Bobby Braun's Plan To Re-charge NASA Technology

Actually those are just some RFIs for some parts of his program. You can find his complete plans here (referenced in one of the RFIs).

Yawn. Yet more Powerpoint Engineering. Funny how the forum is about "providing status, soliciting feedback, and planning the next steps." Generic enough for ya? Those three bullets could be used for pretty much anything in NASA. Notice that lots of use of the words "Game Changing Technologies" but absolutely zero mention of any such potential technologies. Here, Professor Ray will make the homework assignment really simple: Provide a simple list of all technologies considered to have the potential to "change the game" and their current TRL. I can do it, and so could most of my undergrad students. But NASA can only seem to talk about how they are going to spend money to look into how they might do it...to leverage the enterprise and achieve a win-win scenario. I yawn again.

"But NASA can only seem to talk about how they are going to spend money to look into how they might do it...to leverage the enterprise and achieve a win-win scenario."

Bear in mind that NASA doesn't have money to spend on this yet, and since Griffin canceled the tech development pots long ago, the agency has done precious little of it. So they not only seem to only talk about it. That's all they've been able to do.

What we're seeing now are the first glimmers of a plan to actually do it.

Oh yes. NASA can do it. Recall NIAC, and even the old Code R/U, which made some remarkable advancements, though, as it turned out, in a fairly inefficient way.

The Exploration Enterprise Workshop back in May presented a large number of "game changing technologies" explicitly. Propulsion, cryogenic depoting, closed loop life support, advanced avionics. The list goes on and on if you bother to look.

Bobby braun is a smart guy but lacks business capabilities. He tries too hard to capitalize on his time as an independent reviewer of the 2003 mars rovers. He constantly fails to inflate cost on the 1990s projects for his presentations. In fact his congress pitch was filled with some very questionable data like the mars data pages out of his text book. His approach is dangerous to the agency. Of course someone will throw a rock at me for this but please put concrete data up if you do. I can prove my point and will be nice about it

If the US govt committed (and I do mean COMMITTED...like the 'old' days) to achieving a crewed mission to land on Titan (and return, of course) by 2035, I bet THAT would bring about some game-changing technologies.

And such a scheme might even make them arrive faster than the current figure-out-everything-possible-before-committing-to-go-anywhere plans...

More of the same longwinded BS studies, planning, white papers, etc.

Can anyone at NASA make a decision and go with it? Instead billions are spent in meetings, travel, false starts, and endless plannnnniiiinnnnnnggggggg.

Talking about leadership at NASA is like arguing over the color of unicorns.

Oh yeah, just ask the few people actually left at NASA doing aero R&D. They know how it is.

Actually spending money on real work seems to be a monumental task these days at NASA.

hamptonguy is spot on. 'Game changing technologies' is another silly phrase, without any meaning whatsoever. There is no doubt in my mind that NASA wastes more money each year in 'planning' research than would be wasted in actually doing research without any plans!

Hits and misses, Harris:

Propulsion, cryogenic depoting, closed loop life support, advanced avionics.

Neither "propulsion" nor "advanced avionics" are technologies. They are nothing more than functional categories. A technology is a solution that answers the mail about how to better perform the general function. And being that I work in flight controls, I am well aware of the marketing siren song of "advanced avionics". Beyond not being a specific technology, they are not "game-changers" in spaceflight. They are merely required tools to perform control of physical elements. If you are going to try to narrow that down to "advanced software techniques" I will get an even bigger laugh, as there is always the SW fad of the moment. Currently, the SW people have taken over the SE effort in SysML and basically trying to extend UML. Not revolutionary, just different ways to draw the same diagrams we have always drawn. And certainly not going to change any game in spaceflight.

So those are your misses. But I will give you hits (or semi-hits) with on-orbit propellant depots (which is, I believe the specific technology you were hinting at). That could very well be a game-changer, but it is not new. In fact, my co-worker Warren James at NGC had them as part of his Mars architecture studies when we transitioned from OSP to CEV. The point is, the tech has been defined for well over 15 years, but no action by NASA. Just talk. And if this was identified back in May, as you say, why more talk from Braun now? Why has he not made it a clear nomination? Answer: Because most of all that NASA knows how to do is talk. They need to issue contracts to contractors to actually DO the heavy lifting.

Close-loop LS could also be a hit. But again, it is really more of a category. Some specific elements of it are already TRL 8-9 (urine/water distillery & reclamation on ISS). Again, for someone who really understands what can change the game (there are many of us out here), it takes about 1 day (a week for slow people) to properly outline a tech devleopment roadmap for those known good ideas. But NASA takes years do talk about doing it, and then we get a new Prez so they never get around to doing it. That, my friend, is the extant history of NASA littered over the past 20 years.

