secret so the development of commercial uses was not an option.

The United States approach for the space program was for the use of non-military government oversight of private contractors. The government remained accountable to the voters, which kept both the government and their contractors in a stable environment for decision making.

The result was a massive increase in highly-skilled, well-paid jobs that created a new wealth for the middle class. Space exploration supercharged the United States economy and created new technology that continued to develop for decades after the Apollo program ended. It was the model space exploration program.

A Failure of Vision

Once the United States had landed on the Moon conservatives and liberals united to kill the space program. Liberals could only see the money being spent to explore space as money that could have been used to help the poor. Conservatives could only see money not going into their pockets. As it would turn out, both viewpoints were flawed.

Money spent on for space exploration created new, high paying jobs that created a need for improved education and pumped billions of dollars into the economy that created new tax revenue that could be used for government programs to help the poor engage in the new economy.

The flood of new money into the economy helped small companies grow dramatically while increasing profits. It didn’t result in the wealthy becoming dramatically richer, but it did create prosperity that helped everyone.

Missing Greatness

Today the United States is wading in a stagnant economy. Wages aren’t growing as fast as prices are rising. The available jobs pay so poorly that they aren’t worth the cost of working them. If we are missing greatness, it is because we are killing our economy with a focus on profit for a few.

The goal of private business is never to create jobs, nor is it to create high paying jobs. Jobs are created when business has been given a mission to accomplish something. Giving tax breaks does not give business a reason to create more jobs, nor pay employees more.

However, if our country made a serious commitment to the goal of expanding space exploration, and funded it with the tax breaks we are giving billionaires, we would see our economy transformed. It is that simple.

SpaceX Falcon Heavy-Lift Rocket: A Soviet-Style Disaster?

23 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Business, Government, History, Management Practices, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Space, SpaceX, Technology, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SpaceX is maybe, almost, someday, hopefully going to launch the Falcon Heavy rocket that SpaceX circus master Elon Musk expects to blow up shortly after launch. His concern is legitimate as SpaceX’s 27 engine-utilization is reminiscent of the Soviet’s disastrous failure of heavy-lift rockets of the early 1970’s that used 30 engines.

I hope it makes it far enough away from the pad that it does not cause pad damage. I would consider even that a win, to be honest.

Elon Musk

Three 1st Stage Heavy Rocket Engine Configurations: top – SpaceX Falcon Heavy, lower left – Soviet N1, lower right – NASA’s Saturn V

Soviet Heavy-Lift Plan: Lots of Engines

To get to the Moon the Soviet rocket engineers decided to use thirty engines on the first stage of their N1 rocket design. Smaller engines are easier to build and operate, but more engines mean more potential for failure.

A rocket engine is an effort to contain and control a continuous stream of explosive force. The power, heat, and stress of a rocket engine is unlike almost any other human-created machine. It is a complex network of plumbing, pumps, valves, and structure that must operate perfectly in synch. If they don’t it usually ends badly.

The Soviet’s N1 rocket design avoided the need of designing massive engines, like their counterparts in the United States, however, they didn’t anticipate the complexities of all engines operating in concert. The result was four failures in four launch attempts and the cancellation of the Soviet Moon program. One failure happened at the launch pad with the power of a small nuclear bomb. 

Killer Vibrations

Even if every engine works to perfection, the vibrations caused by each engine can literally shake a rocket to pieces. NASA engineers learned early in the space program that vibrations between the engines and the aerodynamic stresses on the rocket created a ‘pogo‘ vibration running up and down the length of the rocket.

They thought they understood the issue until Apollo Six partially failed because of pogo vibration issue. During the ascent phase of the launch, vibrations damaged fuel lines on the second and third stages. The damage caused the rocket’s second stage to shut down two of the five engines prematurely, and the third stage engine failed to ignite.

Saturn V’s Five Heavy-Lift Engines

Despite the issues with pogo oscillations, NASA’s five Rocketdyne F-1 engines on the Saturn V Moon rocket resulted in 13 out of 13 successful first stage launches. The only partial failure came on Apollo 6 after the first stage had completed its boost of the second and third stages.

It is unclear why the successful Apollo program engine configuration has been rejected as an option for contemporary heavy-lift rockets. It is probable that private ventures into space operations, like SpaceX, want to save money by designing only one rocket engine for all uses.

SpaceX 2017 Great, 2018?

SpaceX is coming off a spectacular year. Of 18 launch attempts, SpaceX had 18 successful launches. SpaceX also had a perfect relanding record in 2017 for every attempt.

2018 is not starting out as well. SpaceX has only had one launch so far this year and it is rumored that the payload did not make it into orbit. No public information has been made about the success of the launch because it was a highly valued, super-secret satellite. It is so secret that the public has not even been told who the satellite was built for, or its general purpose.

SpaceX has proclaimed that its launch vehicle did everything it was designed to do, but the launch narration indicates that there might have been an issue when the fairing or cover around the satellite was supposed to deploy. The launch narrator paused for ninety seconds after he said the fairing would deploy “any second now.” When he began talking again he changed the subject. A few seconds later he finally confirmed the fairing had deployed but did not explain the delay in deployment.

