JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2008
THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY ISSUE 1 VOLUME 47
SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 1 AAS OFFICERS PRESIDENT Frank A. Slazer EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Lyn D. Wigbels, RWI International Consulting Services JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2008 VICE PRESIDENT–TECHNICAL Srinivas R. Vadali, Texas A&M University VICE PRESIDENT–PROGRAMS ISSUE 1–VOLUME 47 Mary L. Snitch, Lockheed Martin VICE PRESIDENT–PUBLICATIONS David B. Spencer, Penn State University VICE PRESIDENT–MEMBERSHIP J. Walter Faulconer, Applied Physics Laboratory VICE PRESIDENT–EDUCATION Kirk W. Kittell, Orbital Sciences Corporation THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY VICE PRESIDENT–FINANCE Carol S. Lane, Ball Aerospace VICE PRESIDENT–INTERNATIONAL Clayton Mowry, Arianespace, Inc. VICE PRESIDENT–PUBLIC POLICY William B. Adkins, Adkins Strategies, LLC LEGAL COUNSEL PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 3 Franceska O. Schroeder, Fish & Richardson P.C. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR James R. Kirkpatrick, AAS FEATURES So, What is this “Not Gravity?” 4 AAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS As mankind continues to contemplate the enigmas of our universe, gravity remains difficult to define. Experiencing zero gravity further mystifies this TERM EXPIRES 2008 phenomenon, and inspires and challenges our next generation of engineers Peter M. Bainum, Howard University John C. Beckman and scientists. David A. Cicci, Auburn University by Bo Walkley Lynn F.H. Cline Nancy S.A. Colleton, Institute for Global Brigadier General Bernard A. Schriever and the Foundation Environmental Strategies Mark K. Craig, SAIC of our Defense of Freedom 8 Roger D. Launius, Smithsonian Institution Our nation’s ballistic missile program was established upon the discovery Jonathan T. Malay, Lockheed Martin of the progress of the Soviet Union’s intercontinental ballistic missile. Almost Kathy J. Nado, L-3 Communications one year later, following a specific combination of events, our program began. Richard M. Obermann, House Committee on Science & Technology by C.W. “Bill” Getz TERM EXPIRES 2009 Marc S. Allen The Constellation Architecture 10 Steven Brody, International Space University The development of NASA’s post-Shuttle space flight architecture is essentially Ashok R. Deshmukh, Technica, Inc. as it was in September 2005, with consideration of mission requirements, Graham Gibbs, Canadian Space Agency operations concepts, performance, risk, reliability, and cost holding true today. Steven D. Harrison, BAE Systems Sue E. Hegg, The Boeing Company by Michael D. Griffin Arthur F. Obenschain Ian Pryke, CAPR, George Mason University Ronald J. Proulx, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory ANNOUNCEMENT Trevor C. Sorensen, University of Hawaii AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference TERM EXPIRES 2010 August 18-21, 2008 18 Linda Billings, SETI Institute Ronald J. Birk, Northrop Grumman Rebecca L. Griffin, Griffin Aerospace AAS NEWS Hal E. Hagemeier, National Security Space Office Dennis Lowrey, General Dynamics 46th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium Molly Kenna Macauley, Resources for the Future Erin Neal, ATK March 4-6, 2008 20 Lesa B. Roe Rosanna Sattler, Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLP Robert H. Schingler, Jr. NOTES ON NEW BOOKS Woodrow Whitlow, Jr. In the Shadow of the Moon: A Challenging Journey to SPACE TIMES EDITORIAL STAFF Tranquility, 1965-1969 22 Reviewed by James M. Busby EDITOR, Jeffrey P. Elbel PHOTO & GRAPHICS EDITOR, Dustin Doud PRODUCTION MANAGER, Diane L. Thompson UPCOMING EVENTS 23 BUSINESS MANAGER, James R. Kirkpatrick SPACE TIMES is published bimonthly by the American Astronautical Society, a professional non-profit society. SPACE TIMES is free to members of the AAS. Individual subscriptions may be ordered from the AAS Business Office. © Copyright 2008 by the American Astronautical Society, Inc. Printed in the United States of America. ISSN 1933-2793. PERIODICALS SPACE TIMES, magazine of the AAS, bimonthly, volume 47, 2008—$80 domestic, $95 foreign The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, quarterly, volume 56, 2008—$170 domestic, $190 foreign 6352 Rolling Mill Place, Suite 102 To order these publications, contact the AAS Business Office. Springfield, VA 22152-2354 U.S.A. REPRINTS Phone: 703-866-0020 Fax: 703-866-3526 [email protected] www.astronautical.org Reprints are available for all articles in SPACE TIMES and all pa- pers published in The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences.
