For Phyl: Where Would I Send NASA?

Phyl asked: If you could decide the direction NASA would take for the next two decades (manned space exploration, going to Mars, concentrating on the space station, doing stuff on the Moon, or something completely different) -- what direction do you think would be best?

It's an interesting question.

First, let's assume that I have complete control over NASA (with ~the same budget as has been proposed) - me and me alone. What would I want to do? I'd want to work towards and effective self-sustaining colony on the moon. Why?

Because it's a vital stepping stone on the way way out there. Before I commit any spacecraft to Mars, I'm going to want to know those spacecraft and landers work, they can land and take off again, that the suits will be effective handling rocks and withstanding dust. I'm going to want to know that I can protect my crew from radiation for long periods of time, that I can extract some of what I need from the soil. I'm going to practice growing things and farming and manufacturing, basically being self-sufficient.

On the moon, everything I need to do is applicable to Mars, only the extremes are more extreme, the dust is sharper, the atmosphere is even less atmospheric. Yet, the moon has the invaluable advantage of being close at hand, relatively speaking. We can test all kinds of technologies and capabilities where rescue is days, not weeks, away, and upmass is just horrifically expensive rather than all but impossible. If we can tame the moon, make it a real colony, we'll know we can tame anything.

However, where we go isn't as important as figuring out the best way to get there. We need to decide what we want to do, what we want to accomplish, and then build the tools we need to get there. Optimize instead of make do or force fit.

Note also that this isn't choosing human spaceflight over unmanned. To me, they are a package deal. You need 'em both.

Now, if I was just a ridiculously rich and decided to go commercial, I would do things differently.

But, then, you didn't ask that.

BTW: This looks like a very interesting book for the space nostalgic.

Read more...

For Boris: What Would I Do?

Boris asked: If you had to choose your line of work again, would it still be the same, i.e. awesome rocketry with NASA (personal bias showing through)? What would be your second choice?

Good question, Boris. It should be one I can answer in a few short sentences. But I can't.

It's an excellent question because I'm not sure how much I "chose" this one. See, I am a rare beastie, an accidental engineer. I'd never had the slightest interest or inclination to do anything math related. Oh, science and math were fun and I enjoyed it, but only about as much as I enjoyed history and literature. I always intended to be a writer/novelist. The only thing in question was what would I do for a day job while I waited to get my book(s) written and sold. Stephanie likes eating.

I could do math, of course, in fact, it was so easy for me it was boring to me, which is likely one reason I never intended to pursue it. I think I'd always assumed I'd do foreign languages (which I enjoy great deal) or journalism or genetic engineering. I know, weird choices. Except, journalism, in high school, bored me silly. Writing the "truth" didn't hold any interest for me compared to fiction and I wasn't sure how to make money with foreign languages short of teaching. And genetic engineering wasn't offered at any of my immediate college choices.

But I wasn't set or picky. After all, I was going to write. So, since I was bright (and had excellent SAT and ACT scores - types of proficiency exams), I started applying for scholarships, a lot of them, anything. I figured wherever I had scholarships, I'd pursue.

Which is how I ended up with Engineering Physics - because I could get a scholarship from the Engineering department and a scholarship from the physics department. And, once I started in what I soon discovered was the "hardest" major on campus, I was too stubborn to get out. I wasn't going to let it beat me. I found my job with the same sort of muddling. I wanted to live somewhere "warm", didn't particularly want to do defense or quality assurance and definitely not petroleum. That left NASA.

Why did I tell you all that? Because, knowing what I know now and having an opportunity to get any major I wanted and work wherever I wanted, I think I'd do the same thing. I was exposed to all the science and every major type of engineering, and I like what I ended up with better than anything else. It's more real and practical that straight physics, more predictable than biology, smells better than chemistry, yet it's also far more versatile than any straight engineering field. But it also incorporates bits and pieces of all of it.

I used to think I would have been better off working for NASA directly (which I missed because I'd already accepted an offer with a contractor). Now, I'm glad that my background is more diverse (bioengineering, human factors, environmental science, robotics, calibration, safety, EVA, etc. etc.). And I love where I work now, more freedom, more variety.

So, honestly, if I could do it all over again, I probably wouldn't have changed anything. I wonder sometimes about genetic engineering. But I'm not unhappy, even with some of the frustrations I've run into along the way. I believe in what I do and believe I've made a difference.

So, call that I'd choose the same, with genetic engineering as a second choice.

However, I do have some regrets. I wish I'd pursued some singing training. I wish I'd pursued languages more so I was actually fluent. And I wish I'd pursued the writing itself more assiduously.

But, all in all, I'm good.

Read more...

For Aron: Is It Hopeless?

Aron said: A while ago, I applied for the NASA-MUST scholarship. In addition to money for college, NASA gave the winners an internship. I didn't get in the program, does this mean that I do not have a shot to intern with NASA? I would love to intern and work at NASA someday.

