Blindsided: End of U.S. Solar Observation Capabilities?

29 Monday Nov 2021

Posted by Paul Kiser in NASA, Politics, Science, solar, Space, Space Weather, Technology, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ACE, DSCOVR, NASA, Satellite, SOHO, Solar Flares, solar maximum, solar observatory, Solar storm, space weather, STEREO, Sun, sunspot cycle, Sunspots, The Sun

The United States currently has four primary solar observation satellites keeping vigil on the activity of the Sun. They are ready to observe and test dangerous solar flares that might cripple anything that would be at risk with an electromagnetic pulse. Without them, we are left to stand on the shore of space, watching every flicker of the Sun and hoping it isn’t signaling our doom.

These four satellites do more than observe the Sun. Their orbit is at the L1 Lagrange Point directly between the Earth and the Sun. A point where Earth’s gravitational influence equals the Sun’s. These satellites will experience anything the Sun throws at Earth, hours before we will receive it.

However, all four of these satellites are operating beyond their planned lifespan and most are using technology that predates smartphones. We risk being blindsided by solar storms at the same time we are about to enter another solar maximum.

NOAA Space Weather Program Manager William Murtagh made a sheepish attempt to warn a Congressional committee in February of 2020 by saying that they would be “hurting a little bit” if one of the key satellites failed.

Extreme ultraviolet image of the Sun by SOHO

Solar Observation Satellites Today

Currently, the United States has the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE), and the Wind solar wind observatory. All three are beyond their planned mission time. DSCOVR is approaching seven years of operation of a five-year planned mission. ACE has over 24 years of operation for a planned five-year lifespan. Finally, the Wind satellite has been operational for over 27 years of a three-year planned mission.

The U.S. teamed with the European Space Agency (ESA) for the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) satellite that offers near real-time imaging of the Sun in multiple wavelengths on its website to the public. That satellite was launched in 1995 for a planned two-year mission. It has been in operation for 26 years.

There is one additional mission that was intended on giving Earth a 360° view of the Sun using two satellites, one positioned ahead of Earth’s orbit and one behind. The Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO A & B) pair of satellites were launched in 2006. STEREO B was positioned to see the activity of the Sun prior to it rotating towards Earth. STEREO A was positioned to observe the activity after it moved beyond Earth’s view.

Imaging on the STEREO website reminds us of what we don’t have.

Of the two satellites, STEREO B was critical in giving scientists on Earth advance warning of hazardous solar activities; however, we lost contact with that satellite in 2016. Both satellites exceeded their two-year expected lifespan and STEREO A is still in operation.

20+ Year Old Technology

In 2001, Windows XP was released. That program is newer than three of the four primary solar observation satellites currently in service. Smartphones didn’t even exist in the late 1900s and yet, pre-2000 technology is what we currently depend on for early warning of hazardous solar activity.

NASA has been able to squeeze every byte of usability out of our aging satellites but we are at risk of losing most, if not all, of our current solar observation capabilities. Between simple deterioration and future solar storms, we are gambling the safety of our planet with nothing to replace our eyes on the Sun until 2024 at the earliest.

Cameras, communications, and satellite technology have dramatically changed since the end of the 20th century. Our need for updating and upgrading our space-based solar observation abilities has become critical.

The Money Problem

Both liberal and conservative politicians have made their careers on defunding our key space programs. Conservatives have done the most damage in the aerospace field by slashing NASA programs that don’t blow up or ram something while also filling NASA with people who bend to their will.

At the same time, conservatives have drained the federal government of money for publically controlled space programs and given it to commercial space programs that shield their operations from public scrutiny. The result has been to create Soviet-like space programs that seek to profit off reinventing what we were already able to do decades ago with a government-run space program.

A Perfect Storm

The risk of a severe coronal mass ejection (CME) that would overload our satellites, electrical transmission wires, cars, computers, phones, etc., increases during the solar maximum that occurs approximately every eleven years. Scientists have been surprised by the early start of the new solar cycle that will reach maximum activity around June of 2023.

Aging satellites, outdated technology, lack of funding for replacement satellites, and an increased risk of solar activity, all create the perfect storm of factors that could lead to the United States having a reduced capability to issue warnings of severe solar weather. In fact, we are probably already too late to do anything about it.

SpaceX Ran Out of Block 5 Boosters

23 Monday Aug 2021

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Falcon Heavy, Internet, Public Image, Public Relations, Saturn V, Science, Space, SpaceX, Starlink, Technology, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Block 5, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, International Space Station, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, Space, spaceflight, SpaceX, Vandenberg Space Force Base

The Barn Was Empty, SpaceX Ran Out of Block 5 Boosters

SpaceX activity has been quiet in July and August because they simply ran out of Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters. In June they successfully launched four of their seven pure revenue-producing flights of this year. That, combined with four launches in May for their white elephant Starlink program [SEE: Must Sell Starlink], left them with nothing to put in the air.

The Starship Stack Diversion

They did grab the attention of the SpaceX groupies by stacking a non-flightworthy Starship on a booster in Boca Chica. This allowed them to claim that they finally build a rocket taller than the Apollo Saturn Five rocket…of 50 years ago; however, SpaceX has still not launched a functioning rocket that can rival the Saturn Five.

Heavy lift Rockets and number of successful launches to date.

SpaceX Block Five Returns To Work?

Late this month, SpaceX has a launch scheduled to deliver a cargo ship to the International Space Station (ISS) if they have a booster ready. They currently have eight flyable boosters (1049, 1051, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, and 1067;) however, booster 1051 is beyond its ten flight limit¹ and both 1049 and 1051 are now in California awaiting Starlink polar launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base. The most likely candidate boosters for the ISS cargo ship are 1058 or 1063. Both were launched in May and have had three months be readied for flight.

[¹The Block 5 boosters were designed for ten launches without refurbishment. Recently, According to Spaceflight Now, Elon Musk stated that they would fly the boosters for the Starlink program beyond ten missions “…until they break…” indicating the risk of losing the payload is a low priority.]

2021 4th Quarter – What To Expect

There are 17 SpaceX missions rumored for the remainder of 2021. Some of these missions are definitely planned and a few actually have dates and/or boosters assigned. Here is a list of the missions:

August (yes, I know that it is not in the 4th Quarter)

28 August – ISS cargo ship from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) – Booster 1061

LIKELY – [NOTE: At the time of publication, the booster had not been identified.] The only question on this launch is why the booster has not been determined. SpaceX has a policy of not offering details of missions to the public, but usually, the booster assignment is eventually revealed in public documents or by SpaceX unofficial sources. At this late date, it is assumed that the booster has been assigned and is ready to be mated with the cargo ship.

September

September (x2) – Starlink Polar from Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) – Boosters 1049 and 1051.

LIKELY – This mission has been pushed back from July and August. Booster 1049 arrived at VSFB for this mission shortly after its last launch and recovery in May. If it doesn’t launch in September something is wrong. Booster 1051 arrived at VSFB a couple of weeks after 1049. It is possible both missions will be launched in September, but I wouldn’t be shocked if the 1051 mission didn’t happen until October.

15 September – Shift4 Joy Ride from KSC – Booster 1062

LIKELY – Although no booster has been assigned, several should be available for the public relations stunt. It will be a PR boost for SpaceX and they have every reason to make it happen as scheduled.

September 2021, November 2021, & TBD 2021 – Starlink from KSC – Boosters unknown

QUESTIONABLE – SpaceX has launched 27 missions for their Starlink satellites in 2020 and 2021. That is 27 booster cycles that weren’t used for commercially viable launches. Three of those launches ended with the loss of the booster which cut short the revenue potential of additional launches with those boosters. SpaceX could reduce the risk of future booster losses by using Block 5 boosters that have finished their design lifespan of ten launches for the Starlink missions.

However, SpaceX has now moved their two Block 5 boosters with the most launches (Booster 1051 – 10 launches & Booster 1049 – 9 launches) to VSFB in California. It is unlikely they will move these boosters back to Florida this year. That means if a Starlink mission is launched, SpaceX will have to use a newer booster and risk its loss. It is unlikely that all three missions will be launched if any are launched.

October

31 October – ISS Crew from KSC – Booster 1067

LIKELY – The fact that this is a revenue-producing flight, that it involves the crew for the ISS, and that it is a NASA mission, is reflected by the fact that it already has a scheduled date and a booster assigned.

October – German spy satellite from VSFB – Booster unknown

QUESTIONABLE – Unless SpaceX is intending on risking a revenue-producing payload on the overextended 1051 booster, they don’t have a booster at Vandenberg for this mission. Certainly, they could move a booster to California or use the new 1069 booster, but this mission has no date, nor booster assigned. An October launch seems iffy.

October – U.S. spy satellite from KSC – Boosters 1064, 1065, & 1066 (Falcon Heavy)

LIKELY – Boosters are tested and ready. It’s a classified mission and the core booster has to be expended to get the payload into a higher orbit. This is not one for a PR show but it is a mission that they need to show potential commercial and military customers that SpaceX is not just a flying circus.

November

17 November – IXPE satellite from KSC – Booster unknown

LIKELY – Since this mission has a launch date three months in advance it would seem that this is a serious mission. There should be several boosters that will be available.

23 November – DART satellite from VSFB – Booster unknown

LIKELY – This will be an interesting booster assignment. The payload has to go into a heliocentric orbit so it is possible, or even likely, that the booster will be expended. That might be a mission they would assign a booster like 1049 or 1051 as both will have had more launches than they were designed for originally.

December

4 December – ISS cargo ship from KSC – Booster unknown

LIKELY – The mission has a date and the ISS needs its cargo, so this is likely to happen but the date might slide by a few weeks, as in the past.

