In this op-ed piece in SpaceNews, Elliot Pulham announces his Space Foundation's release of their report "Pioneering: Sustaining US Leadership in Space." Does that sound like the official subtitle of the Augustine report? "A Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation." But the SF report's focus is more about how to reorganize NASA than about the technical aspects of going to the asteroids or Mars. It recommends that NASA concentrate on pioneering as a single unifying theme, and suggests some subsidiary measures (such as amending the Space Act) to support that theme.
In a sense, the SF report reinforces what XCOR CEO Jeff Greason, a member of the Augustine Commission, said in his ISDC 2011 talk at Huntsville. Greason called the motivation "settlement," while Pulham calls it pioneering.
Is there any difference? I think there is. You can be a pioneer if you go somewhere and never go back there. Settlement is not like that--the settlers need logistical support (even with in-situ resource utilization, no doubt.) The Space Foundation's definition of pioneering sounds like the precursor to settlement:
"The Space Foundation defines 'pioneering' as: 1. being among those who first enter a region to open it for use and development by others; and 2. being one of a group that builds and prepares infrastructure precursors, in advance of others. It is a term that is used throughout this report to describe the ideal focus for NASA. The Pioneering Doctrine has four phases: access, exploration, utilization, and transition."
Greason's talk also teaches us how to recognize when the "vision thing" has been done correctly. He says you need to think in this order: GOAL--STRATEGY--OBJECTIVES--TACTICS. We need to look for that clarity of thought, for instance when the NASA Administrator claims that we're "poised for tomorrow's progress." Despite its claim of providing a strategy, the SF report is nothing but tactics, mostly organizational ones. Certainly there's no goal: the report intentionally eschews establishing where the pioneering effort should land.
And sadly, there is nothing approaching Greason's G-S-O-T pyramid coming out of NASA. The contention in this USA Today op-ed piece that the Administration's support of commercial space "has been a considerable success" should not fool us into thinking there's a strategy. Commercial companies like SpaceX are simply filling a vacuum.
One of the most important aspects of a pioneering program is how to pay for it. Greason made a compelling case that we'll never afford settlements if we rely on a government-only program. The SF report encourages continuing commercialization, but only as a means of shedding distractions. Today, NASA supports commercial spaceflight--yet at the same time, it is developing the pork-barrel Senate Launch System, which undermines the commercial business. And right now, commercial spaceflight looks more like a stop-gap measure--"let's not have to rely on the Russians to get to ISS." That's not a worthy goal nor a strategy, and it is completely disconnected from pioneering and settlement.
Instead, what we need is a true public-private partnership. If a company fields space robots that can assemble spacecraft on orbit, NASA needs to give serious consideration to including them in a pioneering program--without worrying about its own budget. If a company finds a way to produce propellant on the Moon, NASA again needs to make that part of their program--and make sure that company is adequately compensated.
After Columbus' voyages, Spain didn't come to the New World for the science; they came for the gold. I'll give Professor Reynolds, author of the USA Today article, the final word:
"With free markets, you don't have to convince government bureaucrats and
Congressional appropriators that your idea is a good one -- you just
have to convince customers and investors. And though government
bureaucrats and Congressional appropriators are deathly afraid of
failure for political reasons, entrepreneurs succeed by courting -- and,
sometimes, learning from -- failure. That's something government
programs can't do."
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Four different ways to keep satellites alive
In 2011, the communications satellite operator Intelsat and the Canadian firm MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (builders of the robot arm on the International Space Station) announced an agreement. MDA would build a robotic servicing vehicle to refuel Intelsat's 55 spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit. That agreement was later cancelled; however, MDA has put out some materials to continue marketing the idea. Also last year, a new American company, Vivisat, was formed, to do the same mission with a somewhat different approach. Rather than refueling the spacecraft, they would attach a module with its own propulsion system. The end result would be the same: the spacecraft wouldn't need to be sent to the "graveyard" just because its propellant was exhausted.
This week, Vivisat has announced plans to have two of the modules built by ATK, an experienced aerospace company. So the vision of robotic satellite servicing continues to advance (although it seems painfully slow progress to those of us who have worked on the concept since 1999.) Also, since this is a private sector initiative, it is strictly business-case based, rather than having to rely on the vagaries of government funding. Private enterprise can also be more aggressive than government, as SpaceX has showed the world.