Um, no. Things are pretty tight at the moment at NASA and, truthfully, there's a lot of competition. However, I don't think this is the only way in.

There are a number of ways to get in early: internships come up frequently through NASA proper, but it's not the only option. You can also check with specific centers for center specific internships (Here's one for Glenn). Also some contractors also provide internships (United Space Alliance, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing are probably the big contractors, but there are a number of smaller companies like Hamilton Sundstrand).

Something else you could pursue include internships with some of the commercial developers like Bigelow Aerospace (who is working on an inflatable space hotel).

I wouldn't give up too soon.

Read more...

For Aron: Maslow Window

Aron asked: I've noticed NASA is sticking the the 2020 date for a moon mission which is the middle of the next Maslow Window. Does NASA support the Maslow Window theory?
Wouldn't you know someone would ask me a question I have no clue what the answer is? I've never even heard of the Maslow Window theory.

However, I do love to learn new things. Finding out what you were talking about was actually tricky, but I found this little presentation on the Maslow Window model, where there's an increase in "energy" every 56 years or so that leads to major war, major engineering accomplishment, major exploration. And then they show the last two hundred years or so and tell us we have until 2025 to get our acts together if we want to get back to the moon or Mars.

Well, I will tell that I have never, in 20 years at NASA, heard anyone reference a Maslow window or profess a need to make a window attached to it. To the best of my knowledge, the 2020 time frame is a direct reference to the expected time to get there (remember, there ware more than a decade of development before we ever set foot on the moon), how long it will take to build up the hardware and workable designs, not just to do what we did before, but more - and address the issues we discovered the last time we set foot on the moon.

Personally, I didn't find the data backing the Maslow window compelling. What about WWII? Or other wars around the world? Why just wars we were involved in? There's fighting all the time somewhere, sadly. As for development, what about the telephone and Kitty Hawk, both well before WWI? What about the incredible developments during WWII including nuclear weapons and, yes, rockets - surely as impressive in their right as what happened after. What about the computer strides and strides in communication.

The other problem with the theory it assumes a causation. War leads to industry. Economies move in cycles. There are too many explanations.

Better to go back to the moon when we have a good design, well tested, that has addressed what we've learned before and has systems we plant to use on Mars then trying to catch some ephemeral window.

Schedule pressure has cost cosmonauts and astronauts. I'd rather not.

Read more...

For Aron: How I Became a Rocket Scientist

Aron said: Hey, you work at NASA, that is really cool. One day you have to write an article on how you landed that job. I dream of leading a space habitation effort with NASA, maybe you could provide a roadmap on how to get that job. If answering this won’t put your job in danger, how much red tape exists in NASA?

OK, there are three part to this: First, how did I come to work for NASA?

Well, that’s rather a long story. First off, unlike you probably are, I never intended to be an engineer. I’d always wanted to be a writer. I also, however, wanted to eat, so I was going to go to college to get a degree to pay the bills. If you’d asked me if I was going to be an engineer my senior year of high school, I would have laughed long and hard. I didn’t even like math–except word problems. Anyway, I needed scholarships and I did a blanketing of scholarship applications.

So, along with an academic scholarhip, I got offered several other scholarships. However, if went into engineering physics, I could take both the scholarship from the engineering college and a scholarship from the physics department. It was a tough major and, once in, I was unwilling to let it beat me so I stuck with it until I graduated. That, and it turns out it ended up suiting me quite well. Who would have guessed

Now, NASA at the time was actively recruiting (as were a number of NASA contractors) so they came to the campus and interviewed prospective students, including me. I was all excited by the opportunity and really wanted NASA to call me, but they were slow and the then Lockheed Engineering and Science Company called me first. By the time NASA called (they work slower, so you know), I’d already been hired. So, no mystery. (My career has been about that planned and more interesting, but you didn’t ask it).

Part 2: Hiring is probably fairly slow at the moment; however, I’ve heard rumors that hiring for “fresh outs” might become pretty hot. There are, additionally, several options to increase your chances. First, you could get involved in a college that has on-going space activities, like University of Colorado or the California Institute of Technology (which co-operates JPL) and try to get involved. If that’s not an option (we can’t all go to a university actively involved with space), you might try one of the programs like internship or volunteer programs that NASA does. If you can’t manage that, there’s always the direct route, like applying at NASAJobs or one of the many space contractors. Some of the commercial space companies might also be worth checking out.

Third part: Is there a lot of red tape at NASA?

Short answer is yes.

The long answer is red tape is part and parcel of any government job. On the one hand, that can be a hassle. On the other, red tape can also be a lifesaver. Many of the safety requirements, for example, call for tests and verifications from parts manufacturers, perhaps inspections, that their processes meet requirements and are consistent. Irksome for a vender, but counterfeit parts or parts that aren’t made from reliable processes have frequently caused problems for launches or hardware in space, like the tin-plated relays that cost the redundant string for four satellites and the whole shebang for four more. So, yes, lots of red tape, but not always a bad thing.

Read more...