Let's see now, we will be landing people on the moon sometime between 2012 and 2014, at least 6 more likely 8 years from now. They will be launched on a rocket that is based on the solid rocket boosters from the Space Shuttle, and by putting shuttle main engines directly what is currently the external tank, soon to be the second stage. Oops, I'm sorry, maybe not shuttle main engines, maybe something derived from the Saturn, or Atlas, or Delta rockets, since the SSME's have never be started after launch, and took several years to figure out how to start more than one without blowing them up! They will be flying in a capsule, described by NASA as "Apollo on steroids" and a lunar lander that is still TBD, but likely derived from the original LM. In other words, EVERYTHING is a redesign of what we already have.
I will concede that the redesign is a major effort, you need to renumber all those drawings, add/delete and change text. I am reminded of an observation by Richard Feynman while investigating the Challenger Debacle. To make the SRB sections round, technicians have a jig they mount in a hole on one wall of the section, then have to count a precise number of holes to mount the other side. The technicians wanted witness marks on the sections, so that the counting process could be faster. Upon further review, he found out that these paint marks would cost a fortune to add, not because of the paint, but because of the paper work! Only NASA and its contractors could take a redesign of existing technology and turn it into a multi-billion dollar jobs project for draftsmen and clerks!
Next year will be the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire. 3 years from now, it will be the 40th anniversary of the moon landing. In two years and 6 months, NASA was able to stop, redesign, and restart the Apollo project, from disaster to landing. Yet here we are, 40 years later, and can't redesign anything in less than 6 to 8 years? In the private industry, an engineering team this incompetent would be fired. It's too bad that all the contractors and winners of the design competition were the usual suspects of government and military contractors. In fact, the contract for the "Orion" (read "Apollo on Steroids") was between Lockheed-Martin and Boeing/North American-Grumman. Hell the only one missing was Raytheon, and you could have had ALL the major players in the Military-Industrial Complex (M-I C) as bidders.
I know, I sound angry and frustrated. While, damnit, I am angry and frustrated! 40 years ago, designing a product, any product, required a team of engineers, technicians and draftsmen. The team would have specialists in packaging, power systems, circuit board layout, electronic design, ergonomics, and on and on and on. Now, if you are VERY lucky, you will have a team of ONE EE and ONE ME, with some ergonomic input from marketing or sales. This change has reduced time to market dramatically, and, sorry NASA and M-I C guys, without sacrificing safety, quality, or manufacturability. So why is NASA spending money like it's still the olden days?
The unfortunate truth is - because they can. Because we as taxpayers will let them. Because most people just don't know the changes that have taken place in engineering processes since the days of Mercury. Just as an example, before Project Mercury, there was no way to automatically send telemetry around the world. Christopher Kraft and his team developed the first global telecommunications network to solve this problem. They would have to station ships at sea in precise locations to minimize data loss! Even at that, there were blackouts in certain parts of the world and of course, there was the total blackout waiting for the ships to return through the atmosphere. Nowadays, we use satellites to insure communications throughout the entire flight. We no longer have to solve this problem. Most of the problems no longer have to be solved, they just have to be engineered.
Well....unless you are in the private spaceflight business. This is the "last frontier" of spacecraft design, because there is where the last challenge needs to be met. It's a four letter word, and it's COST. When you have billions like NASA, LockMart and the lot, throwing away a multi-million dollar rocket motor doesn't matter. Like the old Doritos commercial said, "Go ahead, we'll make more." In fact, they LOVE to make more, they LIVE to make more! A commercial launch company cannot afford to throw things away, unless they make it inexpensive. You want a safe job, wasting taxpayers money on a project that the next Democratic president will slow down? Work for NASA, or some member of the M-I C. You want to be creative, to inspire and be inspired, to push the limits of human knowledge and capabilities, take a paycut, or donate your time, and join one of the private space programs. For there, progress is not measured in how many billions we get in a contract, but in how many SWIFT's (Solution We Intend to Find Today) we resolve.
So, there is our future, and here is our choice. NASA is trying to create a time machine, taking us back to the 70's. Remember the 70's? Watergate, Saigon, OPEC, and, must I remind you...Jimmy Carter? Others are looking to a future of space tourism, factories in space, and on the moon, maybe even personal satellites. Where do you want your money to go? Whom would you rather work for? And, more important, which future do you want?
No comments:
Post a Comment