Rocketforge

So the Augustine Commission published their Summary Report today. At this point the food fight is beginning. ATK and other contractors are starting to spew FUD faster and harder than Microsoft ever did. The question we have to address now is how to make sure the Obama Administration picks the Flexible Path option. Ideally it would pick the Flexible Path option with an EELV for the heavy lift component. But I suspect that either Ares V Lite or Not Shuttle C will be the bone thrown to Northern Alabama in order to buy Senator Shelby’s silence. The important thing is to make sure commercial crew, suborbital science, and fuel depots stays in.

There are several key findings:

“Commercial crew launch to low-Earth orbit: Commercial services to deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are within reach. While this presents some risk, it could provide an earlier capability at lower initial and lifecycle costs than government could achieve1. A new competition with adequate incentives should be open to all U.S. aerospace companies. This would allow NASA to focus on more challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, based on the continued development of the current or modified Orion spacecraft.” [Page 16]

Commercial crew is faster and cheaper:

“The United States needs a way to launch astronauts to low-Earth orbit, but it does not necessarily have to be provided by the government. As we move from the complex, reusable Shuttle back to a simpler, smaller capsule, it is an appropriate time to consider turning this transport service over to the commercial sector. This approach is not without technical and programmatic risks, but it creates the possibility of lower operating costs for the system and potentially accelerates the availability of U.S. access to low-Earth orbit by about a year. The Committee suggests establishing a new competition for this service, in which both large and small companies could participate.” [Page 9]

Are there other ways commercial industry should participate?

“The cost of exploration is dominated by the costs of launch to low-Earth orbit and of the in-space systems. It seems improbable that significant reductions in launch costs will be realized in the short term until launch rates increase substantially—perhaps through expanded commercial activity in space. How can the nation stimulate such activity? In the 1920s, the federal government awarded a series of guaranteed contracts for carrying airmail, stimulating the growth of the airline industry. The Committee concludes that an architecture for exploration employing a similar policy of guaranteed contracts has the potential to stimulate a vigorous and competitive commercial space industry. Such commercial ventures could include supply of cargo to the ISS (already underway), transport of crew to orbit and transport of fuel to orbit. Establishing these commercial opportunities could increase launch volume and potentially lower costs to NASA and all other launch-services customers.

This would have the additional benefit of focusing NASA on a more challenging role, permitting it to concentrate its efforts where its inherent capability resides: for example, developing cutting-edge technologies and concepts, and defining program and overseeing the development and operation of exploration systems, particularly those beyond low-Earth orbit.” [Pages 9-10]

One why to do this:

How will we explore to deliver the greatest benefit to the nation? Planning for a human spaceflight program should begin with a choice about its goals—rather than a choice of possible destinations. Destinations should derive from goals, and alternative architectures may be weighed against those goals. There is now a strong consensus in the United States that the next step in human spaceflight is to travel beyond low-Earth orbit. This should carry important benefits to society, including: driving technological innovation; developing commercial industries and important national capabilities; and contributing to our expertise in further exploration. Human exploration can contribute appropriately to the expansion of scientific knowledge, particularly in areas such as field geology, and it is in the interest of both science and human spaceflight that a credible and well-rationalized strategy of coordination between them be developed. Crucially, human spaceflight objectives should broadly align with key national objectives.

These more tangible benefits exist within a larger context. Exploration provides an opportunity to demonstrate space leadership while deeply engaging international partners; to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers; and to shape human perceptions of our place in the universe. The Committee concluded that the ultimate goal of human exploration is to chart a path  for human expansion into the solar system. This is an ambitious goal, but one worthy of U.S. leadership in concert with a broad range of international partners.

Apparently the American Astronomical Society is meeting today and is currently discussing “planethood” and the future of Pluto. I gave some thought to this last year and decided to post it here for comments. The idea is to move away from defining something as a planet or not and simply classify non-stellar objects using the Earth as a base planetary mass.

A planetary class is halfway between the mid point and the midpoint of the next class.

