This Week in Space - Griffin's Spin On Things

Mike Griffin is exactly right! We need a private manned commercial space program to pursue their own agendas and we need a government manned space program to pursue the government's agenda.

Its just too bad that Griffin choose an unnecessarily expensive lunar architecture that's allowed the traditionally anti-government and anti-NASA folks to try to destroy the agency.

Marcel F. Williams

Wait... NASA's SOP was to use front money from a future project to cancel current projects SAVING taxpayer money? Isn't that front money ALSO taxpayer money? Isn't it also money that can't be used for project development? Why is that better?

And what's all this BS about NASA capability?? Aren't we still talking about Boeing capability or any of the contractors who built the shuttle and ISS? The only capability we're talking about shifting away from NASA is operational control. American astronauts are still going to be going up on American rockets and doing research pretty much the same way. Why is the fact that NASA won't be actively running whole launches a bad thing?

And yes, Griffin was the first one to give money to the "little guys" for development. All "news from the front" seems to suggest that Space X will be able to do things cheaper, faster and more frequently and with a smaller capability gap and maybe even safer (if Space X's recent success is any judge) than Constellation promised, never mind was capable of delivering. This has been blindingly obvious ever since Space Ship One grabbed the X-prize, so my question is: Why didn't he do more?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how any of this new direction is harming the space program in any way. Constellation? Yes... Jobs will be lost (although I hear most of them will be picked up by Space X and others) and the ambitions of some will be crushed, but what the hell are we doing this for? Are we just using projects to employ people or are we trying to accomplish great things. It looks like these "small" private sector companies are going to pass up "NASA capability" with or without government funding. Imagine what we could accomplish if we put them out front.

"The only capability we're talking about shifting away from NASA is operational control."

The problem is that is a huge issue, not a trival one. You are talking about going from a workforce with over 40 years of experience to one with zero to conduct your spaceflights. That is a huge paradigm shift. DO you want to use NASA astronuats lives as guinea pigs for the commercial guys to learn on? It would be like Delta firing all it's pilots and replacing them with brand new pilots who just got their private pilots license.

"Jobs will be lost (although I hear most of them will be picked up by Space X and others)"

Please cite your source that Space X or any of the MERCH 7 is planning to hire thousands of former NASA contractors. Because that is not what those of us who work in the industry have experienced. In fact most of these companies view NASA related experience negatively and are uninterested in hiring those who have it.

The problem is that is a huge issue, not a trival one. You are talking about going from a workforce with over 40 years of experience to one with zero to conduct your spaceflights. That is a huge paradigm shift. DO you want to use NASA astronuats lives as guinea pigs for the commercial guys to learn on?

NASA's original charter actually mandates this.

(c)The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.
(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space;
(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes;
(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere;
(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;
(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results thereof;
(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment; and
(9) The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes.

"The problem is that is a huge issue, not a trival one. You are talking about going from a workforce with over 40 years of experience to one with zero to conduct your spaceflights. That is a huge paradigm shift. DO you want to use NASA astronuats lives as guinea pigs for the commercial guys to learn on?"

Wow, now that is an outright lie and is nothing but a pure scare tactic. The SpaceX team is not brand new to the aerospace game, in fact most are very experienced guys with several years of hands on design and operations experience at ULA, NASA, DoD, USA, Boeing, Lockeed, etc. Not to mention they did not require a cobbled together Ares I-X-like suborbital "test" to attempt to prove that their launch vehicle concept worked.

"It would be like Delta firing all it's pilots and replacing them with brand new pilots who just got their private pilots license."

Horrible analogy, more scare tactics. Like SpaceX's workforce is all college fresh outs or worked in a paper mill prior to this ? Please......a good place to start would be to read the bios of their executive team.
What's happening now is more like if the best pilots at Delta were enticed to join a new airline that paid them more because the new airline was streamlined and did not have to pay a bloated and heavily unionized workforce.

And no one said that NASA isn't going to be responsible for safety anymore. In fact, Bolden wants to expand the safety regulations that they've been using to the private sector. Who do you think wrote the regulations for making spacecraft "man rated"?? NASA is not ending their involvement in regulating space operations. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Why people keep saying that is beyond me. Constellation is wrong, overbudget and behind schedule. Space X isn't. The capability gap exists with or without Constellation and there's a real possibility it will be smaller with Space X (or indeed someone else) No one likes a program to be canceled, but better that than continuing down the wrong path and risk not even getting done what you intended.