"Hits and misses, Harris:"

Thanks for your cogent analysis, and for pointing out the difference between a functional category and a technology! Of course these were functional categories. All of them. I suggested that people go look up in the ESMD documentation what was in them. It's not that hard.

What I find amusing is the complaining about how NASA just invests in technology planning instead of technology doing. You know why NASA does that? It's because planning is LOTS cheaper. When you haven't been appropriated any serious money to actually do technology development, as has been the case for a long time, NASA is smart enough not to pretend that they're actually doing it. But they can talk about what they'd like to do.

With regard to "game changing technologies", sure, it's just handwaving and slogans. But handwaving and slogans are what engage Congress, and open the wallet. Those words aren't even part of planning. As you insightfully note, they're part of marketing the planning. When you don't have money to actually do it, it's about marketing.

That's what often happens when engineers try to understand policy. That is, when people who really understand what can change the game don't quite understand how a game starts.

NASA's new mission: To boldly use buzzwords like they have never been misused before!!!

> There is no doubt in my mind that NASA wastes more money each year in 'planning' research

> Can anyone at NASA make a decision and go with it? Instead billions are spent in meetings

The people replying above are hateful and ignorant. NASA hasn't even been doing R&D, yet they're complaining about NASA wasting money on it.

The President's bill must increase R&D by what, 10x? And then the Senate bill cuts more than half of that? And who are you blaming for not enough R&D results?

By the way, the people at NASA DO make decisions and "go with it." YOUR Congresses and Presidents YOU elected change their minds. NASA follows orders. Get your blame right.

> His approach is dangerous to the agency. Of course someone will throw a rock at me for this but please put concrete data up if you do. I can prove my point and will be nice about it

His approach is doing what has never been done before. Is that dangerous to the agency? If not, what is the dangerous part?

I am a bit lost with all this highbrow "Game Changing Technologies" talk. Could someone fill me in on a good example of where a "Game Changing Technology" (GCT) was developed before any reason for the research was defined? From what i have seen over the years, GCTs result from first having a specific use/goal in mind and realizing that the current level of technological development is insufficient to adequately solve the problem. You start figuring out a way to do it and after the problem is finally solved, years later you look back and say, "wow, that new tech we came up with really turned out to be a game changer".

Too many buzzwords and too much powerpoint engineering. Specific uses/goals, orbital refueling is a good one, have to be defined to provide direction for the research. Now it is time to actually figure what it will take to do it. Once we have a good idea of what tech we still lack, research what is missing from that puzzle, and develop it. That would be the GCT.

Random research and powerpoint engineering will only waste time and money. All the BS flip charts are just wasting everyones time and only make the Chartsman start to look like they have no idea what they are talking about.

The NRC has reviewed NASA's aerospace technology development program a number of times, including what was called the "Pioneering Revolutionary Technology" (PRT) program. Like them words? Please go look up the reports. The reports were complementary about the efforts being made.

Very simply, human space flight hasn't seen a lot of game-changing technology, because we've pretty much been playing the same game for a few decades. That's why it's hard to point to specific advances that have changed the game on Shuttle or ISS. Commercial space is doing some remarkable stuff, though. See for example, expandable hab technology, which builds on the old Transhab efforts of the agency.

On the other hand, most science spacecraft now flying would be impossible without technology advances funded by the agency. Each such new mission really represents game-changing technology, whether it be comm systems, power systems, or scientific instruments. Really easy on these to look back and say "wow, that sure was a game-changer". Look at sensor packages, for example.

That the proposed human space flight technology research plans look "random" is a somewhat defensible criticism, in that the plans and goals for human spaceflight have been somewhat random and ill-defined ss well. Those plans and goals are not Bobby Braun's problem, however. In the spirit of flexible path, he's charged with simply enabling people to go lots of places. In fact, even with Constellation it was never quite clear why we were going back to the Moon, except to practice for some other goal that was never well explained.

I too am curious about why Bobby Braun is "dangerous to the agency". I invite you to "prove your point" while being nice about it.

The people replying above are hateful and ignorant. NASA hasn't even been doing R&D, yet they're complaining about NASA wasting money on it.

I can't quite tell whether you are being truly ignorant, or if you just wish to ignore the R&D that has gone on at NASA to try to prove your point. Are you aware of what Autonomous Rendezvous & Docking is? Ever heard of the DART program?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DART_(spacecraft)

We can talk about NASA having R&D budgets cut, but to say NASA "hasn't even been doing R&D" is clearly incorrect. And then, while it is not space R&D, there is the whole ARMD. What do you think they are doing? I live in SoCal and have many friends who are doing R&D at Dryden and have been for a long time.

So there we go. Any response?

complaining about how NASA just invests in technology planning instead of technology doing. You know why NASA does that? It's because planning is LOTS cheaper.