December – O3b mPower satellites from KSC – Booster unknown

QUESTIONABLE – SpaceX has a long history of putting missions on a tentative schedule and then pushing them back. SpaceX will have to divide its boosters up between Vandenberg and Kennedy Space Center to meet their launch schedule. It would seem that at least three boosters will have to be in California to meet the needs of their customers.

December – Transporter3 from VSFB – Booster unknown

QUESTIONABLE – This will depend upon how many boosters are committed to California. SpaceX seems to be making noises about going big at Vandenberg and the schedule indicates that intention. Unfortunately, SpaceX doesn’t have enough boosters to divide between two launch facilities, and moving them around costs money.

4th Quarter – Turksat 5B from KSC – Booster unknown

NOPE – The kiss of death on a SpaceX schedule is for it to be scheduled for ‘sometime in X quarter.’ It seems to be a schedule filler for SpaceX PR people to refer to when they discuss the number of launches planned for the year.

4th Quarter – Maxar Technologies satellites from VSFB – Booster unknown

NOPE – Same as the Turksat mission. It probably won’t happen in 2021.

Our Roving Intelligent Life On Mars

31 Saturday Mar 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in All Rights Reserved, Astronomy, China, Communism, Exploration, Government, History, Life, Mars, NASA, Photography, Pride, Science, Soviet Russia, Space, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program, Vladimir Putin

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

China, Curiosity, ESA, intelligent life, Joint Propulsion Laboratory, JPL, life, Mars, NASA, Pathfinder, Rovers, roving, Russia, Russia Space Program, Sojourner, Soviet Russia

For over 2000 Mars-days* the Curiosity Rover has been strolling across the landscape of Mars. The Mission is known as the Mars Science Laboratory and the star is Curiousity. Google defines intelligence as, “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.” Under that definition, Curiosity and its predessors certainly qualify as intelligent life on another planet.

[*Mars-day or sols = 24 hours + 37 minutes of Earth time]

Mars = Soviet Humiliation

To date, humans have attempted to send 55¹ missions to Mars and over half of them have failed. Soviet Russia tried to launch 20 missions and none of them were a complete success. Two misssion were mostly successful, and three of them were mostly failures. The other 15 missions were complete failures.

Russia seemed to give up sending missions to Mars after 1988. Since the fall of Communism, Russia has attempted two probes, both failed. Russia’s only successful probe to the Red planet is a joint orbiter mission with the European Space Agency (ESA) that is still in operation.

In comparison to Russia’s single success out of 23 attempts, India has sent one mission to Mars and the orbiter is now on an extended mission.

[¹NOTE: An orbiter/lander mission is counted as two separate missions.]

What We Know About Mars, Thank NASA/JPL

NASA and its partners like the Joint Propulsion Lab (JPL) have been responsible for putting intelligent life on Mars. Five out of the current eight operational missions are NASA/JPL missions. The Mars Odyssey mission was launched 17 years ago (April 2001) and is expected to be operational until 2025.

The United States is the only country to successfully have a rover on Mars and it has a perfect record in four attempts (Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity.) The Opportunity rover was launched in 2003 and is still operational.

Curiosity takes a selfie on Mars

Curiouser and Couriouser

The Couriosity rover was on a two-year mission after its successful 2012 landing. It is now on an extended mission without an end date. It continues to explore and offer new insights; however, it is a mission that has almost been too successful. As it continues to wander around Gale crater, one has to wonder how much more can our rover-on-the-ground learn in one location?

As it rolls beyond 2000 sols will its constant poking, prodding, and picture-taking result in more knowledge, or bias our understanding based on the massive data from one region? Perhaps we will find out in 2020. Three new rovers are scheduled for launch that year. The United States will send Mars 2020, ESA will send ExoMars 2020, and the yet to be named 2020 Chinese Mars Mission will also be sent.

Saturn V’s F-1 Engine: The Monster That Made USSR Cry

24 Saturday Mar 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in 1968, About Reno, Aging, All Rights Reserved, Exploration, Generational, Government, History, Honor, NASA, Nevada, Politics, Pride, Relationships, Reno, Saturn V, Science, Space, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

booster, F-1 engine, Moon, Moon landings, Moon rocket, N1, NASA, NK-15 engine, Rocketdyne F-1 engine, Saturn V, Soviet Union, Soviets, space race, USSR

When Vladimir Putin was a young man he was witness to his country’s space program being eclipsed by the United States. There are many reasons that the United States won the space race with the USSR, but Rocketdyne’s Saturn V F-1 engine was the element that the Soviet space program couldn’t replicate. It was a rocket engine that has no practical use for piddling around in Earth orbit. The F-1 is the top shelf engine of space exploration.

The massive F-1 engines of the Apollo Saturn V first stage booster.

Who Are Those Guys?

If there was a moment when the Soviet engineers said in wonder, “Who are those guys?,” it was when they saw the first massive Saturn V blast off using only five engines. They were working on a heavy-lift rocket that used 30 rocket engines in the booster phase. The idea that a Moon rocket could be designed using only five engines was laughable.

The USSR attempted four launches with their version of the Saturn V rocket called the N1 rocket. All four attempts failed. The Saturn V rocket had 13 successful launches in 13 attempts. One rocket (unmanned Apollo 6) had vibration issues and failed to make the desired orbit, but the launch was successful. NASA and its contractors crushed the Soviet Moon rocket in performance and reliability.

Comparing Watermelons To Sour Grapes

The Soviet N1 Moon rocket used the NK-15 engines on the first, or booster stage. Compared to the Apollo Saturn V F-1 engines, the USSR effort was similar to strapping a bunch of bottle rockets together to lift a person off the ground.

Each of the 30 NK-15 engines could lift about 1,500 kilonewtons or kN (1 kilonewton equals 224.81 pounds of force) compared to a single F-1 engine thrust of 7,000 kN. The total thrust of the first stage of the Soviet N1 Moon rocket was 45,400 kN, which was significantly greater than the Saturn V’s booster thrust of 35,100 kN and the N1 Moon rocket was 215,000 kg (480,000 lbs.) lighter.

The USSR 30 NK-15 engine design

However, the N1 required four stages compared to the Saturn V’s three-stage rocket, and the N1 booster stage could only burn for 125 seconds, while’s United States booster stage burned for 168 seconds. The big difference was the size of payload that the Saturn V could deliver to the Moon. USSR’s N1 could only put a 23,500 kg payload (51,800 lbs.) out of Earth orbit to the Moon, while the Saturn V could send a 48,600 kg (107,100 lbs.) payload.

The Rocketdyne F-1 engine was responsible for powering everything needed for a Moon landing and safe return off the surface of the Earth and it did it better than any other rocket engine in the history of space exploration.

Pence’s White Greed National Space Council

06 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Discrimination, Ethics, Exploration, Generational, Government, NASA, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, racism, Science, Space, SpaceX, Taxes, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program, Women

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

bigotry, Board certified, Buzz Aldrin, Conservatives, Donald Trump, Eileen Collins, FAA, Mike Pence, NASA, National Space Council, racism, science teacher, SpaceX

Mike Pence, who is Donald Trump’s Number 1, but acts like he’s a Number 2, has recreated the National Space Council in his own image. The purpose of the group of is to channel taxpayers money out of government space program projects and give to the wealthy corporations. He seems blissfully unaware that the 29 member Council has the scientific qualifications, and diversity of race and political ideology of Republican fundraiser in Mississippi.

Pence’s Space Council of Non-Diversity

Mike Pence: The No Science Guy

Pence, who has less charisma and intelligence than former VP Dan Quayle, has put together a Council of primarily investor-owned corporations. No current NASA staff is included, and the former NASA employees on the Council have been retired from the agency an average of over 19 years.

In order to make sure the Council does not get caught up in any science issues, Pence has added five people who were selected because of their politically conservative resume, but devoid of any scientific qualifications.

However, there is one science teacher on the Council. No one seems to know who she is or what her qualifications are, but she is a “Board Certified Science Teacher.”

The National Space Kangaroo Council

The qualifications and interests of the National Space Council members are as follows:

Current NASA Staff (0)

None included

Current FAA Staff (0)

None included

Former NASA Staff (7)

Buzz Aldrin, (Retired from NASA 46 years ago)

Walked on the Moon in 1969, retired from NASA 1971, retired from Air Force 1972, a proponent of space exploration, punched faked-Moon-landing-conspiracist Bart Sibrel in the face (Sibrel had it coming.)

Eileen Collins, (Retired from NASA 12 years ago in May)

Flew Space Shuttle four times, speaker at 2016 Republican National Convention

Homer Hickam, (Retired from NASA 20 years ago)

Former NASA engineer and author

Pam Melroy, (Retired from NASA 9 years ago)

Space Shuttle astronaut, former Lockheed Martin staff, former FAA staff, former DARPA staff.