And as far as cutting the Moon out of NASA's goals, I got no problem with that. The Moon is old news. We went there forty years ago. The Moon should be as routine as low earth orbit is today. NASA should be on the cutting edge, not be running a freight service or training truck drivers. The commercial world does it much better, much cheaper and yes.... much safer. Considering how many shuttle accidents there have been versus how many shuttle flights there have been, NASA has a worse safety record than any airline you want to mention. It's time for NASA to move on to bigger and better things and the business world to take over LEO and the Moon.

And I noticed this part of the NASA charter is missed anytime this argument comes up:

"(c)The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space."

That is what Bolden is trying to do. It's what they're supposed to do. It's what Congress has ordered them to do. What's all the fuss?

Contrary to what Mike Griffin indicated, I think that NASA has put money into earlier commercial efforts.

Spacehab was commercially owned and operated and NASA was their anchor tenant. Spacehab showed how to integrate and operate missions far less expensively than NASA. A Spacehab mission typically would cost tens of millions of dollars. By comparison, its been estimated the same kind of integration and operations on a Spacelab was about a billion dollars a mission.

ISS appears to operate similarly to how Spacelab did, with NASA ISS/JSC providing systems, mission operations and payload integration functions, NASA/MSFC providing payoad integration and operations functions, and in both cases you have large teams of NASA personnel managing the contractors. In the case of the Spacehab missions, there were about 3 or 4 NASA people providing oversight over the Spacehab workforce.

"Constellation is wrong, overbudget and behind schedule. Space X isn't."

I can't let that one slide.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/27/221883/spacex-falcon-9-maiden-flight-delayed-by-six-months-to-late-q1.html

The inaugural Falcon 9 launch was delayed several times. Heck, their own website still held to the Q1 2009 date until just recently. As for overbudget? Who knows? They're a private company with a fix price contract. It may not cost Q. Taxpayer anymore, but Space X might be a little negative on the balance sheet.

Why do I care? I cheer for Space X. I'm happy to see a US company put Americans to work. I view it as healthy competition. Helps make the industry better. What I don't like is comparing apples (NASA HSF) to oranges (cargo commercial) and a certain CEO and his blogosphere marketing machine bashing everyone who isn't Space X. My suggestion, start making more friends and fewer enemies.

"The SpaceX team is not brand new to the aerospace game, in fact most are very experienced guys with several years of hands on design and operations experience at ULA, NASA, DoD, USA, Boeing, Lockeed, etc."

"Please......a good place to start would be to read the bios of their executive team."

I have read all the bios's on their website and while there is lots of design experience there is zero manned space flight operational experience listed for any of their executives except for Mr. Bowersox who is an astronaut. Not one former flight controller or flight director. Those are the people who write the flight rules and develop the ops concepts and who have the real experience about safely conducting manned spaceflight. Operational experience with unmanned spaceflight does not translate to manned spaceflight. It takes a completly different mindset.

Please provide specfic names of personnel with actual flight control experience from NASA or USA and their subs. Otherwise you are engaging hyperbole and willfull distortion of the facts. As usual when people resort to name calling then they usually don't have the facts to actually support their arguement.

"zero manned space flight operational experience ...except for Mr. Bowersox who is an astronaut. Not one former flight controller or flight director."

I know some of the people at Space X and they do have some former NASA flight controllers on staff. I would not hold it against them that they have few 'operations people' on staff or in leadership positions.

The way in which NASA HSF evolved with the ground controllers taking the lead in operating the spacecraft is one way to do it; exactly this approach was something that many, including von Braun, were dead set against in the early years. It got even worse with ISS, when the ground was put into a position of doing almost everything and not even requiring an on orbit crew. For future planetary missions it cannot operate that way and NASA has been going in exactly the wrong direction as far as preparing for the future. The overkill of manpower in operations is one thing that has run costs up over the last 20 years and kept HSF costs high and increasing. The operations people are not the key to designing, developing and testing new space vehicles and boosters, and I'd like to see a new approach.