Not to be outdone, NASA has been contributing knowledge and resources to the satellite servicing game. Their Robotic Refueling experiments on ISS are ultimately targeted at GEO spacecraft as well. These experiments are more consistent with the Intelsat-MDA approach, in that they are testing ways of adding propellant to spacecraft that weren't designed to be refueled. Presumably the robotic mechanisms there would be tele-operated, as they were in the RRM experiments. One might be concerned that controlling robots over such large distances and long time delays would be highly risky, but a recent control experiment between ISS and the ground provides grounds for optimism.
The notional servicing mission NASA has conceived uses a traveling fuel truck to go from customer to customer. Another concept they have discussed is an actual "service station" in GEO, a central point where the refueling of all GEO birds takes place. At this early stage it's unclear whether the customers use their own propellant to get to the service station, or whether a "tow truck" takes them there. The former approach requires less hardware, while the latter provides the ability to move dead satellites as well as functioning ones.
The "tow truck" concept itself represents yet another approach to keeping GEO satellites alive. It does not add fuel to the satellites; rather, it simply promises that, when they run out of propellant, the tow truck will take them to the graveyard. This ability to exhaust propellant could add several months to a couple of years of life to each spacecraft. It's not as long an extension as the other concepts promise; but it is much, much simpler technically. And the technology to dock spacecraft autonomously MUST be developed by any of the other methods anyway! NASA is working on it . For the record, a program that I conceived and managed for DARPA demonstrated it in the lab in 2005. The "tow truck" method has legal, insurance, and contractual implications, which have received some study .
Here are the bottom lines:
1. The space community seems to have moved past the point of skepticism regarding on-orbit servicing.
2. None of these four methods are perfect: the "life extension module" wastes expensive hardware by using it only once; the two refueling approaches require very complex manipulations; and the "tow truck" method doesn't provide as much life extension as the others (although it has other advantages.)
3. Autonomous rendezvous and docking is essential to any servicing method. Once docked, the robotic mechanisms have a static target (in relative space) to deal with rather than a dynamic one. This technology must be given very high priority.
4. The NASA and private efforts need to be integrated into a public-private joint enterprise. SpaceX could not have accomplished its missions to ISS without significant NASA support. Community leaders must establish that same kind of cooperation, to make robotic on-orbit servicing a reliable and profitable activity.
This week, Vivisat has announced plans to have two of the modules built by ATK, an experienced aerospace company. So the vision of robotic satellite servicing continues to advance (although it seems painfully slow progress to those of us who have worked on the concept since 1999.) Also, since this is a private sector initiative, it is strictly business-case based, rather than having to rely on the vagaries of government funding. Private enterprise can also be more aggressive than government, as SpaceX has showed the world.
Not to be outdone, NASA has been contributing knowledge and resources to the satellite servicing game. Their Robotic Refueling experiments on ISS are ultimately targeted at GEO spacecraft as well. These experiments are more consistent with the Intelsat-MDA approach, in that they are testing ways of adding propellant to spacecraft that weren't designed to be refueled. Presumably the robotic mechanisms there would be tele-operated, as they were in the RRM experiments. One might be concerned that controlling robots over such large distances and long time delays would be highly risky, but a recent control experiment between ISS and the ground provides grounds for optimism.
The notional servicing mission NASA has conceived uses a traveling fuel truck to go from customer to customer. Another concept they have discussed is an actual "service station" in GEO, a central point where the refueling of all GEO birds takes place. At this early stage it's unclear whether the customers use their own propellant to get to the service station, or whether a "tow truck" takes them there. The former approach requires less hardware, while the latter provides the ability to move dead satellites as well as functioning ones.
The "tow truck" concept itself represents yet another approach to keeping GEO satellites alive. It does not add fuel to the satellites; rather, it simply promises that, when they run out of propellant, the tow truck will take them to the graveyard. This ability to exhaust propellant could add several months to a couple of years of life to each spacecraft. It's not as long an extension as the other concepts promise; but it is much, much simpler technically. And the technology to dock spacecraft autonomously MUST be developed by any of the other methods anyway! NASA is working on it . For the record, a program that I conceived and managed for DARPA demonstrated it in the lab in 2005. The "tow truck" method has legal, insurance, and contractual implications, which have received some study .