SpaceX Falcon Heavy Engine Roulette

So far, the Falcon Heavy rocket is not a bright spot in the SpaceX story. Its first launch was planned for 2013, and for multiple reasons, it has been delayed for five years. It had been rescheduled for launch in late Fall of last year but was then delayed again. On 1 December Musk tweeted:

Falcon Heavy to launch next month from Apollo 11 pad at the Cape.

Elon Musk

To date (21 January 2018) the Falcon Heavy has still not had a test fire of its first stage engines. This means there are less than ten days to launch test the engines and then prepare the rocket for launch. Any issues during the test firing and the launch schedule will likely slip again into February.

If SpaceX has a successful launch it will still have to prove the reliability of the 27 engine design. The mass-numbers-of-engines design ultimately killed the Soviet program with four consecutive failures. SpaceX is reliant on business customers who have faith in their ability to deliver their payload into orbit. Continued delays and any failure will reduce confidence in the Falcon Heavy, risking it to have the fate of the Soviet N1.

(Story Update:  SpaceX had a successful test firing of the Falcon Heavy first stage booster today – 24 January 2018.)

NASA’s Orion Capsule: A ‘Look Busy’ Project?

19 Friday Jan 2018

Posted by in 1968, Ethics, Government, History, Honor, Management Practices, NASA, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, Technology, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NASA has a publicity campaign for the next generation of spacecraft. It is the Orion capsule, and it is touted as the spaceship that will take us back to the Moon and beyond. The problem is that all the talk doesn’t match reality.

8 July 2011, STS-135 – The final launch of a USA spacecraft

On 8 July 2011, I stood several miles away from Kennedy Space Center and watched the end of the United States manned spacecraft program. I stood in the warm sunshine of Florida as the last Space Shuttle (STS-135) soared into the sky. Since then NASA has put our astronauts in space by paying Russia to take them to and from the International Space Station (ISS.) 

A few months before that last Space Shuttle flight NASA announced the development of a new spacecraft called Orion. The announcement came so abruptly that it seemed that NASA was unaware it wouldn’t have a spacecraft to send humans into space until just before the end of the Space Shuttle program.

Orion – A Spacecraft of Contradictions

The Orion program, for all its hype, seems to have major flaws that NASA doesn’t seem to notice, or perhaps, hopes the public won’t notice. NASA’s description of the purpose of Orion:

For the first time in a generation, NASA is building a human spacecraft for deep-space missions that will usher in a new era of space exploration…and this new spacecraft will take us farther than we’ve gone before, including to the vicinity of the Moon and Mars…the Orion spacecraft is designed to meet the evolving needs of our nation’s deep space exploration program for decades to come. Orion deep space exploration missions…will help put NASA and America in a position to unlock the mysteries of space and to ensure this nation’s world preeminence in exploring the cosmos.

Orion a USA Spacecraft????

Lockheed Martin Corporation is designing and building the capsule of Orion. Like the Apollo capsule, Orion can only be separated from the Service Module for a short period of time.

The Service Module is the business section of Orion. It supplies all the power, fuel, oxygen, and is the primary propulsion of the spacecraft. Anyone familiar with Apollo 13 knows what happens to the capsule when the Service Module is non-functioning. The Service Module is being built by Airbus, a French corporation, for the European Space Agency.

Orion Capsule: A Human Storage Shed in Space

In Space, Size Matters

The Apollo capsule had a volume of 5.9 m³ (210 ft³.) Apollo astronauts were able to use the 6.7 m³ (235 ft³) space in the Lunar Module (LEM) during the three day trip between Earth and Moon. The total volume of the Apollo capsule and LEM was 12.6 m³ (445 ft³) for three astronauts. On the return, the Apollo astronauts were restricted to the capsule. Each astronaut had about 2 m³ in the capsule or 4 m³ in the capsule/LEM configuration.

Orion has 8.95 m3 (316 cu ft) of habitable space for four astronauts. This is slightly more cubic meters per astronaut than the Apollo capsule and much less than Apollo’s capsule/LEM configuration. The idea that Orion is capable of taking four astronauts on an eight-month journey to Mars is absurd. Orion is only for use in short-term, near-Earth missions.

NASA has briefly acknowledged the space issue in a video. Amber Gell of Lockheed Martin briefly touches on the need for an add-on crew habitat. She implies that it is an issue that NASA has yet to address. If it takes NASA twelve years to design and build a slightly bigger version of the 1960’s Apollo spacecraft, how long will it take them to build a crew quarters that four people can live in for up to three years?

NASA’s Misleading Video about Orion

NASA has been pumping out videos of engineers explaining how Orion is the next great achievement of the space agency. The videos cover a variety of subjects and some are pre-test and post-test news releases of Orion’s systems and structure. One video features Kelly Smith, a NASA Engineer, who explains how Orion is being designed to deal with the radiation from the Van Allen Belts around Earth.

The 2014 NASA video, titled, “Orion: Trial By Fire,” describes the challenges of the first test flight, including a dramatic description of the dangers of flying through the radiation of the Van Allen Belts above Earth. He explains that Orion will be designed to protect the astronauts as they fly through these dangerous regions.