Harrison ‘Jack’ Schmitt, (Retired from NASA 42 years ago)

Apollo 17 Astronaut and former conservative U.S. Senator. Believes climate change is natural, not human-caused

David Wolf, (Retired from NASA 5 years ago)

Space Shuttle astronaut and physician

Pete Worden, (Retired from NASA 2 years ago)

Former Air Force General and NASA Ames Center Director

Minor Space Background (1)

G.P. Bud Peterson, Served as a visiting research scientist for NASA during summers of 1981 and 1982. Chairperson of the National Science Council and President of the Georgia Institute of Technology

Private Corporations Seeking Taxpayer Money (15)

Tory Bruno, Formerly with Lockheed Martin. President and CEO of United Launch Alliance
Wes Bush, CEO of Northrop Grumman
Mary Lynne Dittmar, Former Boeing employee and NASA advisor, currently President, and CEO of the private space industry advocacy group Coalition for Deep Space Exploration
Former Admiral Jim Ellis, Board of Directors Lockheed Martin, Retired 4-star Admiral, former head of STRATCOM, and member of the Space Foundation Board of Directors
Tim Ellis, CEO of Relativity Space, a corporation seeking to build rockets with 3D printers and using no labor or astronauts
Marillyn Hewson, CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation
Les Lyles, Only African American on Council, Director for multiple corporations, retired Air Force in 2003 after a long history of working in various military defense missile capacities.
Dennis Muilenburg, CEO of the Boeing Company
Fatih Ozmen, CEO of the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) with headquarters in Nevada which doesn’t have income or corporate taxes; however, the operations are in Colorado.
Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX (Space Exploration Technologies Corporation)
Bob Smith, CEO of Blue Origin
Eric Stallmer, President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation
David Thompson, Founder and CEO of Orbital ATK
Mandy Vaughn, President of VOX Launch Company
Stu Witt, Founder of Mojave Air and Spaceport, former Navy pilot, former Chairman of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation

Conservatives Appointed For Their Political Ideology (No space industry qualifications) (5 + 2 Former NASA)

Dean Cheng, Political conservative working for the Heritage Foundation, a politically conservative organization
Eileen Collins, (See former NASA staff)
Steve Crisafulli, Former conservative politician, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives
Newt Gingrich, conservative politician and former Speaker of the House
Governor Kay Ivey, Conservative Governor of Alabama
Fred Klipsch, Conservative promoting the defunding of public schools, Founder and Chairman of Hoosiers for Quality Education
Harrison ‘Jack’ Schmitt, (See former NASA staff)

Unknown (1)

Pamela Vaughan, Science Teacher

Maybe we didn’t win the space race after all.

Pigs In Space: Discrimination on the ISS

01 Thursday Mar 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Discrimination, Ethics, Exploration, Government, History, Honor, Management Practices, NASA, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Russian influence, Science, Space, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Anne McClain, astronauts, bias, crew, discrimination, Expeditions, Female, Gender, International Space Station, ISS, Jeanette Epps, male, misogyny, NASA, racism, Russia, Serena Auñón-Chancellor, Space, United States

For the last 17 years, the International Space Station (ISS) has been the great achievement of the United States, Russia, and other nations working together to maintain a human presence in space. People around the world can look up and see the shining star of the ISS crossing the evening or predawn sky. Yet, ISS has a dark shadow that NASA and the other nations involved don’t talk about publicly. Space has a glass ceiling.

International Space Station not above discrimination

Man Cave In Space

Women have spent less than ten percent of the cumulative days on the ISS since the first crew came on board in October of 2000. In over 17 years, only 12 women have served on an expedition crew. One woman, Sunita L. Williams, served twice, and one, Peggy A. Whitson, served three times.

As of today, (1 March 2018,) women have logged only 2,527 days on the International Space Station compared to 23,493 days served by men. Most of those women have been from the United States with only two women serving from other countries. The problem of discrimination against women is bigger with Russia, as cosmonauts have spent the most time on ISS (47% Russia versus 40% USA) but only have allowed one woman to be part of the crew.

The irony is that women make up 63% of the population of Russia and yet women have had less than 7% of the days served on ISS compared to their male counterparts. The United States has also failed to utilize women as crew members, but at least in the case of the U.S., women have been 21% of the Expedition crew.

Discrimination Station

Jeanette Epps barred from ISS

The problem with the crew discrimination goes beyond gender. ISS has yet to have an African American crew member. Last year NASA announced that Dr. Jeanette Epps would be the first African American crew member before Donald Trump was sworn into office. This January NASA rescinded that decision without explanation. They replaced her with another woman, Serena Auñón-Chancellor, who was scheduled to fly in November.

Epps has been completely removed from the ISS crew rotation even though NASA claims she is still under consideration. It has been confirmed that she was not ill, nor were family issues a reason for removal. NASA has not explained whether Trump’s administration was involved in the decision, nor whether Russia has demanded that the African American woman be barred from serving as a crew member.

However, it is clear that women and minorities are shockingly underrepresented on the space station. The unexplained removal of the first African American crewmember, who also is a woman, reflects a continuation of the ongoing discriminatory behavior of the program.

Gender-Based Crew Selection

NASA has demonstrated that it has a plan for the crew assignment based on gender assignment. Jeannette Epps has a Ph.D in engineering. She was replaced by Serena Auñón-Chancellor who is a physician. Dr. Aunon-Chancellor was pulled off an ISS Expedition scheduled to begin in November 2018, and she was replaced by Anne McClain who is a West Point graduate, Major in the Army, and a pilot with Master’s degrees in Aerospace Engineering and International Relations.

It is obvious that these three women were not shuffled around on the basis of skills, education, nor experience. Epps, and Dr. Aunon-Chancellor were selected to be an astronaut in 2009. McClain was selected in 2013, and completed her training in 2015. None of them have been in space. The only rational explanation is that NASA was replacing a woman with another woman. NASA’s 90% male to 10% female crew assignment is intentional.

Five Versus One

Another issue is the male dominated crew Expeditions. Typically only one woman is assigned to be with five men for six months on ISS. Only twice have two women served at the same time on ISS. For three months in 2010, and three and a half months in 2014-5, two women were on board at the same time. For the rest of the 200 months of occupation, ISS has either had an all-male crew, or only one woman on board.

Lack of Qualified People?

Is it possible that NASA can’t find enough qualified women or minorities? The number of people who dream to be an astronaut may have diminished since Apollo, but the dream hasn’t died.

When less than ten percent of the ISS crew time is served by women, and no African Americans have served in over 17 years of operation it’s clear there is a problem. ISS shouldn’t be the icon of white male discrimination.

SpaceX 2018 Launch Schedule Is PR Gold or PR Nightmare

28 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Marketing, Milestone, NASA, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

2018, Block 5, commercial space, fairing, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, launch, manned space program, manned spacecraft, NASA, space business, SpaceX, Starman, Tesla Roadster, Zuma

SpaceX is dependent on its reputation of success and reliability. There is no room in SpaceX’s 2018 launch schedule for major failures. The successful launch of the Falcon Heavy with a Tesla Roadster as the payload has repaired the long delays of the program, but in the business of space, you’re only as good as your last mission.

SpaceX’s Starman in Earth orbit

SpaceX’s reputation will be determined by the successful implementation of three critical elements of their program. Failure of any of the three elements and SpaceX could be facing a public relations (PR) nightmare; however, success will prove Elon Musk’s lofty visions for the company might be more than just talk.

SpaceX Must Do No. 1 – Consistency in Payload Delivery

The Falcon 9 program has moved out of the novice phase and into the professional phase. The question remains as to whether or not SpaceX can consistently put payloads into orbit.

Landing the booster after these launches dazzles the public, but has no impact on the effectiveness or cost efficiency of the program. Most of the boosters are the previous Block 3 or 4 versions and will not be reused. There is an issue with the booster landings. How long will paying customers accept SpaceX’s waste of resources on the ‘reusable’ PR parlor trick?

The other issue cropping up is the reliability of the fairing on the nose of the rocket. There are persistent issues with the fairing and while SpaceX absolved themselves of the loss of the super secret Zuma satellite, questions still remain as to the role of the fairing release after launch.

SpaceX Must Do No. 2 – Prove Falcon Heavy is Reliable

The inaugural launch of the Falcon Heavy was a spectacular success for SpaceX. The PR kudos continue to pour in with every new sighting by astronomers as the alternate human, Starman, drives his Tesla out further in the solar system.

All that could be lost if the next two 2018 scheduled launches of the Falcon Heavy experience problems. Failed launches of the Heavy would erase much of the PR boost of the first launch and call back into question the wisdom of a 27-engine booster. SpaceX has to duplicate the home run first launch at least twice more before customers will feel warm and fuzzy about the Falcon Heavy.

SpaceX Must Do No. 3 – Success of the F9 Block 5 Version

Block 5 is the final version of the Falcon 9 booster and it goes into service in 2018. It is the booster that will be rated for human spaceflight and much of SpaceX’s future as a commercial space program depends on proving it answers all the concerns of the four previous versions.

NASA is requiring seven successful booster flights of the Block 5 version of Falcon 9 before it will be rated for humans. That means SpaceX has to successfully launch the same version of the booster, without significant redesigns, seven times.

SpaceX has scheduled the maiden and second flight of the Block 5 version for April. It then has to fit five more successful flights between May and November. Once achieved, SpaceX can be approved to send astronauts up on the Block 5 booster in December of this year.

2018 A Year of Glory or Humiliation

Elon Musk has a reputation for promising more than he can deliver. He is a master of overconfidence but now results matter. He knows how to carefully craft a situation to amaze the public.

The Falcon Heavy launch was one of those moments. When they see the video of Starman orbiting Earth in a shiny red Tesla with the top down, people don’t remember that the Falcon Heavy was supposed to be ready in 2013. When they see the first stage of a rocket magically land on the pad, people don’t care that the booster was never going to be reused again.

2018 isn’t going to be a time when showmanship is going to cover up glaring issues. If there are problems meeting this year’s critical goals, people will see the man behind the curtain.

However, if SpaceX manages to achieve these milestones with minimal problems, SpaceX will be the shining star of space exploration.

Space Exploration Isn’t Profitable, It’s Transformative

16 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser 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

Age of Discovery, Apollo, Apollo missions, Columbus, economy, Golden Age of Spain, good jobs, jobs, NASA, privatization, return on investment, ROI, Soviet space program, Soviets, Space, space exploration, Spain, Technology, wages

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.

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.