I see. Government jobs program. Just as I expected. Gotta keep those talkers (who are not doers) employed! ;-)

NASA is smart enough not to pretend that they're actually doing it. But they can talk about what they'd like to do.

The least they can do is stop talking generalities and talking about those same generalities over and over again. (See my initial comment about the generic bullet points of the upcoming conference of talking). If some kind of specific talking actually happened in May, as you suggest, why is this new conference agenda so short on anything specific, and still collecting ideas? Could no one take a single "specific game-changing idea" that you say was presented in May, and make a technology development roadmap for it? And if they did, why do not a few of these roadmaps form some major bullet points for the upcoming conference?

When you don't have money to actually do it, it's about marketing.

Wrong. These people are being employed on public funds. Specifically, this guy Braun is labeled as CTO. He is EXPECTED to do more than marketing. He can select GCT's, nominate them, and start defining requirements and that tech dev roadmap I keep talking about. When NASA is given money and all they do is marketing (and you support this) that is a waste of taxpayer money. Period.

That's what often happens when engineers try to understand policy. That is, when people who really understand what can change the game don't quite understand how a game starts.

There is no game, other than political ones. The emporer has no clothes. NASA is primarily staffed by talkers, with a smattering of real doers. And our politicians not only encourage it, but they kinda like it that way.

The people replying above are hateful and ignorant.

I am neither. I am simply tired of the agency for which I work wasting large amounts of time and money planning instead of doing. Not that many years ago, researchers within the aeronautics program had the freedom to pursue good ideas without a whole lot of interference from managers and "program office" people. Now, we spend a huge amount of our time trying to convince those people that what we want to do is worthwhile, when most of them don't have sufficient knowledge about the relevant fields to render an intelligent decision.

"Specifically, this guy Braun is labeled as CTO. He is EXPECTED to do more than marketing. He can select GCT's, nominate them, and start defining requirements and that tech dev roadmap I keep talking about. "

Hmmm. So you're saying that defining requirements and developing a tech roadmap is "doing it", eh?

To those who argue for "doing it" against wasting money planning, I'll give you one word. Constellation. It took sixty days of planning to decide how to implement a system that ended up wasting tens of billions of dollars. Maybe a little more planning would have been helpful.

That Braun is labeled as CTO and can't build anything because Congress is reluctant to give him money is indeed a problem. Now, who created that problem? Someone who designated a CTO without development money to spend, or those who are reluctant to give him development money to spend?

Now, we spend a huge amount of our time trying to convince those people that what we want to do is worthwhile, when most of them don't have sufficient knowledge about the relevant fields to render an intelligent decision.

Bingo. The entire aerospace biz is now predominantly run by lawyers and bean counters. Those "technical" people who do rise into management are most often (not always) the people who have demonstrated that, despite possibly having a degree, cannot really do the technical work. It is why the saying "promoted to highest level of incompetence" is used so often, because there are so many examples to validate it. And then, when these people are "promoted" to management, no one above them levels with them as to why (can't cut it technically), and so they are under the false belief they were given this job because of their technical prowess. They then proceed to frustrate the people with outstanding technical skills by forcing decisions on them because "they are the boss." Mike Griffin's Constellation design architecture is a perfect example. But there are so many others.

Hmmm. So you're saying that defining requirements and developing a tech roadmap is "doing it", eh?

When done properly, yes, those are exactly the first steps in "doing it." Now, I am sure you have been witness to a lot of crappy tech roadmaps (not based on the tech and its needs to mature, but rather by someone else's unrealistic timetable for when they need it). And pretty much NASA and every aerospace company is filled with bad examples of SE and requirements done wrong. But when you write solid requirements that are backed by ops analysis, performance analysis, and current metrics of state-of-the-art, they become extremely powerful forcing functions to not only "do it", but "do it right".

My biggest pet peeve are BS, say-nothing, meaningless, nebulous requirements that confuse designers and befuddle testers. Many begin with "The system shall support...." and mean anything BUT structural, mechanical support. They mean something else, but the writer of such crap cannot elucidate exactly how they want the system to "support" their needs.

Anyway, do not confuse "planning" with proper systems engineeering.

"Anyway, do not confuse "planning" with proper systems engineeering."

I think we're largely in agreement, as long as you don't think that proper systems engineering, and "ops analysis, performance analysis, and current metrics of state-of-the-art", are things you can lay out with no money.

Braun doesn't have any money right now. All he has are funds for meetings where people can wave their hands and jump up and down. When you can't do anything else, there is some value in that. If meetings like that peeve you, then don't go.

But I'll say it again. Handwaving and jumping up and down is language that Congress listens to. They respond to words like "game changing" because they don't understand any of the other words. You have to appreciate that if you're going to approach progress here with any kind of policy sophistication.

I think it's established that you don't like hand waving words. Neither do I. But at least I understand that they can have some value.