2 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
Hello! I am Frank Slazer, the newly elected President of the American Astronautical Society. I am honored to have been chosen to lead a Society which, for fifty-four years, has championed the need for humanity to explore our universe as well as our world from space. In addition to advocacy, through meetings and symposia, our Journal of the Astronautical Sciences and our technical committees, AAS substantively contributes to increasing humanity’s understanding of space. I welcome the opportunity to lead the Society, but I first want to acknowledge the contributions of my predecessor, Mark Craig. Much as Newton is reported to have said that he accomplished so much because he stood on the shoulders of giants, I am certain that whatever accomplishments AAS achieves this year will benefit greatly from Mark’s vision and leadership. I would also like to thank the other officers and directors who helped make Mark’s tenure so productive. On January 31st, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the launch of the first US satellite, Explorer I. Later this year, we shall mark the 50th anniversary of the founding of NASA – the world’s first civilian space agency on October 1st. This is an auspicious time. I wonder, however, how many of us truly appreciate the way space has changed our world. While much attention is understandably drawn to the inspiring exploits of human space explorers and the stunning discoveries of robotic spacecraft, there are many other ways in which space literally has transformed our world. This transformation goes beyond better weather forecasts and entertainment options (OK, maybe just more channels). It includes profound discoveries such as those made by the Hubble Space Telescope, which have necessitated a revision of our theories of the universe. We must now accommodate the known fact that 95% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, the existence of which was unknown only a decade ago. Global climate change research is inestimably better thanks to space monitoring of the Earth as a whole. Economic globalization is facilitated by satellite communications and navigation systems. Beyond these leaps of scientific understanding and commerce, I would argue that space technology has changed our political world. Fifty years ago, racial discrimination and segregation were legal in much of the US. With the advent of Syncom II and other telecommunications satellites, the images of dogs being used on peaceful civil rights marchers were no longer something that could be tucked within the shadows. Televising images of the Selma police shocked the world and our national conscience. Soon, change began. The same process of public outrage and reaction have occurred during the breakup of the former Soviet Union, in Bosnia, and in many other places. When terrible actions are exposed to the view of the world, pressure for change usually follows. The omnipresence of space communications and the ease of transmitting or observing, even in the most tightly controlled societies, make reprehensible behavior much less likely to be hidden from scrutiny - and so they are less likely to occur. I look forward to working to assure that the Society serves its members and its vital mission to advocate the benefits all can reap from space activity. I invite and encourage you, as members, to get involved. Consider participating in Society activities as we seek to grow and advance the Society in the year ahead. AAS – Advancing All Space
Frank A. Slazer [email protected]
ON THE COVER
FRONT: This Chandra X-ray Observatory image shows Westerlund 2, a young star cluster with an estimated age of about one or two million years. Westerlun 2 contains some of the hottest, brightest and most massive stars known. (Source: NASA/CXC/Univ. de Liège/Y. Naze et al) BACK: This visible-infrared image shows an incoming view of Mercury, about 80 minutes before MESSENGER’s closest pass of the planet on January 14, 2008, from a distance of about 27,000 kilometers (17,000 miles). (Source: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/ Carnegie Institution of Washington) SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 3 So, What is this “Not Gravity?” by Bo Walkley
Nobel Prize winner Dr. John C. Mather other Mercury and Gemini astronauts and scientists, who will contribute to the recently discussed “Finding Our Origins floated by. Now, it would be my turn. I continued advancement of mankind. with the James Webb Space Telescope” smiled to myself. Then, I suddenly My zero g flight, I learned, would be during a Colloquium at the NASA Langley remembered the term “Vomit Comet.” part of a similar public outreach program Research Center. The first question asked As a member of the National Institute sponsored by the Northrop Grumman from the audience at the conclusion of Dr. of Aerospace, I am associated with a Foundation. The Weightless Flights of Mather’s talk was “What is gravity?” Dr. number of programs undertaken to address Discovery program is offered by the Mather acknowledged the difficulty of a persistent challenges in inspiring young Foundation to inspire the next generation definitive answer to this question as people to pursue careers in science and of scientists, mathematicians and engineers mankind continues to ponder the engineering. NIA continues to be involved – critical areas where the U.S. has fallen considerable mysteries and miracles of the in a number of initiatives working with K- behind globally. To accomplish this goal, universe. I can add virtually nothing 12 students, pre-service and in-service more than 40 middle school teachers, along intellectually or philosophically to a teachers, undergraduate college students, with local media, were given the question of this magnitude, but I did have and graduate students. In addition, NIA opportunity to experience weightless flight a recent once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to offers opportunities for working engineers firsthand so they could take the experience experience the sensations of zero gravity. to expand their technical capabilities back to their classrooms and readership. I returned to earth thrilled, yet further through short courses and workshops, and The local presence of Northrop Grumman mystified by the realities of our lives in a we reach out to the general public across Newport News (a major shipbuilding 1-g environment. So what is this “not the United States through programs such operation) resulted in this opportunity in gravity” all about? as our Discovery Now© radio spots. All our community, with the flight departing My adventure began one evening as I of this activity has a single goal: to inspire from the Newport News-Williamsburg was working late (again). When the boss and train the next generation of engineers International Airport (PHF). (Dr. Robert Lindberg) called this time, he posed a question I could answer easily: “I got a call about a seat on a zero g flight and I can’t go – would you like to?” My answer was an immediate “yes!” I had been pondering my upcoming decadal birthday that starts with a “6,” and I was looking for something to mark the event to prove I still “had it.” Here it was - the opportunity to gain firsthand knowledge of something that only a small number of human beings had ever experienced – weightlessness. I’m not referring to the familiar sensation of weightlessness experienced due to buoyancy in water – we’ve all done that. This would be true weightlessness, just like the astronauts I’ve watched since the early days of the space program. I recall a black and white television with rabbit ears and a fuzzy picture, as classmates gathered around to All smiles and anticipation at 1 g, we anxiously await our departure to the world of see this new, fascinating world unfolding weightlessness. (Source: www.gozerog.com/photos) Items surrounding Alan Sheppard and the