Spacehab, killed by NASA despite its cost effectiveness, is a good example of how one company did it differently. In Spacehab there were few solely operations focused personnel. The same people who did much of the system development then did mission integration and then were the operations support during the mission. Spacehab costs, turnkey from the beginning of mission design through to disposition of the hardware post flight, cost about $20 million a mission. By comparison, Spacelab, which operated with separate teams to do design, integration, mission planning, physical hardware management, training, and mission operations, cost about a $billion a mission and they both carried about the same type and quantity of hardware. ISS today operates more like Spacelab than Spacehab.

There are better, more efficient ways of doing things than how NASA has been doing HSF ops.

I'd have to agree that all comers, including NASA, need to do things differently than how the current crop of HSF operations people have functioned. From 1984 to 1995, operations were getting more expensive and eating the rest of the HSF budget.

I can look at the facilities that until about a dozen years ago, other organizations managed, like the big Bldg 9 mock-up facility, which was used mainly for systems design, development, and mission integration and training functions, or the Sonny Carter swimming pool neutral buoyancy facility. In the 80s and 90s, these facilities had relatively small permanent staffs. Mainly you had flight crew members coming in with small numbers of trainers out of mission operations.

Suddenly some years ago both of these facilities were turned over to mission operations. The availability of the facilities declined for engineering and development purposes and at the same time the number of people manning the facilities skyrocketed, access to the facilities and use of the facilities became very difficult. So you had a lot more people, a lot more expense, and a lot less use.

Almost everywhere I look I see huge growth of operations people; they were taking over; sometimes they took over other people's and organization's facilities and activities and some times they would move operations people over to other's organizations to take charge. Probably the most easily seen cases were in Constellation and Engineering at JSC. At the same time the numbers of people doing engineering and mission integration declined. Given the problems the operations people had managing, and the Columbia accident is a good example, as is the more recent Constellation situation, it was pretty obvious that having operations take over other's functions was unwarranted.

I understand that of late even the JSC mission operations is now changing their method so that people will come in and be certified for increasingly more complex tasks, starting with technical support, increasing towards training, and eventually being certified for flight operations support. This makes a lot more sense than having three times the number of people, each doing 1/3 the work.

In earlier days, the engineering subsystem managers knew more about the attributes and functioning of their systems, and could be counted on to provide better training, and as soon as anomalies occurred in orbit, were called in to resolve them. Mainly the operations people handled the operating manual/checklists for nominal situations.

@swordbane

"Considering how many shuttle accidents there have been versus how many shuttle flights there have been, NASA has a worse safety record than any airline you want to mention."

Uh your wrong TWA, AIR FRANCE there's 2 that have had more fatalities than the shuttle in the same time span. Check your numbers before making such a ridiculous statement and not to mention comparing Traveling to Space with getting on a Jet plane are 2 completely different animals. As far as the MOON I agree with you on that it should be as routine as LEO flights but not as routine as getting on a plane and flying from LA to NY. Again, 2 completely different animals!

Damn the Gravity

"Considering how many shuttle accidents there have been versus how many shuttle flights there have been, NASA has a worse safety record than any airline you want to mention."

@Fred Sanford:
How about you re-read my comment before telling me I'm wrong? "Considering how many SHUTTLE ACCIDENTS there have been versus how many SHUTTLE FLIGHTS there have been...."

I meant exactly what I said. Disagree with me all you want, but disagree with what I actually said, not some made up meaning.

I'm not comparing the difficulty in launching rockets vs the difficulty in flying an aircraft. I'm saying that just because the government doesn't do it doesn't mean safety is going to suffer.

If it is true that Space X has hired former flight controllers that's great. Can you give specfic names or how long it's been since they worked at NASA? I have been doing this for over 10 years and know of no collegues who have gone to work for Space X. I would prefer more details before I can be comfortable with handing over everything to them.

Also I am not worried about them being on staff or in leadership positions. They just need to be the right positions to properly develop the culture of the Space X flight control team.