The problem is that NASA already solved that problem with Apollo. They either fly around the Van Allen Belts, or through the thinner sections, as described by a video by Amy Shira Teitel of Vintage Space, and a video by Paul Shillito of Curious Droid.

There is a radiation issue in space, namely cosmic radiation, and it is a problem on long trips beyond Earth orbit; however, as Lara Kearney of NASA’s Orion Crew and Service Module’s Office explains in another NASA video, that they don’t have the answer to the cosmic radiation problem. This video contradicts the enthusiastic Smith video and raises the question:  Does NASA know what they are doing?

Orion:  The NASA Glacial-Paced Project

In May 1961, President John F. Kennedy asked Congress to fund a space program to take to the Moon and safely back. From the time of his speech in 1961 to the end of 1972, NASA launched the five of the six manned Mercury missions, designed, tested, built, and launched 10 Gemini manned missions, designed, tested, built, and launched 11 Apollo manned missions, landed men on the Moon, and overcame a disaster that delayed the manned launches for 21 months. Eleven years, three complete rocket programs, 27 manned missions, six successful Moon landings, no prior experience.

Orion, a slightly larger version of the Apollo capsule, only useful for short-term habitation in near-Earth orbit, is taking twelve years. Something is amiss.

NASA’s ‘Look Busy’ Project?

NASA definitely needs more funding, but something else is wrong. NASA’s Orion project doesn’t make any sense unless they are attempting to create the appearance that they are moving forward with a manned space program. The Orion project is, at best, an Earth to orbit elevator. It can’t meet any of the stated manned spaceflight goals of NASA. The question is, why isn’t NASA aware of these issues, and if they are aware, what is the agenda that is causing them to promote a project that is meaningless to the stated goals of deep space flight?

How Did Earth Get A Moon?

08 Monday Jul 2013

Posted by in Science, Space, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Earth's Only Child

Earth’s Only Child

How Earth was blessed with a Moon was anybody’s guess 50 years ago. In our solar system it’s a relatively big moon. At slightly over 1,000 miles (1,700 km) in diameter it’s about half the size of planet Mars and there are only four moons (Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, and Io) that are bigger than Earth’s Moon.

Pre-Apollo Mission Theories
So how did Earth end up with a natural satellite that rivals the biggest moons of  the massive planets Jupiter and Saturn? And why just one?

Moons of our Solar System

Moons of our Solar System

Prior to the Apollo missions to the Moon, there were three main theories of the origin of the Moon. First, was the adopted daughter theory. It proposed that our Moon wandered into Earth’s gravitational pull and was captured. Second, was the mother/daughter theory that suggested the Moon was spun off from the Earth when it was still a molten blob of spinning material. The final theory was the sister theory where both bodies that formed side by side.

Apollo 17 Astronaut - Our last mission to the Moon, 40 years ago

Apollo 17 Astronaut – Our last mission to the Moon, 40 years ago

Hard Evidence: The Destroyer of Theories
When the Apollo missions came back to Earth with Moon rocks the three existing theories took a big hit. Had the Moon rocks matched the composition of Earth rocks then scientists could dismiss the adopted daughter theory because a wandering Moon wouldn’t likely have rocks similar to Earth’s. If the composition of the Moon rocks were different then they could dismiss the other two theories. What no one saw coming was the idea that the Moon rocks would match the composition of our Earth rocks, except for a lack of iron. The rocks were the same, but different.

None of the theories really met the evidence in hand, but now the geologists had a vital clue. When Earth first formed all the elements were mixed throughout the molten mass that would become our planet. As time passed most of the iron sank deeper into the mass to become Earth’s core. The evidence suggested that the Moon must have formed from Earth’s material after the iron sank into the core.

The New Theory: Impact Earth
It was clear the material for the Moon had to come from Earth, but the transfer of material had to occur after the most of the iron was not mixed in with the shallow layers of molten Earth. Enter the Impact Theory.

Scientists proposed that the Earth must have been hit with a large object (about the size of Mars) that pushed out shallow molten material into a near Earth orbit to create our Moon. The theory assumes the object was absorbed into Earth’s mass and didn’t significantly change the composition of the Earth or the Moon. Those are big assumptions.

The Little Bang Theory
Recently scientists are suggesting a new theory for the formation of the Moon that proposes a natural nuclear explosion blew off part of Earth’s shallow material after most of the iron sank into the core. The idea of natural nuclear reactions are not new. Radioactive material will always start a chain reaction upon reaching its critical mass and we have evidence that Earth has had multiple natural nuclear explosions in the past. It simply requires enough radioactive material to consolidate in close proximity to start a chain reaction. If it is radioactive and it reaches critical mass, BANG! A nuclear explosion.

So is this it? Do we now know how the Moon was formed? Not Exactly. Scientific knowledge is like the work of a detective. Learn something new and you can rule out certain possibilities, but it takes decades, sometimes centuries, to understand enough of what ‘couldn’t have happened’ in order to understand what did happen. It is likely we won’t have many more answers coming until we have scientists working on the Moon again. It’s hard to gather the evidence when you aren’t at the scene of the crime.