4 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 In the first three parabolasa, we experienced Martian and Lunar gravity. (Source: www.gozerog.com/photos)
Our weightless flight was provided by commercial company to gain permission to further teacher and student knowledge Zero Gravity Corporation (ZERO-G®, from the Kennedy Space Center to use the and understanding of science, while www.gozerog.com). Founded in 1993, shuttle runway and landing facilities to inspiring the next generation of space ZERO-G is a privately held space operate its weightless flights. As of April explorers. In its inaugural year, the entertainment and tourism company. Its 21, 2007, ZERO-G also began offering program hosted 250 teachers representing mission is to bring the excitement and regular flights for the general public from 49 states, five U.S. territories and 24 adventure of weightlessness to the public Signature Air Terminal at McCarran countries. In 2007, ZERO-G and Northrop through a safe, fun and cost-effective International Airport in Las Vegas. Grumman flew approximately 400 experience. Headquartered in Las Vegas, In 2006, ZERO-G joined Northrop teachers and college students. ZERO-G is co-founded by space visionary Grumman, sponsor of the Weightless Our day began by reporting mid- and entrepreneur Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, Flights of Discovery, in an innovative morning to a local hotel. After cross veteran astronaut Dr. Byron K. science and engineering education program checking various paperwork items Lichtenberg, and NASA engineer Ray incorporating zero-gravity flight submitted before the event, we were each Cronise. ZERO-G is the first and only experiences for teachers. The program issued a flight bag, a flight suit, and a FAA-approved provider of commercial utilizes hands-on science workshops and considerable dose of enthusiasm and weightless flights for the general public. ZERO-G’s unique weightless flights to energy from the Northrop Grumman The ZERO-G Experience™ launched in help educators share the fun and excitement Foundation and ZERO-G employees October 2004. ZERO-G has since of science, technology, engineering and awaiting us. We soon learned that we were successfully flown more than 2,500 math with their students. The program the “second shift,” as another group had passengers aboard 100 flights. In April realizes ZERO-G’s mission to utilize its already headed to the airport for their flight. 2006, ZERO-G became the first capabilities for the public sector as a way We also learned that poor weather the day
SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 5 before had resulted in late evening arrival before, so I tried to hang out with the local through programs such as the Weightless of the aircraft and crew, so FAA crew rest Daily Press newspaper writer and Flights of Discovery. regulations would delay our flight by a photographer to talk about the flight and We soon moved into our pre-flight couple of hours. how “we reporters” would cover it. briefing. This included live discussion and We suited up (including colored socks Rolf Bartschi, Vice President and Chief a video on the do’s and don’ts of weightless indicating which team we were assigned Nuclear Engineer at Northrop Grumman flight: Do eat the bagels and muffins to) and placed personal items in our flight Newport News, spoke to the group, noting provided as that’s good for your stomach. bags which would remain securely on the the upcoming need to hire several hundred Do lie on your back and focus on a spot on ground. The teachers began unpacking an new engineers to support the local the fuselage ceiling as the parabola is array of experiments they planned to shipbuilding industry, and the challenges entered to prepare your brain and stomach conduct and film during weightlessness – being faced in recruiting qualified for weightlessness. Do listen for the “feet these had been developed in a previous personnel for these well paying, technically down” call as the aircraft exits the workshop also sponsored by the Northrop challenging jobs. Northrop Grumman’s weightless portion of the parabola – Grumman Foundation. concern about the continuing decline in the otherwise you may return to the floor on My own name badge identified me as numbers of technically trained engineers your head (I did). Don’t kick or swim (that “media” – I’ve never served as a journalist and scientists was being directly addressed won’t work), and lastly, Don’t forget to
More smiles as we enjoy the upside-down orientation while the author (second from left) attempts to simultaneously take a photo or two. (Source: www.gozerog.com/photos)
6 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 have fun! Our team leaders then met with us to talk more about the experience, and to coordinate the various experiments the “The Weightless Flights of Discovery program teachers were planning to execute. We were then issued motion sickness pills as a is offered by the Foundation to inspire the next precaution, and headed for the bus to the airport. generation of scientists, mathemeticians and As a continuing sign of our times, two engineers.” representatives of the Transportation Security Administration greeted us in the hallway with their wands as we prepared about 30,000 feet altitude. The drink drifting globules of water, others to board the bus for the short ride to the experiments and other items were retrieved floating M&Ms with their airport. We soon arrived at PHF and were unpacked and secured for ready access mouths. Superman flies! Somersaults delivered to the aircraft, a Boeing 727-200, during the upcoming parabolas. abound. We stand on our heads. Everyone one of those venerable aircraft that made And then came the call – it was time to was determined to get the most from their their mark on the world for many years as lie down and prepare for the first parabola. weightless opportunity. Experiments? commercial carriers. These days, pilots There were still smiles and conversations, What experiments? often refer to these as “Jurassic Jets.” This but this was it, no turning back now! A Suddenly, it was over. A dozen 0 g particular aircraft has been modified for quiet settled over us, lying on the floor, as parabolas passed far too quickly. “Let’s do weightless flights under the watchful eye we stared at the ceiling of the fuselage. it again,” many shouted. The “Vomit of the FAA; we were reassured that the “Thirty seconds to Martian gravity,” came Comet” had gotten to only two participants, maneuvers to be flown were well within the call. but even they were still smiling. The flight the aircraft’s design envelope. And then there it began. The aircraft back to PHF was very different than the After a group photo, we boarded the nosed up, taking us to 1.8g’s. This was a flight out. Nervousness has been replaced aircraft through its rear stairs, placed our curious sensation it itself as arms and legs with animated