The Day Business Killed The NASA Space Program

28 Sunday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Government, History, NASA, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, Technology, US History, US Space Program

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

aerodynamic forces, astronauts, Challenger, Disaster, Ethics, International Space Station, Kennedy Space Center, launch delays, manned space program, manned spacecraft, Morton Thiokol, NASA, Solid Rocket Boosters, space exploration, space flight, Space Program, Space Shuttle, SRB, STS-51-L, Vintage Space

Thirty-two years ago today, the first in-flight deaths of NASA astronauts tragically occurred after a launch that wasn’t supposed to happen. Some have proposed that the accident was a result of NASA and their contractors being pressured for public relations reasons. The truth is that their deaths were caused by trying to make space a business venture.

Seven astronauts killed in the Challenger accident

STS-51-L crew: (front row) Michael J. Smith, Dick Scobee, Ronald McNair; (back row) Ellison Onizuka, Christa McAuliffe, Gregory Jarvis, Judith Resnik.

Death By Impact

On 28 January 1986, seven astronauts in the Space Shuttle Challenger (STS-51-L) died as their crew compartment slammed into the Atlantic Ocean after falling 12 miles in two and a half minutes. They were not killed in the breakup of the Shuttle, nor did they become unconscious from the depressurization of the crew compartment, as suggested by NASA. Some, if not all astronauts, were aware that they were about to die and knew there was nothing they could do to avoid it.

Trail of Causes

The technical primary cause of the accident was weather-related. The Space Shuttle was not to be launched at temperatures below 4° C (39° F) and had never been launch at temperatures below 12° C (54° F.) A few hours before the launch the temperature had fallen to -8° C (18° F.)

The technical fault caused by the weather were rubber O-rings at each of the joints of the solid rocket boosters (SRB.) The O-rings needed to be warm enough to expand to seal the joint to avoid burning gases from blowing out between the sections of the solid rocket booster. The concern was that the power of the burning fuel would rupture the joint at launch and cause an uncontrolled blast of hot gases to escape causing an explosion on the launch pad.

Known Problem to NASA

After previous Space Shuttle launches some of the recovered solid rocket boosters had shown ‘blow-by’ of the O-rings. That meant that the O-rings had not completely sealed the SRB joint and could have potentially compromised the safety of the crew had the blow-by breached to the exterior of the joint.

Engineers at Morton Thiokol, the Utah contractor that designed and built the solid rocket booster, had felt that NASA was ignoring their concerns about the issues regarding the SRB joints. In an emergency teleconference meeting held the night before the launch, the engineers made it clear that the temperatures were unacceptable.

NASA decision-makers did not like the ‘no-launch’ answer and suggested that if they didn’t launch the next day, the company would be blamed for the delay. Morton Thiokol managers caved into NASA and overruled their own engineers. They gave a go for launch. Just prior to the reversal of the recommendation the general manager of Morton Thiokol said to the Vice President of Engineering, “…take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat…” It was the moment that sealed the fate of the seven Challenger astronauts.

Run NASA Like a Business

Previous space projects at NASA had been focused on spaceflight. The goal of NASA and its contractors were to safely put humans in space.

That changed after we reached the Moon. We had done the impossible and now space was less interesting and too expensive. The deflation of post-Moon public support forced NASA to find a justifiable reason to move forward. The decision was that NASA must end the exploration of space and build the ‘business’ of space. The Space Shuttle was intended to make the United States leaders in space commerce.

The Space Shuttle was built to be a reusable, frequent-launch spacecraft that would make traditional, single-use rockets too expensive and unreliable for commercial customers to use. The idea of running NASA like a business became the core value of the organization.

Delays, Delays, Delays

By January of 1986, NASA far behind its business goals. It was not launching the Shuttle frequently enough, nor was the reusability function creating the desired savings. STS-51-L was a critical point in making NASA run like a business. Delays in the launch of previous Shuttle (STS-61-C) had pushed back the STS-51-L flight twice. The launch had been pushed back four more times because of weather and equipment malfunctions.

On the Business Stage

Business is like theatre. It doesn’t matter what is going on backstage because the only thing that counts is what the audience can see. Backstage, NASA was in crisis, but if they could launch STS-51-L, they could maintain the perception that they had everything under control.

There were several public image opportunities if the launch occurred on the 28th that would be lost if it was delayed again. For Challenger and NASA, the teleconference on January 27th had only one possible business outcome. It must be launched. The engineers at Morton Thiokol didn’t know that they were up against a business mentality when they met on that night. Nor did the managers at Morton Thiokol or NASA know that they were about to kill seven astronauts. To them, it was just business-as-usual.

Events in Motion

Once the decision was made to launch events were set in motion.

The cold temperatures caused the O-rings to become rigid. After the SRB’s were ignited a puff of hot gases blew through the O-rings at a point near the large external fuel tank.
The joint temporarily sealed itself off from the debris of the exhaust of the burning fuel.
As the Shuttle rose after launch it hit the worst wind shear ever experienced by a Shuttle and the debris sealing the O-ring broke free allowing the hot gases to burn through the joint.
The flame from the joint acted as a blowtorch cutting into the external fuel tank and finally igniting the hydrogen fuel.
The resulting hydrogen fuel explosion ripped the External Tank into pieces, pushing the Shuttle away.
The Shuttle rolled out of its nose-forward position and was blown apart by aerodynamic forces.
The crew compartment broke free of the Shuttle and continued to ascend until it lost momentum and began to fall down toward the ocean. It did not suddenly depressurize, but likely, depressurized slowly. The astronauts were jolted by the breakup, but not severely injured.
At least three of the astronauts turned on personal oxygen after as the crew compartment fell. One did not, and the equipment for the other three astronauts was not found.
The crew compartment fell and eventually hit the ocean, killing the seven astronauts on contact.
NASA created a story that the astronauts were killed instantly, even after they knew that the events during the accident did not support the story.

End of the NASA Manned Space Program

The Space Shuttle didn’t fly again for almost three years. It would resume flight for an additional 13 years, but it failed to meet the objectives of making space a business venture. The accident exposed the inherent issues of running a space program like a business and political pressure undermined the concept of a manned space program.

In 2011, NASA ended the United States manned space program with the last launch of the Space Shuttle. Since the last Shuttle launch, NASA has worked hard at pretending to have a manned space program by paying Russia to send U.S. astronauts to the International Space Station and producing videos of the development of the next generation of manned spacecraft. The reality is that NASA no longer can put a human in space, at won’t at any time in the near future.

Below is Vintage Space’s take on the cause of the Challenger disaster.

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

23 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser 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

Apollo, Apollo 6, booster stage, engines, Falcon Heavy, first stage, J-1 engine, J-2 engine, launch, Moon rocket, N1, NASA, pogo oscillations, rocket engines, rocket explosion, Saturn V, second stage, Soviet space program, Space, SpaceX, third stage, vibrations

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Airbus, Amber Gell, Amy Shira Teitel, Apollo, cosmic radiation, Curious Droid, Earth, engineer, Gemini, Kelly Smith, Lara Kearney, LEM, Lockheed Martin, lunar module, manned space program, manned spacecraft, Mars, Mercury, Moon, NASA, orbit, Orion, Paul Shillito, Space Shuttle, spacecraft, STS-135, Van Allen Belts, Vintage Space

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?

Zuma Fail: Why Space Is No Place For Private Business

10 Wednesday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Ethics, Government, History, Management Practices, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, Taxes, Technology, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CIA, deployment, Failure, fairing, launch, military, NASA, Northrop Grumman, rocket, Satellite, secret payload, secret satellite, Space, SpaceX, spy satellite, Zuma

SpaceX Zuma Launch: What went up, but what came down?

On Sunday SpaceX launched Zuma, a super secret, we-can-tell-you-but-then-we-have-to-kill-you military satellite built by Northrop Grumman. It was the most important, most expensive military satellite that we know nothing about…except that it may, or may not have made it into orbit, it may or may not have separated from the second stage booster, it may or may not have burned up as it came back down into the atmosphere, and it may or may not have come down in the Indian Ocean.

Like two boys standing in the backyard after a window has been broken, SpaceX yelled, “We didn’t do it!,” and Northrop Grumman is looking down, kicking the dirt and saying, “We’re not gonna say anything.” It feels like the 1960’s and the Soviets are running our space program.

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate

This is why private business has no place in space. Private business is incapable of telling the truth to the public and they are hiding behind the skirt of the military hoping no one will notice that there is no state secret about whether a satellite made it into orbit or not.

The United States Government has to be an adult. If they send a rocket up and it fails, they have to tell us what happened. Private business, like the 1960 Soviet space program, believes that the public only needs to know about how great they are, and anything negative is to be a secret.

In the absence of the truth we can only assume that both SpaceX and Northrop Grumman are at fault and no more taxpayer money should be spent until they both can act like adults.

(SEE: CBS article with full SpaceX Zuma launch video)

(SEE: Independent YouTube video of SpaceX Zuma launch)

The Zuma Fairing Mystery?

During the Zuma launch, the SpaceX announcer pauses his commentary for ninety seconds after saying the fairing would deploy (eject) “…any second now..” He then came back on and switched topics, then finally confirmed the fairing deployment. Why the long pause?

T+0:50 seconds (50 seconds after liftoff) – A SpaceX announcer begins a live and nearly continuous commentary regarding upcoming events with the Falcon 9 rocket, pausing only for those events to be confirmed by SpaceX control.

T+2:03 – SpaceX announcer pauses as four events related to second stage separation are about to begin.

T+3:06 – SpaceX announcer resumes commentary and confirms a successful second stage separation, and explains at T+3:15 that fairing separation “…should occur any second now” (ejection of protective nose shell around satellite.) He continues on to say that he will confirm the fairing separation after it occurs.

T+3:26 – SpaceX announcer begins a pause that lasts for one minute and thirty seconds.

T+4:57 – SpaceX announcer says, “Alright, so we’ll address the fairing deployment in a second once we have more information, but for now we’re going to shift our transition back to our secondary mission…”

T+5:17 – SpaceX announcer says, “…ah, quick sidebar here that we did get confirmation that the fairings did deploy.”