Regarding your comments on ISS reliance on ground team to operate the vehicle that was a result of the poor quality and the complexity of the ISS software rather then by design. Intially there were over 1000 Station Program Notes (software that did not meet requirements requiring astronauts or flight controllers to take off nominal actions)and it was physically impossible to train the crew on all of them. As a result nominal operation of the ISS systems defaulted to the flight controllers who were able to keep up with all the work arounds since that was part of the their full time dutie. Original plan was to have the crew be primary for operating the vehicle, similar to how the Shuttle is operated, with the ground team as a back up to assist them.

"Almost everywhere I look I see huge growth of operations people; they were taking over;"

I would like to know where this huge increase in operations people is occuring. My branch is going from about 80 people to 25 over a 3 year period. MOD as a whole is reducing it's manpower by 30% by 2012. We are doing this by achieving efficiencies in training, automating signifcant portions of the flight controllers job in order to reduce manning in MCC, and combining the training and flight control functions.

"understand that of late even the JSC mission operations is now changing their method so that people will come in and be certified for increasingly more complex tasks, starting with technical support, increasing towards training, and eventually being certified for flight operations support."

We are in fact changing how we do ISS flight control. Some of this is driven by lowering our operational costs and is being enabled by us reaching assembly complete with a more mature system that requires less product development and technical support from MOD. Then new approach has employees first go off and achieve certification as quiscent operations flight controller who is able to handle routine tasks and dya to day operations. They then certify as specialist flight controller who is able to handle non routine tasks (like dockings, reboost, software transitions)as well as becoming SME in systems, software, MCC tools and do all of the mission planning. Their next career step would be to certify as an instructor and teach the new flight controllers as well as the crew. This is similar to the approach used by the military, i.e. take your best, most experienced people and turn them into instructors to pass on their knowledge to another generation ala Topgun.

Yes NASA HSF has far too many people supporting it but MOD has recognized that we can't continue to due buisness the old cost blind way and has taken steps to become more efficnient while not impacting the quality of our work.

"In earlier days, the engineering subsystem managers knew more about the attributes and functioning of their systems, and could be counted on to provide better training, and as soon as anomalies occurred in orbit, were called in to resolve them. Mainly the operations people handled the operating manual/checklists for nominal situations"

Maybe the shuttle used to be that way but ISS has never been that way. The NASA engineering susbsytem managers have been real hit and miss about their techncial insight with the MOD flight controllers being at least as knowledgable and often times more knowledgable. In fact knowadays with the turnover at Boeing we are often more knowledgable about the systems then Boeing. Flight controllers are integral parts of the anomaly resolution teams and have solved techncial issues that had been unresolved by the engineering counterparts.

I'm glad things are now beginning to change to be better and more efficient.

Just keep in mind that all of those organizations and facilities that were taken over by operations in the last dozen + years meant new opportunities for the people in operations; I do not know of a single individual who had been in charge of a single facility or function, who was kept on in the same position once MOD took over; at the same time it ruined many people's careers and career progression. In the rest of the center, you had to work to gain experience and move up the ladder. MOD did away with experience as a prerequisite.

Ins some cases it eliminated or destroyed the basic functioning of the technical organization

We just got a reminder in the last day or two that "qualified individuals are to be recruited from all segments....and employees are to be selected and advanced on the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skill after fair and open competition."

Anything other than this means that the organization that is in place is the result of corrupt management practices. Some serious changes are required in order to re-balance the HSF organization.

I don't think anyone needs to be reporting the status of any private employees, especially to you or on a public blog. Space-X, after all, is a private company funded with private and not public funds.

Its probably a good thing if does not do things the way HSF operations has operated the last 10 years or longer. From the sounds of things they'd go out of business trying to keep to many inexperienced people on the payroll.

That's fine but don't expect me to be supportive or confident in Space X's ability to operative vehicles in space with people onboard then.

I think you've raised a valid point. If you are not supportive or confident, then don't invest any money with Space-X.

I expect the FAA will certify their man-carrying vehicle once they are happy that the company has met their standards and requirements. Note: several of the lead FAA people are ex NASA people who found they were prevented from meaningful jobs in NASA.

I am certain that NASA will not permit either the unmanned or manned capsules to approach the ISS unless NASA is happy its requirements have been met. No doubt Ops will have some role in the procedures but most of the technical verification seems to be on the engineering side.