conversation, pure joy shoes in bags and put on our team socks. grew heavy, and difficult to move. Then, following this “not gravity” experience. Though the aircraft retained several rows smiles all around - Martian gravity…lunar Back at the hotel, we each proudly received of seats in the back, with most of the gravity…twice! “Now we know what the our “Zeronaut” certificates and continued fuselage was empty except for the padding astronauts experienced,” I thought. There to relive the experience. on the interior of the fuselage, along with was much laughter. What about the This truly was a once in a lifetime several camera mounts and lights. There experiments? Well, some are being tried. experience. Northrop Grumman were only a couple of windows. Excitement The normal sensation of 1 g returned, too Foundation and ZERO-G have found a was building, and we were ready to go. soon. But we knew that more was to come. way to give teachers (along with some of What was this really going to be like, I “Thirty seconds,” came the call again. the rest of us) a story that will excite their wondered? This time, zero g allowed me to experience students for years to come. And yes, we The plan for the flight was fifteen levitation. I was slowly rising, disoriented got to keep the flight bag and the flight suit. parabolas to be conducted over about thirty as I realized I was truly weightless. I wore mine to the next NIA staff meeting. minutes of flight time. The first parabola Teachers scrambled to retrieve and conduct Now, if I can just find my way onto was to simulate Martian gravity (1/3 g), experiments. Some were successful, but another flight … followed by two lunar gravity events (1/6 frustration showed on their faces, as it was g). Twelve zero g parabolas would then hard to precisely control movements, or to be flown. Each parabola would afford remain still and steady for pictures. Then Bo Walkley is the Director for NASA about 25-30 seconds of reduced or zero g. came the order to place “feet down.” Soon, Langley programs at the National Parabolas would be flown in “threes”, with we were all on the floor, readying for the Institute of Aerospace in Hampton, VA. a few minutes between each “three” as the next 0 g pass. There were smiles, laughter, He has worked in the aerospace aircraft was set up for the next series. Each giggles, and chatter – this was fun! industry for 35 years. maneuver began with a 45-degree climb By the next call for “Thirty seconds,” followed by at dive at 30 degrees. As we we were veterans. We had been to the Information in this article regarding the cruised out over the Atlantic ocean to the Moon and Mars. We had experienced 0 g. Zero Gravity Corporation was obtained airspace designated for our flight – a 10 This time we were ready to truly explore at www.gozerog.com. mile wide by 100 miles long track up to this weightlessness environment. Some
SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 7 Brigadier General Bernard A. Schriever and the Foundation of our Defense of Freedom by C.W. “Bill” Getz, Lt. Col. USAF (Retired)
The nation’s ballistic missile program organization on the west coast. It was given Albuquerque, New Mexico. Ozzie Ritland was born in a cradle of crisis. In early the code name “Western Development and Bennie Schriever had a long-time 1953, the CIA discovered that the Soviet Division, or just plain “WDD.” friendship dating back to the 1930s. Union was significantly ahead of the General Schriever was serving in the Ritland and his Test Wing had just come United States in the development of an Pentagon at the time, and was no stranger off the highly successful and important intercontinental ballistic missile. It took to the politics of the military and thermonuclear tests at Enewetok, which almost a year for this nation to get a major department of defense. With the help of made the ballistic missiles program program started and only after coalescing members of the Teapot Committee, he achievable. Ritland, later promoted to events which included the intelligence insisted on special organization Major General, in turn named a number of bombshell, the election of Dwight arrangements. These were quickly officers from the special weapons Eisenhower to the presidency, and a approved all the way to the presidential command including his Deputy Wing breakthrough in our own thermonuclear level. Schriever’s demands and results Commander in Albuquerque, Col. Charles device tests. showed how a government organization “Terry” Terhune who in turn picked Lt. After World War II, the major can achieve extraordinary results to meet Col. Otto Glasser and others. Both Terhune intercontinental ballistic missile effort in extraordinary conditions. and Glasser later became Lieutenant the United States was pursued in-house on First, General Schriever insisted that his Generals. I was also in the Albuquerque a low priority by the Convair division of review and approval channels be contingent. All had top secret clearances, the General Dynamics Corporation in San shortened. In practice if not on paper, he a major consideration for the initial cadre. Diego, using mostly their own funds. reported directly to the Secretary of the Air Other initial recruits came from the Convair gave their missile the name Force, who in turn was directed to report Pentagon and the technical programs at “Atlas.” ballistic missile program matters directly Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. On February 10, 1954, a group was to the president. That did chafe a few egos. From 1954 into 1955, the Ramo- assembled in the Pentagon to tackle the General Schriever’s road to success was Wooldridge Corporation performed a nation’s missile deficiency. This group, strewn with rocks and boulders of dissent. complete engineering overhaul of the Atlas. known as the Teapot Committee, General Schriever also requested that recommended that a “radical he have priority in the assignment of reorganization of the Atlas project and the personnel no matter what their current nation’s missile effort was required if a assignment. He was given that authority. militarily useful vehicle was to be fielded This may have been his most important within a reasonable span of time.” They authority in order to get the program started were talking about a six to eight year time on a crash basis. It did not make him frame. popular within the Air Force. If he had The newly formed Ramo-Wooldridge asked for Mamie Eisenhower for his Corporation was contracted by the Air Deputy, he probably would have prevailed. Force to conduct an engineering evaluation Washington was in panic mode. of the Atlas. The report advocated the The way General Schriever proceeded creation of a special Air Force organization was classic. His first priority was to get to manage the entire effort on behalf of the people whose competencies he knew Gen. Bernard Schriever, Maj. Gen. Thomas government. By April of 1954, Air Force personally. He did not select Mamie, but Gerrity, Lt. Gen. Archi Old and Lt. Gen. Howell secretary Harold Talbot approved the chose as his Deputy Commander Colonel Estes, Jr. attend ceremonies to mark committee’s recommendations and Ozzie Ritland, then Commander of the operational readiness of a Titan site near Lowry Brigadier General Bernard A. Schriever 4925th Test Wing of the Special Weapons Air Force Base, Colorado, in May 1962 was told to organize that special Command at Kirtland Air Force base, (Source: U.S. Air Force historic photo)
8 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 It went from a six-engine, 450,000 pound office was soon expanded under the his thoughts might be. In these closing behemoth to a three-engine, 240,000 leadership of panel member Major paragraphs, permit me the audacity to pound vehicle that could deliver a General Ben Funk. On a personal note, I suggest that if General Schriever was at this thermonuclear warhead 5000 miles and consider Ben Funk, who received his podium he might say something to you like impact a target with a 1500 foot circular wings in 1936, to be one of the most this – particularly after attending the error probability. Further, R-W estimated gentlemanly and finest officers I have ever dedication of a statue of himself, which was the program could achieve initial launch known. unveiled yesterday at the Space and Missile capability within three to four years, On October 4, 1957, the Russians Complex down the road: instead of six to eight years. The technical launched the first Sputnik orbiting “Good morning. Yesterday I stood problems facing the program were vehicle. All hell broke loose again in looking at a statue of a General. He looked formidable, involving the necessity of Washington. The nation’s space program familiar. The first thought that came to mind breakthrough technologies in nose cones, was inaugurated on a crash basis with was this must be one of the few statues in engines, and guidance systems. General Schriever under still more intense the world of a General who is not sitting on The bottom line was that Bennie pressure. Two months later, on December a horse. Schriever had unprecedented authority and 17, 1957, the first Atlas missile was My second thought was of Secretary resources with backing from the president launched, three and a half years after the Harold Talbott looking down from his perch himself to get the job done. These channels did not set well with all Air Force Commanders, and the inter-service “Washington was in panic mode. The way General Schriever political pressures were constant, and we even had the general accounting office proceeded was classic.” breathing down our necks. But General Schriever handled these problems with tact start of WDD, demonstrating what one above and saying, ‘Bennie, that is an in public and some times with colorful author described as “man’s endless appropriate pose for your statue. There you language in private. capacity to make catastrophe the catalyst are with your hand out, looking for more Schriever’s hand-picked blue suiters of creativity.” money for your missiles.’ worked literally alongside the Ramo- Major credit for the technical direction Those of you who have seen the statue Wooldridge staff. R-W was the technical rightfully belongs to the Ramo- would understand the secretary’s comment. director and system integration contractor. Wooldridge technical team. The overall My third thought came as I looked at The Air Force was the general manager management of the program and unique the base holding up the horseless General. and contract administrator. It was management tools developed by General I thought it was very representative of the abundantly clear the Air Force did not have Schriever and the blue suiters became a thousands of people in blue suits, grey the blue suit resources for the job without model for future management in suits, white shirts, blue shirts and coveralls the help and support of the Ramo- government and industry. At its peak, the that held up that General when he was flesh Wooldridge staff. The Ramo-Wooldride missiles and space program under WDD, and bones, and not bronze. I understand Corporation and all of our industry later called the Ballistic Missiles that the higher the stone in the pyramid the partners were the unsung heroes of the Division, or BMD (we government types more stones are supporting it from below. program. love our acronyms), encompassed 2000 Like the foundation of that statue, the Operational planning for use of ICBMs industrial contractors employing more foundation of this nation’s defense of started early. The boss appointed a director than 40,000 personnel at an annual cost freedom consists of the military-industrial of operations, Colonel William “Red” of more than one billion 1954-1959 complex. We owe the defense industry a Sheppard. Later, General Lemay dollars. General Schriever’s techniques debt of gratitude, and I wanted to take this reluctantly established a SAC liaison of management control over this vast special occasion to say to all of them, and office with Colonel Bill Large in charge, operations is perhaps his most single, to Si Ramo and the late Dean Wooldridge, and where panel member Dick Henry personal, and critical contribution to the and to all of you, a salute and a thank you.” began his missile career. The Air Material programs, a point often overlooked in Command started a small liaison office to evaluating his accomplishments. This article is based upon a speech made develop logistic requirements for What would General Bernard Adolph on November 16, 2007. Dr. Getz was operational forces, and to assist General Schriever say today about the Air Force’s speaking on behalf of the Heritage Panel Schriever in contract administration. early ballistic missile programs? My own at the Air Force Association (AFA) Headed initially by Colonel Morris, the job gave me special insights into what Symposium in Los Angeles, California.
SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 9 The Constellation Architecture by Michael D. Griffin
As those who have attended any speech NASA’s missions. Any system architecture I’ve given know, I don’t read well in public. must be evaluated first against the tasks Everyone seems to enjoy the interactive which it is supposed to accomplish. Only sessions that typically follow somewhat afterwards can we consider whether it more. However, I wanted my thoughts on accomplishes them efficiently, or presents this topic to be available on the written other advantages which distinguish it from record, so if my remarks this morning come competing choices. across as an engineering lecture, then I So to start, we need to review the have succeeded. I hope you all had a strong requirements expressed in Presidential cup of coffee. policy and, subsequently, Congressional Today’s topic is motivated by the direction, that were conveyed to NASA in inquiries I’ve had lately, in one forum or 2004 and 2005. The principal documents another, concerning various aspects of pertinent to our architecture are President NASA’s post-Shuttle spaceflight Bush’s January 14th, 2004 speech architecture. None of the questions is new, outlining the Vision for Space Exploration, and all of them were elucidated during our and the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. Exploration Systems Architecture Study Both documents are a direct result of the (ESAS). The architecture is essentially as policy debate that followed in the wake of it was coming out of ESAS back in the Columbia tragedy five years ago, and September 2005, and the architectural the observation of the Columbia Accident trades we made then when considering Investigation Board (CAIB), “The U.S. mission requirements, operations concepts, civilian space effort has moved forward for performance, risk, reliability, and cost hold more than thirty years without a guiding true today. vision.” But more than