SpaceX and Mars: The Illogical Strategy

23 Saturday Dec 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Government, Health, History, Management Practices, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, Technology, Travel, US History

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

booster landing system, engineering, habitats in space, Mars, NASA, propulsion, reusable booster, rockets, space exploration, space flight, Space Transportation System, SpaceX, weight

: Parlor Trick: Relanding a piece of junk and wasting payload fuel to do it

Fallacy: It takes eight to nine months to get to Mars when the planets are in the correct position.

Fact: Mars can be reached in a matter of weeks if the ship has the propulsion and fuel to increase speed beyond what is required for the Hohmann Transfer, and to reduce speed to insert into orbit around Mars. Also, a more powerful propulsion and fuel method can allow for trips to Mars even when the two planets are not in the ideal position.

Fallacy: We don’t have the technology to protect humans from cosmic radiation for extended space journeys beyond Earth orbit.

Fact: Again, we do have methods to protect astronauts from cosmic radiation, but the concepts add weight to the ship, and that means a better propulsion system is needed.

Getting to Mars is about ship and propulsion design. Period. Speed and weight will have to be increased to get astronauts safely there and back again. It costs money to achieve the goal.

This is the problem with SpaceX plan to go to Mars. Their approach has been to ‘save money’ by developing a reusable booster system. That sounds great. That’s what the space shuttle was designed to provide, and now, thirty years later, SpaceX is trying to re-do what we’ve already done. Not only are they reinventing technology we already have, they are doing it wrong.

Returning a booster as a landing craft defeats the mission objective of going to Mars. It requires wasting time, money, and fuel to:

design a booster landing system
building and testing a booster landing system
committing fuel that should be dedicated to the payload, to the booster landing system
using personnel and resources to monitor and land the booster
using personnel and resources to recover and rebuild the booster that is basically a piece of junk.

In addition, their approach to a reusable booster is contradictory to the goal of getting to Mars. It is absurd to think that one vehicle will liftoff from Earth, orbit Earth, go to Mars, orbit Mars, and land on Mars. Mars is not a pack-your-overnight-bag trip. To get to Mars will require boosting several payloads to be assembled in Earth orbit. Wasting fuel to put a payload into orbit in order to land the booster makes no sense.

Landing the booster stage on Earth is a parlor trick. It lets SpaceX look cool, and lets them claim they are saving money by reusing the booster. It makes people excited and cheer, but it is a waste of valuable resources. Landing on Mars will not be achieved by expending resources to re-land the booster on Earth.

What Happens In Sixty Years

19 Tuesday Dec 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Aging, Education, Generational, History, Internet, Lessons of Life, Politics, Science, Space, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

automobiles, cars, Change, development, lifetime, NASA, Pope, population, Presidents, space exploration, Technology, U.S. history

I was born sixty years ago today. We often talk about how life has changed since the Internet age, as if life before the Internet was static. It’s good to be reminded that change is relentless, and it is not confined to any particular time period.

In my lifetime:

Sputnik 1 and 2 were still in orbit (both launched shortly before my birth)
The word, ‘Aerospace’ was created
The average U.S. lifespan increased by almost ten years.
NASA was created
Nikita Khrushchev became Premier of the Soviet Union
Eisenhower was the first President to be broadcast in color on television
Almost all of the Interstate highways were built
Ford, GM, and Chrysler went from producing almost 90% of all U.S. cars to half that today, with Chrysler owned by foreign investors
We went to the Moon
There have been seven Popes, eleven Presidents, (and Donald Trump)
General Charles de Gaulle was elected President of France
Alaska and Hawai’i became the 49th and 50th States
Just over a third of all U.S. adults had a high school degree, now almost ninety percent have graduated from high school
Humans saw first image of the far side of the Moon (USSR’s Luna 3)
Fidel Castro became Premier of Cuba
We’ve had people in space, almost continually, for decades
Kmart and Wal-Mart didn’t exist when I was born
Sears went from dominating the retail market to almost complete failure
Leaded gasoline was determined to be poisoning humans and was banned
The World Trade Center was built and destroyed
Average gas mileage has more than doubled
We have advanced from rotary-dialed phones, to tone-based keypad phones, to cell phones, to smartphones
The world population has grown from 2.9 billion to 7.6 billion

This is just a small sampling of the changes that have happened in my lifetime. What will happen in the next sixty years?

We Don’t Need More Service Jobs

14 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, College, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Higher Education, History, Management Practices, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Science, Space, Taxes, Technology, Travel, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

economy, government programs, government spending, high paying jobs, job creation, job growth, livable wages, Moon landing, NASA, presidential terms, Presidents, private business, service jobs, Space Program, technical jobs

Putting people on the Moon meant jobs on Earth

During President Lyndon Johnson’s second term (1965-1969,) the space program was booming. At almost four percent job growth, his administration exceeded any other presidential term since World War II, including President Jimmy Carter’s impressive 3.2% growth. These were high paying, skilled jobs that created a demand for workers that enticed many young people to choose engineering and scientific careers.

PRESIDENT	PARTY	TERM YR	JOB GROWTH
Herbert Hoover	R	1929–1933	-5.41%
Franklin Roosevelt	D	1933–1937	4.97%
Franklin Roosevelt	D	1937–1941	2.53%
Franklin Roosevelt	D	1941–1945	5.00%
Roosevelt/Truman	D	1945–1949	1.61%
Harry Truman	D	1949–1953	2.93%
Dwight Eisenhower	R	1953–1957	1.34%
Dwight Eisenhower	R	1957–1961	0.87%
Kennedy/Johnson	D	1961–1965	2.64%
Lyndon Johnson	D	1965–1969	3.90%
Richard Nixon	R	1969–1973	2.23%
Nixon/Ford	R	1973–1977	1.68%
Jimmy Carter	D	1977–1981	3.21%
Ronald Reagan	R	1981–1985	1.47%
Ronald Reagan	R	1985–1989	2.80%
George H. W. Bush	R	1989–1993	0.45%
Bill Clinton	D	1993–1997	2.85%
Bill Clinton	D	1997–2001	2.33%
George W. Bush	R	2001–2005	0.02%
George W. Bush	R	2005–2009	0.24%
Barack Obama	D	2009–2013	0.23%
Barack Obama	D	2013–2017	1.85%

CHART 1.0 – Job growth during Presidential Terms (1929-2017) Growth over 2.5% is in green. (DATA credit: Wikipedia)

Service jobs were a byproduct of the main engine driving the boom in the rapid expansion of the space program. Service jobs did not offer the wages or the excitement of the space program, but they did provide employment for those who lacked motivation to qualify and/or seek out better paying, higher skilled jobs.

And then we landed on the Moon.

After we had achieved the primary objective, people who didn’t understand what a large government project means to employment, began questioning the space program. Over time the naysayers effectively killed the program, leaving private business to reinvent what NASA had accomplished in the 1960’s (landing on the Moon) and the 1980’s (a reusable rocket system.)

Today, we are trying to sustain and expand a service industry that lacks the main component of job growth, namely, a major public project that creates high paying and highly skilled jobs. Since NASA wound down its Space Shuttle program, job growth has flat-lined.

Private business does not exist to create jobs. It exists to put money in the pockets of the executives and owners of the business. Creating jobs cuts into profit. Paying higher wages cuts into profit. Private business is never going to create significant job growth, nor improve wages and benefits for the worker.

If we want job growth and livable wages, it is the government that will do it, not private business.

Earthbound Astronauts

03 Tuesday Nov 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Communication, Government, Internet, Science, Space, Technology, Travel

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ESA, International Space Station, ISS, NASA, NASA ISS Live Experiment, Tracking Map

Everyday I have the pleasure of joining the International Space Station (ISS) orbiting 250 miles (400 km) above Earth. This is possible because NASA has high-definition (HD) cameras that stream live video of Earth from the International Space Station. The public may connect to this video stream from the comfort of their home with a DSL or higher Internet service. This makes it possible for millions of people to have the view of Earth from space without having to experience liftoff, special toilets, re-entry, and landing.

Streaming image below is a live video feed from the International Space Station.

Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

Courtesy of NASA TV
Click on the ‘Play’ button to begin live streaming from ISS. (If screen is all black, ISS is on night side of Earth)

This “experiment” began in April 2014, and is meant to test the equipment needed for continuous video streaming from a space environment. It is one ISS experiment that makes us part of the ISS crew and allows us to enjoy their view of Earth almost anytime we desire.

You can watch this video feed:

Above on this page.
On NASA TV (click on the text to go there now.)
Through an application (app) on your phone or tablet.

Some things to note:

Each orbit takes approximately 90 minutes and about 30 minutes of each orbit is on the night side of Earth, therefore the screen may be all black.
ISS loses streaming signal several times during each orbit when it is out of range of equipped Earth-based communication centers.
Cameras and/or angles can change.

If you want to know where ISS is over Earth go to the following link: ISS Tracking Map

Screen shot images from the ISS HD cameras:

View from ISS as it flies over the Bering Strait area

Looking southeast as ISS flies over the Northern Pacific

Looking straight down at the Pacific Ocean

View to the northwest as ISS slides into night over Chile (two Soyuz spacecraft docked)

Living in the Imminent

27 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Government, Honor, Passionate People, Pride, Random, Science, Space, Technology, Travel

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

astronauts, cosmonauts, death, ESA, International Space Station, ISS, Japan, NASA, orbit, Russia, scientists, Space, USA

Six people near death

Don’t they know?

They show no fear

They have to know.

They live surrounded by a monster that kills without effort

Yes, in this millisecond they live in peace

In the next they could die in horror

We have no reason to fear walking outside

But these six

They should have reason

Death awaits outside with the tools of the universe

Radiation, heat, cold, or even nothing can kill

These six live where no one should

Yet, these six rob Death

These six live flawlessly where perfection matters

These six know Death and know his tools

Yes, these six know and know the risk

Just before sunrise or just after sunset

We watch them go by

We walk outside and watch them go by

For them, sunrise comes, sunset goes many times a day

But rarely do they go outside to watch

They know what is waiting outside

They know the risk

And three by three they will come and go

Three to rob death, three to come home

Three to look up to, and three to celebrate

Six people near death

But alive and well

This is Why (2015 vs the 2000’s)

19 Thursday Mar 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, College, Communication, Crisis Management, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Politics, Pride, Print Media, Privacy, Public Image, Public Relations, Religion, Respect, Science, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Space, Taxes, Technology, Traditional Media, Universities, US History

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

2004 Tsunami, 9/11, Afghani, Amazon.com, Anthrax, Assault weapons ban, Conservatives, Election 2000, Facebook, Florida vote counting, George W. Bush, Global Financial Disaster, Global warming, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Mars, NASA, Opportunity, Pope John Paul II, President, President Barack Obama, Republicans, Rovers, Saddam Hussein, Smartphone, Space Shuttle Columbia, Spirit, Supreme Court, Texting, Twenty-ohs, Twitter, Virginia Tech Massacre, Wikipedia, YouTube

The 2000’s – The Defeat of America

Decade of Fear: Y2K, 9/11, WMD’s, Katrina, Banking Collapse, Unemployment, Global Warming

Population: 281.4 million
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita: $44,492
Median Annual Income: $40,703
Life Expectancy: 76.8
Average Age at Marriage: Men 26.1, Women 23.9
% of pop. w/high school degree or higher: 80.4%
% of pop. w/college degree or higher: 24.4%

TWENTY OH’s
If the 1990’s were a seismic event of technological and social change, the twenty-oh’s is when the tsunami of change hit. Had nothing else happened but the advancement of the Internet, the changes by that alone would have drastically remade the world as we knew it; however, the twenty-oh’s were not content in merely redefining society and the way we communicate, the first decade of the new millennium was going to do an extreme makeover of all our expectations in life. Here are twenty things that made us say Oh!

Y2K, the disaster that never came (Jan. 2000)
Elections of 2000
1. Florida election fiasco (Nov./Dec. 2000)
2. Supreme Court appoints George W. Bush as President (Dec. 2000)
Attacks of September 11, 2001
Anthrax letters
Wars of Just Because
1. Afghanistan (2001-2014)
2. Iraq (2003-2011)
Rise of Smaller and Smarter Technology (Entire Decade)
1. Smartphone
2. Texting
Space Shuttle Columbia destroyed on reentry (Feb. 2003)
Mars Rovers bounce to successful landings and missions
1. Spirit (June 2003)
2. Opportunity (July 2003)
Saddam Hussein captured (Dec. 2003)
Assault weapon ban expires (Sept. 2004)
Online Wonders
1. Amazon.com
2. Facebook
3. Twitter
4. Google
5. YouTube
6. Wikipedia
Indian Ocean Earthquake/Tsunami (Dec. 2004)
Pope John Paul dies (Apr. 2005)
Global Warming
Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005)
Virginia Tech Massacre (Apr. 2007)
Global Economic Disaster (2007-08)
1. Financial giants collapse
2. Housing market collapses
3. Auto industry collapses
4. Massive unemployment
Price of gas soars, and falls….as a function of conservative politics
Barack Obama elected as President (Nov. 2008)
Nuclear weapons
1. Iraq
2. North Korea

The Twenty-oh’s began with the most bizarre Presidential election in American history, followed by the most shocking attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, followed by two United States initiated wars that would be fought simultaneously, followed by the loss of the Space Shuttle and its crew on reentry to Earth, followed by an earthquake/tsunami that would kill almost a quarter of a million people in 14 countries in one day, followed by a massacre at Virginia Tech, followed by a near meltdown of our global financial system, followed by an African-American being elected as President.

THE GREAT CONSERVATIVE FAILURE
Despite all that happened, it was politics that defined the 2000’s. Keeping with the two-faced Reagan policy of “America Can’t” and money must be taken from the poor and given to the rich, President George Bush took the cost of running two wars off the books so that he could look like he was cutting government spending when he was, in fact, putting the government deeper in debt and running massive deficits.

Behind the scenes, a decade of conservative-driven deregulation in the financial industry created a bad debt bomb that exploded in 2007-08. Almost overnight, America’s economy was devastated by greed and a lack of common sense. People who saw the disaster coming took the attitude that everyone else was unethical, so why should I be the only good person? When the curtain fell on Wall Street, Republicans, who created the environment for the disaster, quietly stepped away and whistling as if they were unaware there was a problem.

Bush 43, was completely out of his league in dealing with the problem. To repair the damage to our economy would require taking actions that was would essentially prove that the Reagan doctrine was the cause of the disaster, and President Bush was not willing to take the necessary actions. Fortunately, Barack Obama had just been elected and, with Bush impotent in action, the 44th President stepped up and began to manage the crisis and establishing a plan of recovery.

The Republican caused disaster did not cause conservatives to humbly acknowledge their failure, but rather pushed them to further deny the facts. As the economy began recovering, conservatives began blaming Democrats for not making the recovery happen faster. As conservative predictions of Democratic policy failure began to be proven wrong, conservatives began raising absurd and meaningless issues to redirect people’s attention (e.g.; Obama was not an American, Obama was a Muslim, Obama had a secret plan to take everyone’s guns away, etc.)

Because the Reagan doctrine was based on white, 1950’s suburban thinking, the hate for President Obama came naturally to the white, male voter. Instead of a political correction for the failed Reagan agenda, conservatives became even more rabid and illogical. By the end of the decade America was heading for defeat at the hands of conservatives who had taken away American prosperity and were unwilling to accept any idea that didn’t match their failed version of the world.

NEXT: Epilogue

THE SERIES: The 1950’s The 1960’s The 1970’s The 1980’s The 1990’s

Camera Locations Needed For NASA All Sky Fireball Network

15 Friday Nov 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Education, Photography, Science, Space, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

All Sky Fireball Network, Fireballs, Marshall Space Flight Center, MEO, Meteors, NASA

Did you see a meteor fireball last night? Do you know how far away or near it was to you? Do you know how fast it was going? What direction it came from or if pieces of it might have hit the ground? NASA is trying to answer those questions by maintaining a constant watch on our skies.

Recently NASA started the All Sky Fireball Network, which is a series of cameras that look up for major meteor fireballs in the sky. They use a minimum of two cameras placed 50 to 90 miles apart to allow both cameras to record the fireball. That allows NASA to determine the direction and speed of the meteor.

Current camera locations for NASA’s Fireball network

The network is operated by NASA’s Meteoroid Environment Office (MEO) in Huntsville, Alabama, and they are looking for additional locations for the bi-camera system. The sites must meet the following requirements:

Camera
Need an outdoor location that is/has:

Secure
A mostly unobstructed view of the sky, horizon to horizon
Relatively free of light pollution – no bright lights near the camera. For example:
No sports field or stadium lights nearby
No towers with blinking lights visible
No parking lot lights that would shine into the camera
Stable; we cannot mount a camera on a moving roof or other platform that would change the camera’s position from night to night.
Distant from kilowatt radio transmitters or other sources of radio noise

Camera-control Computer
Need an indoor location that is/has:

Secure
Climate controlled (ideally)
Power
Fast, reliable Internet connection (minimum upload speed of 100 KB/s) with the ability to assign a static IP address
The ability to open port 22 for internet communication in/out (only necessary if a firewall is in place)
Located within 125 feet of the camera
The means to run cables from the camera to the computer
A window or some other means (e.g. short cable run to the outdoors) by which the GPS unit can get a lock. The cable on the GPS receiver is 22 feet long, so the window would need to be located within 22 feet of the computer. Similarly, a cable run to the outdoors shouldn’t be more than 22 feet long.

If your organization is interested in making a proposal, contact Danielle Moser at MEO at the Marshall Space Flight Center or contact me for her email.

Wimpy Sunspot Maximum Typical for Early in the Century

09 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Science, Space

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

astronomy, NASA, SOHO, solar maximum, space weather, Sun, sunspot cycle, Sunspots

Seven identified sunspots are on the Earth-side for 9 NOV 2013

Sunspots of 9 NOV 2013

The Sun’s sunspot maximum is turning out to be a dud, but that shouldn’t be a surprise. The sunspot maximum began its eleven year cycle in 2010 after one of the quietest solar minimums in recent history. Now in its fourth year, the sunspot maximum is one of the wimpiest since early last century.

Sunspot cycle for last 60 years

The current sunspot activity is half to two-thirds of the previous five cycles (See Graph 1.0;) however, the current cycle is typical of the first solar maximum of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries (See Graph 2.0.)

Graph 2.0 Sunspot activity since 1700

The current cycle is also building to a double peak of sunspot activity that has been consistent in the last three sunspot maximums, which is typically followed by a rapid drop off of sunspot numbers. It is likely that activity will fall dramatically during 2014-15 leading us into the next solar minimum that will bottom out late in this decade.

How Did Earth Get A Moon?

08 Monday Jul 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Science, Space, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Apollo, Earth, formation, missions, Moon, NASA, origin, Satellite, space exploration

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

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

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.

What America Must Do: Step 5 – Restart a Federally Run Space Program

05 Monday Nov 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in College, Crisis Management, Ethics, Government, Health, Higher Education, History, Information Technology, Opinion, Passionate People, Politics, Pride, Re-Imagine!, Religion, Science, Space, Taxes, Technology, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

NASA, power, Prosperity, self sustaining, sewer, Space, Space Program, Space X, technologies, water

USSR scared America into the space race and it led to our prosperity

Fifty years ago America was scared. The USSR had sent a man into space and he had orbited the Earth. The Soviet Union was also threatening to plant their ballistic missile weaponry in Cuba. The United States entry into the space race was out of a fear that if we didn’t respond quickly, it might be too late.