Here are the bottom lines:
1. The space community seems to have moved past the point of skepticism regarding on-orbit servicing.
2. None of these four methods are perfect: the "life extension module" wastes expensive hardware by using it only once; the two refueling approaches require very complex manipulations; and the "tow truck" method doesn't provide as much life extension as the others (although it has other advantages.)
3. Autonomous rendezvous and docking is essential to any servicing method. Once docked, the robotic mechanisms have a static target (in relative space) to deal with rather than a dynamic one. This technology must be given very high priority.
4. The NASA and private efforts need to be integrated into a public-private joint enterprise. SpaceX could not have accomplished its missions to ISS without significant NASA support. Community leaders must establish that same kind of cooperation, to make robotic on-orbit servicing a reliable and profitable activity.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Doing more with less
Here's a column from FloridaToday.com that recommends that NASA do exactly that: find ways to be more innovative and get more exploration done using existing resources.
It's probably obvious to most readers that robots offer that opportunity: robotic space operations are MUCH cheaper and safer than the same operations done by astronauts.
Some parts of NASA seem to be getting that. Goddard Space Flight Center is leading an initiative to put a servicing station in geosynchronous orbit. Some earlier concepts to do that were manned, but I presume we are now talking about robotic operations there. Good thing, given how intense the radiation levels in GEO are.
Another initiative, to assemble a telescope at the Space Station using robotics, doesn't look like it will be funded this year. But hopefully the planning will go on.
What could put all this into high gear would be a COMMERCIAL initiative for robotic servicing of GEO spacecraft. There's a good business case for it, as laid out in this MIT master's thesis . (Truth in advertising: I was the sponsor.) When you keep spacecraft in GEO operating longer, whether by refueling them or by simply allowing their fuel to deplete, everyone wins. The satellite operator derives revenue for a longer time; the servicing provider gets a fee for the refueling or disposal service.
It's time to put that business plan into action!
It's probably obvious to most readers that robots offer that opportunity: robotic space operations are MUCH cheaper and safer than the same operations done by astronauts.
Some parts of NASA seem to be getting that. Goddard Space Flight Center is leading an initiative to put a servicing station in geosynchronous orbit. Some earlier concepts to do that were manned, but I presume we are now talking about robotic operations there. Good thing, given how intense the radiation levels in GEO are.
Another initiative, to assemble a telescope at the Space Station using robotics, doesn't look like it will be funded this year. But hopefully the planning will go on.
What could put all this into high gear would be a COMMERCIAL initiative for robotic servicing of GEO spacecraft. There's a good business case for it, as laid out in this MIT master's thesis . (Truth in advertising: I was the sponsor.) When you keep spacecraft in GEO operating longer, whether by refueling them or by simply allowing their fuel to deplete, everyone wins. The satellite operator derives revenue for a longer time; the servicing provider gets a fee for the refueling or disposal service.
It's time to put that business plan into action!
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Controlling robots from the Space Station
The BBC reports that a ground robot has been controlled successfully from the International Space Station . Why does this matter?
1. It means that it should work equally well in the other direction. So, for instance, if you are trying to control robots refueling satellites in geosynchronous orbit, you could use this delay-tolerant technique.
2. It shows a path to preparing for settlements on Mars. CEO of XCOR Aerospace, Jeff Greason, has laid out a strategy for developing a Mars settlement that begins with a landing on Phobos, and controlling robots on the Martian surface from there. This ISS robot-control demo shows that that idea will work, or at least the control part of it.
There are also even more advanced communications approaches being tested, although not on the Space Station yet, like this advanced optical communications approach .
Coolness. There are other nifty robotic things going on on ISS--for example, they have experimented with refueling satellites using teleoperated robots. They are thinking about having a refueling station in GEO, and about using robots to build things at ISS, like giant telescopes.
So ISS is becoming a lab for New Space testing! That's very important, because it really shows a mental shift at NASA. NASA became famous because of human spaceflight accomplishments--but this really will be the century of robots in space. NASA has decided to become a part of it.
