Friday, July 24, 2009

40 years

Today is the 40th anniversary of the splashdown of Apollo 11, bringing to an end man's greatest technological achievement and man's greatest exploration. One of the things that slips by on the recognition of the first moon landing is that the entire mission was eight days. That's a slightly lengthened week off from work. A quarter of a million miles to the moon in four days, and the same distance back in a like time. Of course gravity helps a great deal. Once the moon's gravitational influence on the craft exceeded the earth's, the pull of the moon was essentially doing all the driving. Or as Bill Anders of Apollo 8 said, I think Isaac Newton is doing most of the driving now."

A great deal of celebrating has taken place this week, and rightfully so. The great dream of so many people through a couple of centuries, and years of devoted and demanding work by a wide range of Americans, was fulfilled on July 20, 1969. Only twelve astronauts have stood on the surface of a body other than the earth. It's a tremendous accomplishment.

It's sad, however, that at the same time we are celebrating, the nation's space program suffers doubts, fading support and is in a state of confusion. The state of confusion being the limbo we float in while awaiting the Augustine commission to finish its study and issue a report. And beyond that how much longer will we have to wait for the new administration to make a decision and direct NASA, and hopefully provide the funds to support the direction?

The morale at the building where I work is high this week because of the celebration, but when the yelling is over and we go back to work on Ares, and read the hazing from media and blogs alike, reality sets in. It's true that NASA has made mistakes. I don't deny it or try to justify it. Fourteen people have died in the shuttle program. But unlike Apollo, there is no forgiveness. Apollo 1 was a terrible tragedy. NASA pulled itself together and two and a half years later landed on the moon. Well, after (no pun intended) going the distance, Apollo 1 was remembered but forgiven. NASA had redeemed itself with Apollo 11.

The shuttle program has flown for 28 years and 127 flights. Any one death is dreadful. Even with mistakes eliminated there will be failures because no system is perfect. (Let's not belabor statistics on how many people die every day in cars, in plane accidents. Humans aren't perfect. Neither are the products of their minds and hands.) Great achievements have been made during the shuttle era. However, lack of coverage and lack of appreciation or understanding on the part of the public blunts these accomplishments severely. So, not only are these things ignored, there is no tall pole at which to point, as with the moon landing (at least from the point of view of lay people), and say NASA has redeemed itself.

As a friend from work told me so very recently, we (NASA) are serving our country and we are making sacrifices to serve our country. We do because we give up a lot of personal time and energy to do our jobs. We miss many event things in personal time to do this job. I know that so many people have this vision of government workers with feet on desks and reading newspapers. There are rotten apples in every bunch. However, the largest part of people that I work with are busting tail and making sacrifice. It's another way NASA is ignored. The only way NASA gets coverage is if something goes wrong. Funny how the media doesn't always follow up on the bad news to tell the resolution. But that is another story.

To tie this all together, NASA is still capable of doing great things. We need a supportive administration. It would be nice to have a supportive populace. However, that is a luxury. A supportive administration is essential. If NASA doesn't achieve great things, do not always chalk it up to "incompetent" NASA.

Happy 40th to Apollo 11, and great going to the crew of STS-127 and the ISS. The space program has not reached its perigee. We are still climbing to apogee. But we do need a supportive gravity to pull us into orbit...of whatever program we are directed to pursue.

Monday, July 13, 2009

The Same Ol' Story




After three launch attempts for STS-127, and three scrubs, the same ol' people begin the same ol' litany. After all these years, you'd think they'd get tired of it themselves, realizing it needs something new added. The same answers are given...and pass through the same ol' dull heads. I suppose that's why "they" need to ask the same questions again, rant the same rant.

Why does NASA have so many problems? Why can't they ever launch on time? Don't they know what they are doing? Why is this so hard?

Well, whoever said that launching a space vehicle was easy? If a launch attempt goes flawlessly on the first try, that is not blind luck. It is the result of a great number of people having done their jobs correctly and thoroughly. And because a launch scrubs does not mean that these people didn't do their jobs. It doesn't mean that they don't know what they are doing.

One thing that NASA has taken a hit for in recent years is...safety. And then when they correctly apply all safety systems and requirements and those all work, then NASA takes a hit for that. I must be missing something. Which way do "they" want it? Should NASA be safe, or should NASA relax safety so a launch can go on time. That is if the vehicle makes it off the pad.

Because that is what is at stake, people. Safety doesn't just mean that the vehicle makes it off the pad. It also means seven astronauts made it off the pad too, and will come home safely...if NASA continues to correctly practice safety.

Yes, there was a problem with the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate (GUCP), which led to a hydrogen leak. It took two tries to correctly repair the problem. But this is not only about a hardware failure. It is also about leak monitors in place and working and engineers monitoring them to realize there is a leak, and engineers making the correct and safe decision to halt a launch because that concentration of hydrogen is a fire/explosion risk. If there were a big pocket of hydrogen around the vehicle and the engines ignited, so would that hydrogen. That is the rocket engine fuel. Can you say BOOM?

Holding up a launch to check out the electrical system after a lightning strike hit the lightning mast on the tower is safety, people. That's to be certain that nothing electrical got blown out by the fields generated. Oh, right...explanation needed. If the lightning didn't strike the shuttle...then what is the problem??? Because lightning generates electrical fields that affect things around the object it strikes. Yes, the lightning protection system protects the vehicle from direct strikes, but unless the vehicle is totally encased in protection, the fields can't be stopped. Why doesn't NASA do that then? Well, then you'd have to move the vehicle out of the protection. Sort of like rolling it out of the VAB. Once you stick the vehicle on the pad, you have to accept some risk. You cannot protect it from everything when it's out there in the open air environment. And don't forget, there was no damage to Endeavour's electrical system.

And lastly, I really don't think I need to explain the scrub with thunderstorms moving into the launch pad area. Apollo 12 was hit by lightning shortly after it lifted off the pad. There are several places where you can read about this. Wikipedia has a good summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_12 Yes, Apollo 12 was able to recover and finish its mission, but I think this summary demonstrates that putting a vehicle in direct danger of a lightning strike is dangerous and not safety wise.

It's safety, people.