This dire situation caused a crisis-type response that defined who we are as a people. Ignoring profit or ROI (return on investment) we established our space program and became proficient at churning out new technologies. Almost overnight we had a new breed of people who literally became rocket scientists.

And then it happened. We discovered that space technology had terrestrial applications. That wasn’t the justification for it, but our space program suddenly pushed the United States of America into the role as the go-to nation for space technology applied to terrestrial application. For decades Americans and the world reaped the benefits of the new materials, equipment and knowledge that came from our effort to go beyond the safety and protection of Earth’s womb.

Young people became excited about the space program and suddenly universities had applicants knocking down their doors to become a scientist, mathematician, or engineer that would go on to shape tomorrow’s world. Space ignited learning and research at colleges that shook up their dusty libraries and ivy covered walls. Philosophy, religion, arts, economics, and literature were blindsided in the 1960’s and 70’s by new questions that challenged our old beliefs and standards.

In 2008, USA space competitiveness was dominant, but today it wanes

Meanwhile, in Russia, scientists were put under extreme pressure to be successful on an accelerated space program. Behaving more like a mega-corporation that pushed for immediate results, Russia’s government forced scientists to try to take major risks in a dangerous environment where failure meant loss of life. When the scientist did have a new breakthrough they became state secrets and the larger population did not benefit. For the Soviets, the space race showcased the failure of running a government like a business.

Fifty years later America can look around at our computers, cell phones, medical devices and almost everything we touch, consume, or use and know that the space program had a direct or indirect impact on its development.

Yet, today America is stagnant. We are desperately trying to be competitive in a global market that spends most of its time figuring out how to make things cheaper, but not better. We say we want young people to pursue careers as engineers and scientists, but there is no burning reason for a high school graduate to pursue those careers. Instead we have university Psychology programs that are filled to overflowing with students who are more inspired to collect a salary by listening to other people’s problems than in designing the transportation and living habitats for a colony on Mars.

The United States is desperate for water in the South and West, but everyday we waste it

For decades the western United States has been battling with a growing population and a dwindling fresh water supply. We also face aging community water and sewer systems that are in need of major updating and repairs. We face global climate change because the we have been filling the air with energy absorbing carbon from burning coal, gasoline and natural gas.

The concept of transporting power, water, and waste is based on 19th and 20th century engineering. Power has to be generated hundreds of miles away and then delivered to homes via power lines that can fail in a major storm. Expensive and overburdened water treatment plants transport fresh, clean water through miles of pipeline and is only used once and then it becomes waste. Purified water that would be the envy of many people in Africa and the Middle East is mindlessly sprayed on our lawns and used to flush our toilets.

In space water has to be recycled, air must be purified, and power must be generated efficiently on a micro scale. That means focusing on self-sustaining habitats built that will face extreme conditions. On Earth, these technologies will pave the way to a shift from macro water, sewer and power systems (power plants and water and sewage treatment facilities) to cost-effective micro systems that free families from relying on expensive, polluting, and wasteful systems that are unsustainable. Everything we need to solve America’s terrestrial problems can be found by solving the problems of extended human living in space. In addition, a renewed public space program will inspire High School graduates to pursue careers in engineering and science.

Space X Falcon 9 Engine Array – Redefining space technology

America needs to be pushed into using new technologies that break down the paradigms of the past. In the 1960’s we were pushed by the Soviets and the result was prosperity. Today we need to push ourselves, not out of fear, but out of pride and courage. I have nothing against Space X or any other private or commercial space program, but prosperity doesn’t happen out of the pursuit of profit. Prosperity happens when everyone sacrifices from the board room to the break room for the good of the United States.

Space X has made new breakthroughs in the bureaucracies and waste built up over five decades by NASA and its private contractors and they should be the model of a new public space program, but investors and ROI are not the reason America needs to take back the leadership in space exploration.

If the last 50 years have taught us anything it is that raising ships to the stars, we will raise all ships on Earth. It’s time to reclaim our space program.

Links to:

What America Must Do: Step 1 – Silence the Wackos in Politics
What America Must Do: Step 2 – An Extreme Makeover of Government at All Levels
What America Must Do: Step 3 – Restore Government Revenue and Fair Taxation
What America Must Do: Step 4 – Balanced Budget By 2015, Debt under 50% of GDP by 2020
What America Must Do: Step 6 – Reinvent Higher Education

Challenger STS-51L: What Happened – 12 Hours + 73 Seconds + 207 Seconds

28 Saturday Jan 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Government, History, Science, Space, US History

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

1986, Challenger, Disaster, ET, External Tank, January 28, NASA, Solid Rocket Boosters, Space Shuttle, SRB, STS-51L

Many experts have discussed what happened in the moments up to and after the breakup of the Challenger Space Shuttle on January 28, 1986. NASA thoroughly investigated the events the led to the loss of the vehicle and the seven astronauts on board. This information was released over the months (and years) following the disaster, but here is a synopsis of what has been learned and discussed.

The four basic parts of the Space Shuttle

What Didn’t Happen

Not An Explosion
The Challenger and the External Tank (ET) did not ‘explode’ in the sense of a violent, pressure wave of energy. The fireball that engulfed the Space Shuttle was triggered when the bottom of the External Tank broke away releasing all the hydrogen fuel. This fuel ignited and gave the ET a sudden acceleration or upward push, which then caused the rupture of the oxygen tank in the upper portion of the External Tank that tore off the top of the ET¹. The result of the escaping fuel from the top of the ET created an oxygen-rich environment around the vehicle. The fuel in the Orbiter for the thrusters also ignited which may have been released when the nose of the Challenger sheared off due to aerodynamic forces.

STS-51L at 59 seconds after launch – black smoke reappears

(¹There is also evidence that the nose of the starboard Solid Rocket Booster swung into the ET and contributed to the rupture at the top of the tank.)

The failure at both the bottom and top of the External Tank ultimately led to its breakup because it no longer had an aerodynamic structure to force the air around it. In the last images of the Space Shuttle before breakup, the entire vehicle is masked by a translucent white and gold curtain of smoke and burning fuel. The fireball that surrounded the Space Shuttle was a combination of all the liquid fuel being released and igniting.

STS-51L at 73 seconds – The both the bottom and top of the ET have ruptured

Similarly, the breakup of the Orbiter was not caused by explosive forces from the fireball. As the ET accelerated and broke apart Challenger began pivot, nose down, so that the upper portion of the Orbiter turned into the oncoming rush of air. Since it was not aerodynamically designed to fly into that position (the Shuttle was traveling at 1,450 mph) the nose portion, including the crew compartment sheared away from the rest of the vehicle. As the crew compartment separated from the rest of the Orbiter, air rushed in to the Payload Bay and other cavities literally blowing Challenger apart from the inside.

Joint Section of SRB and the seal is inspected after STS-51L disaster

Cold Weather and O-ring Failure Not the Entire Cause of Disaster
The joint on the starboard Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) failed and allowed extremely hot gases to be directed at the External Tank; however, the infamous O-rings (a primary and secondary for each joint) and the cold weather were probably NOT the only factors leading to the disaster.

STS-51L liftoff – Black smoke at lower right joint on SRB

Both Solid Rocket Boosters were subjected to subfreezing temperatures overnight (it was only 36°F at launch.) If temperature was the only factor, then other joint breaches should have occurred in the multiple joints of both SRBs. There was only one breach on one SRB and at one point in the 360° circumference around the joints.

Photographic evidence shows that a breach of the joint occurred as Challenger lifted off, but it seemed to re-seal (probably with soot and debris) as the vehicle cleared the tower. However, Challenger hit the strongest wind shear conditions of any Shuttle in twenty-five missions soon after launch. Whatever was sealing the earlier breach in the O-ring probably broke free as the SRB joints flexed in the wind shear. That started the hot gases to burn an ever-increasing hole through the joint, which was aimed at the strut that attached the External Tank to the Solid Rocket Booster.

Joint design, wind shear, O-rings, weather, and possibly an unknown factor (undetected pre-launch damage or weakness at one point of the joint) all seem to create a set of extraordinary circumstances that doomed Challenger.

What Happened

T Minus 12:00:00.000 Hours
In the twelve hours before the launch, Launch Pad 39B experienced colder temperatures than had occurred prior to any Shuttle launch. This likely caused the O-rings in the joint of the SRBs to contract slightly.

00:00:00.000 Launch
At launch, possibly due to the cold weather or other causes, the joint was not completely sealed and hot gases burned through one point on a joint on the starboard Solid Rocket Booster. As Challenger lifted off puffs of black smoke appeared near the joint area 3 times per second.

+00:00:02.733 Joint Re-Seals
The black puffs of smoke are no longer visible. It is believed that debris from the O-rings temporarily re-sealed the joint.

+00:00:19.000 Wind Comment
Pilot Michael Smith says, “Looks like we’ve got a lot of wind here today.”

+00:00:36.990 Shuttle Responds to Wind Shear
Challenger automatically responds to heavy wind shear. This causes stress and flexing of the joints in the SRBs. The belief is that at some point the temporary seal formed soon after launch breaks free and hot gases begin to blow through the gap. The hole in the joint grows as the gases melt the structure around it.

At 59 seconds a flame is clearly escaping from the SRB above the rocket nozzle

+00:00:58.788 Heat Plume
Cameras record an abnormal plume of flame and smoke coming from the starboard Solid Rocket Booster. The plume grows in size over the next several seconds. The plume is aimed at the strut on the External Tank which connects it to the Solid Rocket Booster.