Planetclass begins at 5 planets and goes down to .5 planets

The brown dwarf limit is 4,131 planets, or 4.131 kiloplanets. This would solve the entire debate about Pluto and the rest of the Keiper Belt Objects since they would simply range from milliplanets (Pluto) down to nanoplanets (embryonic comets).

(In case you’re not a UNIX geek, the title of this article is the search and replace function in VI)

The official action that creates something like the Augustine Commission is the publication of a notice in the Federal Register. That happened yesterday and can be found here. The stated objectives for the commission are:

The identification and characterization of these options should address the following objectives:
(a) Expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS);
(b) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low Earth orbit (LEO);
(c) stimulating commercial space flight capability; and
(d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities.

Now, if you are remotely familiar with US space policy, these objectives will seem very familiar. From President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration we have the following goals and objectives:

• Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and
  beyond;
• Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;
• Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support
  decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and
• Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security,
  and economic interests.

The only real differences are that the new Commission is asked to look at ISS directly and commercialization and sustainability are given more prominence. These were mentioned in Bush’s VSE document but weren’t given the same prominence. Just as Bush did, Obama has created a Commission to figure out the details. Bush created the President’s Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond which produced A Journey to Inspire, Innovate and Discover. In that report it outlines the charter objectives for the Commission as:

1. a science research agenda to be conducted on the Moon and other destinations as well as human and robotic science activities that advance our capacity to achieve the policy;
2. the exploration of technologies, demonstrations, and strategies, including the use of lunar and other in situ natural resources, that could be used for sustainable human and robotic exploration;
3. criteria that could be used to select future destinations for human exploration;
4. long-term organization options for managing implementation of space exploration activities;
5. the most appropriate and effective roles for potential private-sector and international participants in implementing the policy;
6. methods for optimizing space exploration activities to encourage the interest of America’s youth in studying and pursuing careers in mathematics, science, and engineering; and
7. management of the implementation of the policy within available resources.

So what’s the difference between then and now? The main one seems to be that Griffin chose to ignore much of that original Commission’s recommendations. He threw sustainability out the window and completely ignored that “Go as you can pay” finding. Given all of that, one would think that, sans a new section on closing the gap and recovering from the Whitehouse’s lack of oversight of Griffin, you should be able to load the Aldridge Commission report do a few search and replace operations with names and dates, and republish it as is. There are some things in the Aldridge Commission report that I didn’t agree with such as its assumption that manned space is still NASA’s purview. But all of this brings me back to 1) why was the Aldridge Commission report ignored and 2) what makes anyone think that Augustine’s report won’t also be ignored? What is different this time?

Until someone figures out how to route around Congress and the “standing army” issue nothing is going to change. If Augustine’s report is anything like the Aldridge Commission’s then it too will be ignored and NASA will keep going down the rat hole of bureaucratic institutionalization.

Hmm… Route around the problem… What a great idea!

This time of year I usually get a few requests from aerospace students about how to get into the business. Some have usually talked to someone who is convinced that aerospace is a dead end business. Over time I’ve developed a few themes that I’ll list here:

Old vs New

I’m in the “new” space business so my advice is kind of skewed. This end of the industry is fun, vibrant and cash poor. The “old” end of the business pays well but it is fickle: contracts are canceled, government programs are realigned, and your career is more in the hands of Congress than yours. I don’t know squat about the aeronautical side of the industry. If you are thinking about joining the New side of the industry you should be prepared to be poor and live the “startup” life for a while. Its a fun ride, especially if you are young.

Work for NASA but leave before it makes you cynical

Parts of NASA can be fun and interesting. NASA Ames is a good example. Having NASA on your resume is valuable (I’m not sure why, but it is). But only stay there a few years or else you will get sucked into the cynicism and bureaucracy.

Work in Mojave but leave or else you’ll never get married

Find a company bending metal somewhere in Mojave and work with them for a while. Do an internship if you can. The point of view out there is invaluable for letting you know that, in the end, working hardware always trumps Powerpoint. But the social life in Mojave sucks if you are a guy. If you are female and into space then Mojave gives you a target rich environment.