two years have gone by, Several items of specific direction are and the logic behind the choices we made captured in the President’s speech: “Our has receded into the background. People first goal is to complete the International come and go, new questioners lacking Space Station by 2010. We will finish what In support of the President’s Vision for Space subject matter background appear, and the we have started, we will meet our Exploration, NASA Administrator Michael old questions must be answered again if obligations to our 15 international partners Griffin is working to ultimately land humans on there is to be general accord that NASA on this project.” Mars. This region of Mars, observed by MRO, managers are allocating public funds in a “Research on board the station and here has a thin layer of bright dust that covers dark responsible fashion. And so it seemed to on Earth will help us better understand and bedrock and shows evidence of Martian dust- me that the time was right to review, again, overcome the obstacles that limit devils. (Source: NASA/JPL/University of why we are developing the post-Shuttle exploration. Through these efforts we will Arizona) space architecture in the way that we are. develop the skills and techniques necessary As many of you know, I used to teach to sustain further space exploration.” be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to space system engineering at George “Our second goal is to develop and test other worlds.” Washington University and the University a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration “Our third goal is to return to the moon of Maryland, and am more comfortable Vehicle, … and to conduct the first manned by 2020…” “With the experience and discussing engineering design than just mission no later than 2014. The Crew knowledge gained on the moon, we will about any other topic. But as NASA Exploration Vehicle will be capable of then be ready to take the next steps of space Administrator, I must first frame the ferrying astronauts and scientists to the exploration: human missions to Mars and Constellation architecture and design in the Space Station after the shuttle is retired. to worlds beyond.” context of policy and law that dictate But the main purpose of this spacecraft will
10 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 After extensive debate, the Congress after which it will be retired. After this requirement, and the exploration offered strong bipartisan approval of these completion, the ISS will be used to “better architecture must and will take that into goals, while adding considerable understand and overcome the obstacles that account. This is nothing more than common specificity. From the 2005 Authorization limit exploration.” The Shuttle will be sense. The U.S. government will not Act for NASA, “The Administrator shall replaced as soon as possible, but not later abandon its commitment to the establish a program to develop a sustained than 2014, by a Crew Exploration Vehicle development and utilization of low Earth human presence on the Moon, including a designed to take humans to the Moon and orbit (LEO). robust precursor program, to promote beyond, but which must also be capable of There continue to be many questions exploration, science, commerce, and servicing the ISS and its crew of six. The about NASA’s long-term commitment to United States preeminence in space, and architecture must support human lunar ISS, so let me clarify. The Bush as a stepping-stone to future exploration return not later than 2020 and, after that, Administration has made no decision on of Mars and other destinations.” development of a sustained human lunar the end date for ISS operations. We are, of “The Administrator shall manage presence, both for its intrinsic benefits and course, concerned that Station operating human space flight programs to strive to as a “stepping stone” to Mars and beyond. costs after 2016 will detract from our next achieve the following milestones. Finally, the new architecture must take major milestone, returning to the Moon by (A) Returning Americans to the Moon advantage of existing Space Shuttle 2020. But while the budget does not no later than 2020. program assets “to the fullest extent presently allocate funds for operating ISS (B) Launching the Crew Exploration possible.” beyond 2016, we are taking no action to Vehicle as close to 2010 as possible. (C) Increasing knowledge of the impacts of long duration stays in space on “The Shuttle will be replaced as soon as the human body using the most appropriate facilities available, including the ISS. possible, but not later than 2014, by a Crew (D) Enabling humans to land on and return from Mars and other destinations Exploration Vehicle designed to take humans to on a timetable that is technically and fiscally possible.” the Moon and beyond, but which must also be The bill establishes specific requirements for the International Space capable of servicing the ISS and its crew of six.” Station, noting that it must “have an ability to support a crew size of at least six persons,” codifying a long-promised Not that anyone asked, but I consider preclude it. Decisions regarding U.S. design feature in law. It also details this to be the best civil space policy to be participation in ISS operations after 2016 statutory requirements for Shuttle enunciated by a president, and the best can only be made by a future transition, including maximizing the use Authorization Act to be approved by the Administration and a future Congress. I am of Shuttle assets and infrastructure: “The Congress, since the 1960s. But no policy sure these will be based on discussions Administrator shall, to the fullest extent is perfect, and none will please everyone. with our international partners, progress possible consistent with a successful In particular, many in the exploration toward our Exploration goals, utility of this development program, use the personnel, community, as well as many of those who national laboratory, and the affordability capabilities, assets, and infrastructure of pursue space science, were disappointed of projected ISS operations. Again, we plan the Space Shuttle program in developing by the reaffirmation of our nation’s to keep our commitments to our partners, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Crew commitment to the ISS. But a plain reading utilizing ISS if it makes sense. Launch Vehicle, and a heavy-lift launch of policy and law requires us to understand Now, returning to our space vehicle.” that, throughout four presidential architecture, note the order of primacy in Collectively, these requirements outline administrations and twenty-plus requirements. We are not primarily the broad policy framework for the post- Congressional votes authorizing tens of building a system to replace the Shuttle for Shuttle U.S. human spaceflight billions of dollars for its development, the access to LEO, and upgrading it later for architecture: We will manage the U.S. ISS has remained an established feature lunar return. Instead, we are directed to space program so as to complete the of U.S. space policy. Its support and build a system to “carry astronauts beyond International Space Station by 2010, sustenance cannot be left to chance; the our orbit to other worlds”, but which can utilizing the Space Shuttle for that purpose, CEV must and will be capable of fulfilling be put to the service of the ISS if needed.
SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 11 In brief, we are designing for the Moon Those who doubt this should look around. mid-2030’s. It is not credible to believe that and beyond. That too is only common The DC-3 and the B-52, to name only two we will return to the Moon and then start sense. Once before, an earlier generation landmark aircraft, remain in service today. with a “clean sheet of paper” to design a of U.S. policymakers approved a space The Boeing 747 has been around for thirty system for Mars. That’s just not fiscally, flight architecture intended to optimize years, and who doubts that it will be going technically or politically realistic. We’ll be access to LEO. It was expected – or maybe strong for another thirty? In space, on Mars in thirty years, and when we go, “hoped” is the better word – that, with this derivatives of Atlas and Delta and Soyuz we’ll be using hardware that we’re capability in hand, the tools to resume deep are flying a half-century and more after building today. So we need to keep Mars space exploration would follow. It didn’t their initial development. Ariane and its in mind as we work, even now. And that happen, and with the funding which has derivatives have been around for three means we need to look at both ends of the been allocated to the U.S. civil space decades, with no end in sight. Even the requirements spectrum. Our new system program since the late 1960s, it cannot Space Shuttle will have been in service for needs to be designed for the Moon, but happen. Even though from an engineering thirty years by the time it retires. Apart allow U.S. government access to LEO. Yet, perspective it would be highly desirable to from Saturn/Apollo, I am hard put to think in designing for the Moon, we need also to have transportation systems separately of a successful aerospace system which provide the maximum possible “leave optimized for LEO and deep space, was retired with less than several decades behind” for Mars. If we don’t, then a NASA’s budget will not support it. We get of use, and often more. generation from now there will be a group one system; it must be capable of serving The implications of this are profound. in this room, listening to the Administrator in multiple roles, and it must be designed We are designing today the systems that of that time ask, about those of us here for the more difficult of those roles from our grandchildren will use as building today, “what were they thinking?” the outset. blocks, not just for lunar return, but for Now, in mentioning “Mars” I must state There are other common-sense missions to Mars, to the near-Earth for the record that I do realize that the $550 requirements which have not been written asteroids, to service great observatories at billion Consolidated Appropriations Act down. The most obvious of these, to me, is SunEarth L1, and for other purposes we signed into law last month stipulated that that the new system will and should be in have not yet even considered. We need a no funds appropriated in 2008 “shall be use for many decades. Aerospace systems system with inherent capability for growth. used for any research, development, or are expensive and difficult to develop; Elsewhere, I have written that a careful demonstration activities related exclusively when such developments are judged analysis of what we can do at NASA on to the human exploration of Mars.” While successful, they tend to remain in use far constant-dollar budgets leads me to believe I personally consider this to be longer than one might at first imagine. that we can realistically be on Mars by the shortsighted, and while NASA was in any case spending only a few million dollars on long-term research and study efforts, we will of course follow this legislative direction. And while this provision does not affect work on Ares V, it does call into question the fundamental rationale for our use of Space Station in long-duration human spaceflight research. I hope that this funding restriction can be abandoned in/ future years. Further application of common sense also requires us to acknowledge that now is the time, this is the juncture, and we are the people to make provisions for the contributions of the commercial space sector to our nation’s overall space enterprise. The development and exploitation of space has, so far, been NASA’s Orion spacecraft will be capable of landing on the Moon, as well as supporting human accomplished in a fashion that can be and cargo delivery to the International Space Station. (Source: NASA) described as “all government, all the time.”
12 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 That’s not the way the American frontier commercial capability comes on line, we was developed, it’s not the way this nation will reduce the level of our own LEO developed aviation, it’s not the way the rest operations with Ares/Orion to that which of our economy works, and it ought not to is minimally necessary to preserve be good enough for space, either. So, capability, and to qualify the system for proactively and as a matter of deliberate lunar flight. policy, we need to make provisions for the So how is all of this – law, policy, and first step on the stairway to space to be common sense – realized in the architecture Made famous during the Apollo missions, this occupied by commercial entrepreneurs – that came out of ESAS? As I have outlined Earth-rise photo was taken by the HDTV whether they reside in big companies or above, policy and legislation are in some camera on the first Japanese Lunar explorer small ones. ways quite specific about the requirements KAGUYA from about 100km above the surface The policy decision that the CEV will for post-Shuttle U.S. spaceflight systems. of the Moon. (Source: JAXA/NHK) be designed for the Moon, while not They are less so where it concerns our lunar precluding its ability to provide access to goals, beyond the clearly stated LEO, strongly reinforces this common requirement to develop the capability to I will not do that. Perhaps another time. In sense objective. If designed for the Moon, support a sustained human lunar presence, any case, I think it is clear that these goals the use of the CEV in LEO will inevitably both for its intrinsic value and as a step offer capability significantly beyond be more expensive than a system designed toward Mars. This leaves considerably Apollo, yet can be achieved with the for the much easier requirement of LEO more discretion to NASA as the executive building blocks – ground facilities as well access and no more. This lesser agency to set requirements, and with that as space transportation elements – that we requirement is one that, in my judgment, considerably more responsibility to get it have or can reasonably envision, given the can be met today by a bold commercial right. Again, I think common sense comes budgetary resources we might expect. It is developer, operating without the close to our rescue. worth noting that the decision to focus on oversight of the U.S. government, with the There is general agreement that our next early development of an outpost – while goal of offering transportation for cargo steps to the Moon, toward a goal of retaining the capability to conduct a and crew to LEO on a fee-for-service basis. sustained lunar presence, must offer dedicated point on the mission to any This is a policy goal – enabling the something more than Apollo-class reasons – supports additional key goals. development of commercial space capability; e.g., sorties by two people for The most obvious of these is that it transportation to LEO – that can be met if three days to the equatorial region. To provides a more direct “stepping stone” to we in government are willing to create a return after fifty years with nothing more Mars, where even on the very first mission protected niche for it. To provide that niche, than the capability we once threw away, we will need to live for an extended period we must set the requirements for the next- seems to me to fail whatever test of on another planetary surface. But further, generation government spaceflight system common sense