+00:00:60.004 Pressure Drop in SRB
Computer data shows a pressure drop in the starboard Solid Rocket Booster. While Mission Control and the crew are not fully aware of this, there is no doubt that the leak in the joint is effecting the power output of the Solid Rocket Booster. Had the flame been pointed away from the Shuttle and the External Tank, the Solid Rocket Booster would have eventually caused an abort due to lack of thrust to make orbit.

+00:00:64.660 ET Burn Through
The plume between the Solid Rocket Booster and the External Tank suddenly changes shape. This indicates that the External Tank has burned through and hydrogen fuel is leaking and increasing the flame.

+00:00:66.764 Pressure Drop in ET
Pressure in the External Tank begins to drop indicating a massive leak; however, even if the astronauts had noted the drop in pressure there was no action they could have taken. In seven seconds the entire vehicle will be engulfed in flame and the External Tank and Orbiter will be breaking up.

+00:00:70.000 “Go at throttle up.”
Commander Scobee calmly responds to Mission Controls authorization to increase speed by saying, “Roger, go at throttle up.” While events around the Solid Rocket Booster and External Tank are beginning to impact the vehicles flight path, no one on the ground or in the air has any forewarning of what is about to happen.

+00:00:72.204 Wild Nozzle Movements
At this point the engines on the Solid Rocket Boosters are shifting positions to compensate for flight path variations caused by the cascading failures of the ET and SRB. These movements of the engines on the SRB and then by the Main Engines on the Orbiter become wilder over the next second. The computer is desperately attempting to keep the vehicle on the flight path.

+00:00:73.124 Beginning of the End
Challenger is traveling at almost twice the speed of sound. Seventy-three (73) seconds into the flight the lower strut on the External Tank, which has been the target of the blow torch of hot gases leaking from the SRB, gives way and the lower end of the starboard Solid Rocket Booster flies free. It begins to pivot around the upper support. At about the same time the bottom of the External Tank comes off allowing all the hydrogen to escape and ignite. This causes a rapid acceleration of the External Tank. The upward pressure on the interior of the ET then causes the a rupture at the top of the tank, which then releases the oxygen around the Shuttle. In rapid succession, the External Tank breaks up, the Solid Rocket Boosters completely separate from the vehicle, and the Shuttle is pushed into a pivot that causes the nose to shear off at the point just in front of the Shuttle bay.

STS-51L post breakup with crew cabin arching over ocean

The Next 207 Seconds
The crew compartment is violently thrown around, but the G-forces most likely are not severe enough to seriously injure the crew. Ultimately, the crew cabin continues to move up from approximately 46,000 feet to over 60,000 feet, until its forward momentum is lost and it begins to arc down to the ocean below. At one point the crew probably experience weightlessness as the cabin begins to fall. The crew compartment begins a rotation that will continue until about 100 seconds before impact when it seems to stabilize with the black tiles on the bottom of Challenger’s nose facing the shore.

There is little doubt that most, if not all, of the seven astronauts survived the breakup. Personal Egress Air Packs (PEAP) were activated by the crew and switches at the pilot’s station were changed from launch position. In both cases, the break up of the vehicle, nor the impact on the ocean could have caused these actions. It is believed that all astronauts were strapped into their seats at the time of impact, which would be expected regardless of their state of consciousness.

The oxygen supply for the crew was behind them and lost in the break up. It is likely that the crew knew they lost their oxygen supply, possibly due to a loss in cabin pressure and were seeking to reestablish oxygen flow via the PEAPs. Three of four air packs were activated, unfortunately, if cabin pressure was lost the air packs would not have offered pressurized flow and therefore the crew would have lost consciousness. How quickly that would have happened would have depended on the speed of the possible decompression of the crew compartment.

Regardless of their condition during free fall, the crew would have been killed instantly upon impact in the Atlantic Ocean at 207 seconds after the break up of Challenger. The upper left section of the compartment was likely the point of first impact. It would be over six weeks before the remains were found and recovered.

15 Days in January – Day 15

28 Saturday Jan 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Fiction, Government, History, Science, Space, Technology, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1986, Challenger, Disaster, ET, External Tank, January 28, Kennedy Space Center, KSC, NASA, Orbiter, Solid Rocket Boosters, Space Shuttle, SRB, STS-51L

(NOTE: The following is a fictionalized account of the 15 days in January 1986 leading up to the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster on the 28th of that month; however, the details of weather and NASA events are based on known historical data.)

Titusville, Florida
Tuesday, January 28, 1986
High Temp: 46° F Low Temp: 32° F

Challenger and crew clear the tower

Where do I start? Seven amazing, wonderful, smart people lost their lives today. None of us can come to terms with the reality of what happened.

The morning was cold. We opened the water valves on Launch Pad 39B overnight to keep the lines from freezing and ice was all over the pad. Still, that should have not been a problem, nor caused a disaster. We had a delay of two hours because of an equipment failure on the pad, but the fuel and crew were loaded normally and Challenger launched at 11:38 AM.

Ice on Launch Pad 39B after water release to protect pipes

There were no warnings, no alarms, no indication of a problem. At 73 seconds after liftoff a massive cloud surrounded the vehicle and we lost sight of it. Then the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) emerged at the top of the cloud and continued on followed by pieces of debris. We knew that something had happened but it was over a minute before it became apparent that the Orbiter had not survived.

The impact on everyone was a wall of emotions. The feeling of loss because the seven astronauts were our family. The feeling of empathy for the astronaut’s families for their loss. The feeling of anxiety as to if there was something we did that caused this tragedy and the need to find answers as quickly as possible. The loss was made even harder as we all watched helplessly seeing the remains of STS-51L fall into the ocean. Many of us held out hope of the miracle until it became apparent there would not be one.

Much of what happened does not make sense. Any rocket-based vehicle is a flying explosion waiting to happen, but everything possible is done to keep the volatile chemicals from interacting until they reach the nozzle. The cloud was apparently the result of a sudden burn of fuel from the External Tank, which doesn’t necessarily mean it was a violent explosion. If there was an explosion, why did the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) escape, seemingly untouched. Challenger has been cursed with Main Engine problems, so some wonder if one of them failed causing the External Tank (ET) to breach and the fuel to burn, but again, why didn’t the SRBs also explode?

There has been discussion that the cold might have caused a problem with the seal around the joint of a SRB, but why would that destroy the External Tank (ET) and Orbiter, but have seemingly little or no impact on the SRBs? It is apparent that the ET is key to explaining what happened. A joint could fail and hot gas escape that is aimed directly at the ET, which could cause an explosion, but a joint is 360°around and less than 25% of a joint faces at or near the ET. Odds of a first time failure of a joint facing the ET after 25 missions are ridiculously low.

STS-51L Christa McAuliffe, Gregory Jarvis, Judy Resnik, Mission Commander Dick Scobee, Ronald McNair, Pilot Michael Smith, Ellison Onizuka in White Room on 8 JAN 1986

The biggest question on everyone’s mind is the one no one wants to discuss. What happened to the crew? The Orbiter and ET emerged from the cloud in fragments and some were large enough to be the area where the crew sat during launch. Most of us believe that they were killed instantly, but no one will rest peacefully until we know what happened to them.

The scope and breadth of this tragedy is far beyond what I could have imagined. Somehow we all have to move forward, but we’re all trying to deal with what happened. Moving forward doesn’t seem possible, right now. The first step in moving forward will be to understand what happened.

TOMORROW: What Happened to STS-51L

15 Days in January – Day 14

27 Friday Jan 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Fiction, Government, History, Science, Space, Technology, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1986, Challenger, Disaster, freezing temperatures, launch delays, Launch Pad, NASA, Pad 39A, Pad 39B, Space Shuttle, STS-51L, Weather

Titusville, Florida
Monday, January 27, 1986
High Temp: 55° F Low Temp: 36° F

Flight deck wide-angle view of STS-51L crew all dressed up and ready to go

It is frustrating when minor issues become show stoppers. Today’s first launch from Pad 39B was thwarted by a simple tool that wouldn’t come off the hatch on Challenger as we locked the crew in the Orbiter. We finally sawed it off and then drilled out a bolt to replace it. By the time we had solved the issue the winds were unacceptable for a landing if we had to abort and bring the Challenger back. We are now scheduled for launch tomorrow morning, January 28.

The weather was cold this morning. We’ve never launched in conditions this cold, but it is a lot colder than 36 ° F only 20,000 feet above Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the Challenger will be there about 30 seconds after launch. I guess we shouldn’t be complaining down here.

STS-51L mid-deck with rest of crew strapped in

Tomorrow’s forecast is for clear skies and temperatures to be cold overnight and not as warm tomorrow during the day. The big issue on the Launch Pad for us is whether or not the temperatures will drop below freezing tonight. We have a lot of water piped in and around the pad area and if the water in the pipes freeze and break the Challenger might not go up for several days. One option being discussed is to open valves tonight and let the water flow to keep it from freezing. Trying to heat the entire pad area is not a realistic option and any open heat source is dangerous considering the fuels we have in and around the Shuttle.

If everything goes smoothly tomorrow we will finally get Challenger on its way for its 10th mission. We are now almost a week behind on this launch because of the delays of Columbia and the weather, both here and at other abort landing sites. After the launch we have to clean up the chemical residue from the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) and inspect the launch pad area for damage. Repairs and maintenance will be scheduled and addressed, which is currently underway at Launch Pad 39A after Columbia’s January 12th launch.

By this time next year we will be more like the gate at an airport with a continuous process of preparing for launch, repairing from launch, and preparing for next launch, with three active pad crews (two here at KSC and one at Vandenberg AFB.) President John F. Kennedy gave our country a dream to reach for the stars and it is exciting to watch the dream become a reality.