No matter what, build something

Some Aerospace programs focus on simulations. Some focus on hardware. No matter what your program’s focus, get out and build something on your own. Get some of your buddies together and commit to building a regeneratively cooled biprop rocket engine before you graduate.  Or go rebuild a car. Or a house. Just build something. Especially if it requires you to learn welding, machining (no, not CAD/CAM, but basic old school non-CNC mill/lathe stuff). Then go learn CAD/CAM and make something really pretty and complicated. Use all of this to create a portfolio. Put that portfolio on your VisualCV.

Internships!

Several people on twitter reminded me of this one. I thought it was kind of obvious but it needs to be said. Assume that you will spend each summer doing an internship somewhere. Do two at a MINIMUM. Paid or unpaid doesn’t matter. The unpaid ones are usually more interesting and fun. Try and do one outside your comfort zone (if you are an AE try something like working with a company building grocery carts). Use internships to explore your target employers later. Many companies hire interns in full time after they graduate. Some internships suggestions: a Web 2.0 startup, your Congressional representative, a design house, a non-profit (XPRIZE, AIAA)…

Go to some key conference and meet people

My current short list for conferences to go to: ISDC, Space Access, NewSpace, and SmallSat. Make yourself some business cards. Talk to people. Dress well, but don’t wear a suit. If you’re not used to networking then go to some networking events in your local city and get some practice at it. But don’t be mechanistic about it. That other person is just as interesting as you are, find out about them before you start selling yourself.

Use LinkedIn, VisualCV, and yes, Facebook

There are a lot of tools out there that help you keep in touch with the people you meet and help you expand your network beyond the ones you already know. Use them. And clean out your sophomore year frat party pictures on Facebook.

Know your industry intimately

Read all of the space related blogs and trade rags you can. You don’t have to know every dinky little NASA program, but be aware of industry wide politics and trends. While you are networking with people you should be able to speak intelligently about and be current on things like NASA’s Constellation program woes, who SpaceX, what ULA does, what Operationally Responsive Space is, etc.

Join Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS)

If you don’t have a SEDS chapter then create one. If you do, then join and get involved. The friends and connections you will make are invaluable.

Go get an advanced degree. Get it from the International Space University (ISU) if you can

With the economy the way it is, think about continuing on and getting a Masters. Think seriously about getting your Masters in something different than your undergrad. An AE undergrad and an MBA is a formidable combination. Think seriously about getting that Masters from the International Space University (ISU). ISU alumni are a very tight and influential group. Spending a year in France is something you can do easily when you are young. Its much harder when your married and have a mortgage and kids.

Become an expert at something

Find some aspect of aerospace that you know better than your professors or anyone else in the industry. Blog about it. Buck the trend of your fellow graduates and learn project management. Find some way to differentiate  yourself from everyone else.

Do something risky

You are young. Your living expenses and commitments to others are as low as they will ever be in your adult life. Now is the time to double down and try something that us old farts would think its insanely foolish and risky. If you do this right it will probably lead to the next piece of advice.

Spectacularly fail at something

Try something really hard and really risky that you care about. If you succeed, then try something else until you fail spectacularly. Failure is a great teacher. And you will fail at something. Its helpful to learn how you deal with failure early.

Be Loud! (via @tim846)

Via twitter Tim Bailey (@tim846)said, “being *loud* about what you’re doing & want to do: vids of what you build, write a blog/forum/comment, ask for internships“. Engineers sometimes forget that part of your career is marketing yourself. You don’t need to be the Sham Wow! guy, but you do need to proclaim who you are, what you care about, and what you have done loudly and proudly. Ben Brocket, one of the most recent hires at Masten Space Systems, moved to Mojave without a job, lived in a van and did everything it took to get a job with one of the companies out there (us! woot!). He didn’t wait for a recruiter to call him. He saw the kind of job he wanted, made sure he was qualified and did what it took to get it.

Some anonymous IRC gateway user just came into the #spacefellowship channel and dropped this URL on me:

http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html

It includes pictures and video from Blue Origin’s first test flight:

The flight video is especially nice: