Pardon the BloggEruption

The PAIN TRAIN is Coming!

I love commercials. Always have, always will. Once in a while, however, a commercial comes along that transcends normal consumerism and becomes something bigger. Gentle readers, one Mr. Terry Tate, Office Linebacker has entered that realm.

Apparently, Reebok will be putting out a Terry Tate #56 jersey soon. Yes, I am going to try and find one. WOO! WOO!

More NASA Blogging

Charles Krauthammer has a wonderful column today, basically echoing my thoughts about NASA's future.

Paul (What, me Enron?) Krugman is much more fatalistic in his approach, largely since he can't see past the end of his nose. As it stands right now (or rather, where it stood on 1/31/03), he's correct in saying, "our current approach — using hugely expensive rockets to launch a handful of people into space, where they have nothing much to do — is a dead end." But, I suppose I've already commented enough about that.

I suppose at this point, seeing how much has been made of the huge difficulty and expense going from ground to LEO and back again (space travel beyond that becomes very easy, propulsion and cost-wise), it would be appropriate to remind folks of another major dream for space junkies such as myself -- the Space Elevator. For those unfamiliar with the concept, may I direct you to this article.

Right now, it's really just a pipe dream. Beyond the hugely critical engineering problem of cable structure and stability (carbon nanotubes sound nice, but seriously large scale manufacture is decades away, there is the problem of finding a suitable anchoring location in the near-equatorial zone. Still, if it ever comes about, space not only becomes immediately, cheaply accessible, but likely quite profitable, as well.

Also, one of the likelier, unfortunate casualties of the Columbia disaster will be the Prometheus initiative, which was supposed to receive a go-ahead budgetary boost with the new NASA budget. Fears over a "Chernobyl in the sky" will likely prevail, at least for the time being. Nuclear propulsion is the best bet we have for interplanetary travel. Perhaps it will take something like the space elevator to assuage Greenpeace fears.

"A Bad Day"

Yesterday was "a bad day" for NASA. As such, it was a bad day for me, too. Space is in my blood. Space exploration and an intense fascination with anything relating to space and astronomy has been a major part of my life as far back as I can recall. It's very easy to be like that when you grew up in Friendswood during the early 80s, when the town was smaller, wealthier, and dominated by NASA engineers and, yes, astronauts. Norm Thagard, the first American to go aboard Mir, lived just down the street from us. A friend's father was a mission controller. Another, a lead design engineer. Field trips to JSC were an annual event. I desperately wanted to be an astronaut until I was about 8 or 9, when we were still in the hiatus between STS-51-L (Challenger '86) and STS-26 (Discovery '88). Still to this day, I would do most anything to go into space.

So, that's where I'm coming from.

First, from a technical standpoint -- the cause of Columbia's disintegration yesterday is, most likely, due to a massive, cascading failure of the heat tiles on the left wing, causing part of it to shear off from the vehicle. This loss likely caused a sudden change in the attitude of the vehicle, engendering more rapid material failure and a catastrophic cascade of disintegration. As seen in the video and from the Mission Control timeline, the initial event probably took 2-3 minutes to unfold, while the rest would happen in a matter of 20-30 seconds. As for what caused the initial tile failure, the strongest indications are that the foam from the external tank which fell off during liftoff did more damage than previously thought. If so, Columbia was doomed seconds into her mission, as there is currently nothing NASA can do to repair an orbiter in space.

What we are likely to see in the upcoming months is confirmation of this cascading failure theory, followed by a potential redesign of the external tank, or its coating. We may also see some major procedural changes in mission profiles, requiring each orbiter to dock with the ISS, regardless of whether the mission has anything to do with the station or not. This would permit a fairly thorough visual examination by the astronauts or through use of the camera on the Canadian Arm. The goal will likely to devise a way to patch any sort of damage to the tiles while docked.

Now, from a more political / visionary standpoint -- NASA has major problems that are basically impossible to overcome in its current form. The problems are endemic to its structure and organization, largely bureaucratic in nature. Government and governmental organizations do two things very well -- they can run inefficient, ever-growing, bloated bureaucracies without a second thought, and they can head up and fund crash programs with specific, large goals in mind. During the 50s and 60s, NASA was the latter one. It succeeded in its mission; Americans walked on the moon. With the demise of the Apollo program, NASA's Manned Space Flight Program switched over to bureaucratic mode, and tried to make space travel something mundane and normal. They created Skylab (yawn) and the horribly ill-conceived Space Shuttle.

Recall that the Shuttle was designed to be a reusable satellite hauler and occasional satellite repair vehicle, each launching about once a week. During its peak activity, shuttles were launching once every few months. Flights anticipated to cost $5Million cost $50Million. The technology used to design and build the shuttle is now 30 years old. Some of it is even older. We can do better, and until recently, were planning on crafting a much better Manned Space Flight Vehicle. Unfortunately, NASA budgetary restraints have killed this and other promising possible projects. Even the JPL-based probe programs have been affected, and they are among the most directly successful (and immediately scientifically useful) programs.

NASA's mission is unclear. Administrators struggle to define the goals of the Shuttle Program and the ISS. All we get are platitudes and general statements about some research projects and studying the effect of microgravity on the human body. Certainly, these are worthy components of a healthy space program, but they cannot and must not be the foundation and central attraction of any successful Manned Space Flight Program. In a futile search for profitability, many operations have been turned over to the United Space Alliance (a Boeing and Lockheed Martin cooperative venture), and NASA's credo has been "Better and Cheaper." Pioneers cannot worry immediately about profits -- they pave the way for others to follow a profitable path. Is NASA a moneymaking venture? Or is it to be an organization dedicated to exploring the outer reaches of our atmosphere and into space, pushing the envelope whereever possible? Where is the vision?

Well, gentle readers, I have a vision. If we as a nation are to be committed to exploring and using space, we must be ready to go at it whole-heartedly. Not as a series of pork barrel projects, not as a morale-boost, and not with the goal of making money or inventing new technologies. We must explore space for that end alone. The science and technology will, necessarily, come along as a result, but it is important to recognize that these are very nice benefits tangential to the mission. We did not go to the moon in order to invent Tang.

The Space Shuttle must continue for the immediate future, but it should eventually be phased out over the next decade in favor of a new generation of space vehicles, be that something similar to the discontinued MDX project, or the Space Plane. Satellites and other unmanned vehicles can easily and cheaply be launced with Titan or Ariane rockets. Manned vehicles must focus first and foremost on the crew, not the cargo. There may still be need for a shuttle-type vehicle, but it will not be the primary means of astronaut travel.

The International Space Station is a failure right now. The Russians want out, the Europeans don't particularly care, and the Chinese are going their own way. Currently, it is nothing more than a very expensive Erector set that runs a few experiments. A space station should be just that; a space station. It should be a major docking port for orbital vehicles, a rallying point for everything in LEO. It should be a staging area, a "space garage," a factory, a laboratory, and, yes, a hotel. If we want any sort of grand results, we must think grand. The ISS must last for decades, and even beyond that. Its modular nature would make a significant upgrade very feasible, and we should eventually build a sister station, perhaps in higher orbit, to facilitate the grand missions.

Finally, the goals. What should we aim for? I have but one word:

M A R S