1. It means that it should work equally well in the other direction. So, for instance, if you are trying to control robots refueling satellites in geosynchronous orbit, you could use this delay-tolerant technique.
2. It shows a path to preparing for settlements on Mars. CEO of XCOR Aerospace, Jeff Greason, has laid out a strategy for developing a Mars settlement that begins with a landing on Phobos, and controlling robots on the Martian surface from there. This ISS robot-control demo shows that that idea will work, or at least the control part of it.
There are also even more advanced communications approaches being tested, although not on the Space Station yet, like this advanced optical communications approach .
Coolness. There are other nifty robotic things going on on ISS--for example, they have experimented with refueling satellites using teleoperated robots. They are thinking about having a refueling station in GEO, and about using robots to build things at ISS, like giant telescopes.
So ISS is becoming a lab for New Space testing! That's very important, because it really shows a mental shift at NASA. NASA became famous because of human spaceflight accomplishments--but this really will be the century of robots in space. NASA has decided to become a part of it.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
The Commercial Resupply flight is about to launch
Apologies for the two-month absence. It's been a busy time here in Australia. We're preparing a concept for a spacecraft to monitor Australia's natural resources. I'm working at the Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research at the University of New South Wales.
More on that later--right now I'm watching NASA TV to see the launch of the Dragon spacecraft to the ISS on SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Tune in!
More on that later--right now I'm watching NASA TV to see the launch of the Dragon spacecraft to the ISS on SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Tune in!
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Space: a light to humanity
First, congratulations to JPL, NASA, the subcontractors, and everyone else involved in designing, building, launching, and guiding Curiosity to a successful landing in Gale Crater on Mars.
Google Earth (ha ha) gives a great perspective on the area around the landing site. Numerous photos from the HiRISE instrument on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter have wonderful detail. Using the "incline" feature on the Google Earth 3D viewer produces a very lifelike perspective.
The ridge, part of Mount Sharp, is about 5000 feet above the crater floor where Curiosity now sits.
The outpouring of enthusiasm for this UNMANNED, ROBOTIC mission is very encouraging. It says that missions to other planets don't need to have astronauts to provide inspiration.
Also a comment on nationalism: there has been an outpouring of American pride in this accomplishment. The pride is justified, although some of the expressions have been unseemly. American policy makers should try to evolve to a more global approach to space exploration. By involving many nations in projects like Curiosity, the exploration of space can become a unifying rather than a dividing enterprise.
As has been said before in this blog: we are going to need triumphs of space exploration in this century, to maintain our hope for the future. This is especially true in this century of resource exhaustion and population explosion. It will be all to easy to become dispirited by the challenges, by the losses. Let us build a world space program, to help everyone feel included in the successes and in the failures as well.
UPDATE: a friend has unearthed a letter from a NASA exec in the 1960s, explaining the benefits of space exploration to a nun working with starving children. That letter is far more eloquent than I have been. I recommend it highly. It was provided to the website by space historian Roger Launius.
Google Earth (ha ha) gives a great perspective on the area around the landing site. Numerous photos from the HiRISE instrument on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter have wonderful detail. Using the "incline" feature on the Google Earth 3D viewer produces a very lifelike perspective.
The outpouring of enthusiasm for this UNMANNED, ROBOTIC mission is very encouraging. It says that missions to other planets don't need to have astronauts to provide inspiration.
Also a comment on nationalism: there has been an outpouring of American pride in this accomplishment. The pride is justified, although some of the expressions have been unseemly. American policy makers should try to evolve to a more global approach to space exploration. By involving many nations in projects like Curiosity, the exploration of space can become a unifying rather than a dividing enterprise.
As has been said before in this blog: we are going to need triumphs of space exploration in this century, to maintain our hope for the future. This is especially true in this century of resource exhaustion and population explosion. It will be all to easy to become dispirited by the challenges, by the losses. Let us build a world space program, to help everyone feel included in the successes and in the failures as well.
UPDATE: a friend has unearthed a letter from a NASA exec in the 1960s, explaining the benefits of space exploration to a nun working with starving children. That letter is far more eloquent than I have been. I recommend it highly. It was provided to the website by space historian Roger Launius.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)