might be applied to even a basic human-tended outpost at the lunar-transportation level, well above ourselves and our successors. Accordingly, requires a variety of infrastructure that is the LEO threshold. then, in developing requirements for ESAS neither necessary nor possible to include Now again, common sense dictates that we specified that the lunar architecture in a sortie mission. Such infrastructure we can ISCB hostage to cfortune; we should be capable of the following: development presents obvious possibilities cannot gamble the fate of a multi-tens-of- - Initial lunar sortie missions should be for commercial international partner billions-of-dollar facility on of a capable of sustaining a crew of four on the involvement, both of which constitute commercial operation, so the CEV must lunar surface for a week. important policy objectives. But if the be able to operate efficiently in LEO if - The architecture will allow missions capability we are striving for is greater necessary. But we can create a clear to any location on the Moon at any time, than that of Apollo, so too is the difficulty. financial incentive for commercial success, and will permit return to Earth at any time. To achieve the basic four-person lunar based on the financial disincentive of using - The architecture will be designed to sortie capability anytime, anywhere, government transportation to LEO at what support the early development of an requires a trans-lunar injection (TLI) mass will be an inherently higher price. To this “outpost” capability at a location yet to be of 70-75 metric tons (mT), including end, as I have noted many times, we must specified, with crew rotations planned for appropriate reserve. Saturn V TLI be willing to defer the use of government six-month intervals. capability on Apollo 17 was 47 mT without systems in favor of commercial services, One could fill pages debating and the launch adaptor used to protect the lunar as and when they reach maturity. When justifying these requirements; mercifully, module. Thus, more than Saturn V
SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 13 capability is required if we are to go development is required, recurring costs government competition in what we hope beyond Apollo. I think we should not be are amortized over a larger number of will prove to be a commercial market niche. surprised to find that the Apollo engineers flights of a single vehicle, and the But it is quite another thing to render got just about as much out of a single knowledge of system reliability is government logistics support to ISS so launch of the Saturn V as it was possible enhanced by the more rapid accumulation expensive that the Station is immediately to do. of flight experience. However, this judged to be not worth the cost of its If we need more capability to TLI than support. Duallaunch EOR with vehicles of can be provided by a single launch of a similar payload class does not meet the Saturn-class vehicle, we can reduce our requirement to support the ISS in any sort objectives, build a bigger rocket, or attain of cost-effective manner. On the other end the desired capability by launching more of the scale, we must judge any proposed than one rocket. Setting a lesser objective architecture against the requirements for seems inconsistent with our goal of Mars. We aren’t going there now, but one developing the capability for a sustained day we will, and it will be within the lunar presence, and, as noted earlier, expected operating lifetime of the system merely replicating Apollo-era capability is we are designing today. We know already politically untenable. Building a larger that, when we go, we are going to need a rocket is certainly an attractive option, at Mars ship with a LEO mass equivalent of least to me, but to reach the capability about a million pounds, give or take a bit. needed for a single launch brings with it I’m trying for one-significant-digit the need for significant modifications to accuracy here, but think “Space Station”, fabrication and launch infrastructure. The in terms of mass. Michoud Assembly Facility and the I hope we’re smart enough that we never Vertical Assembly Building were designed again try to place such a large system in for the Saturn V, and have some growth orbit by doing it in twenty-ton chunks. I margin above that. But they will not think we all understand that fewer launches accommodate a vehicle that can support our of larger payloads requiring less on-orbit goals for lunar return with a single launch, integration are to be preferred. Thus, a and the projected NASA budget does not vehicle in the Saturn V class –some allow the development of extensive new 300,000 lbs in LEO – allows us to envision ground infrastructure. Further, and The Vertical Assembly Building is so large that a Mars mission assembly sequence crucially, a single-launch architecture fails the Orbiter Atlantis is able to be laterally lifted requiring some four to six launches, to address the requirement for ISS logistics and mounted onto the external tank, waiting depending on the packaging efficiency we support. Thus, after detailed consideration with its accompanying solid rocket boosters on can attain. of the single-launch option, we settled on the mobile launcher platform below. (Source: This is something we did once and can a dual-launch Earth-orbit rendezvous NASA) do again over the course of a few months, (EOR) scheme as the means by which a rather than many years, with the two TLI payload of the necessary size would architectural approach carries significant heavy-lift pads available at KSC Complex be assembled. However, the decision to liabilities when we consider the broader 39. But if we split the EOR lunar employ EOR in the lunar transportation requirements of the policy framework architecture into two equal but smaller architecture implies nothing about how the discussed earlier. As with the single-launch vehicles, we will need ten or more launches payload should be split. Indeed, the most architecture, dual-launch EOR of identical to obtain the same Mars-bound payload in obvious split involves launching two vehicles is vastly overdesigned for ISS LEO, and that is without assuming any loss identical vehicles with approximately logistics. It is one thing to design a lunar of packaging efficiency for the launch of equal payloads, mating them in orbit, and transportation system and, if necessary, use smaller payloads. When we consider that proceeding to the Moon. When EOR was it to service ISS while accepting some maybe half the Mars mission mass in LEO considered for Apollo, it was this method reduction in cost-effectiveness relative to is liquid hydrogen, and if we understand that was to be employed, and it offers a system optimized for LEO access. As that the hydrogen boiloff in space is one of several advantages. Non-recurring costs noted earlier, such a plan backstops the the key limiting technologies for deep space are lower because only one launch vehicle requirement to sustain ISS without offering exploration, the need to conduct fewer
14 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 rather than more launches to LEO for early as you are willing to define “Orion” as that indicated that the Shuttle-derived Ares I Mars missions becomes glaringly apparent. vehicle which can fit on top of an EELV. was almost twice as safe as that of a So if we want a lunar transportation Unfortunately, we can’t do that. human-rated EELV. architecture that looks back to the ISS LEO The adoption of the shuttle-derived Finally, we considered both logistics requirement, and forward to the approach of Ares I, with a new lox/ development and full life cycle costs. I first Mars missions, it becomes apparent hydrogen upper stage on a reusable solid cannot go into the details of this analysis that the best approach is a dual-launch EOR rocket booster (RSRB) first stage, has been in a speech, and in any case much of it mission, but with the total payload split one of our more controversial decisions. involves proprietary data. We have shared unequally. The Ares V heavy-lift design, with its the complete analysis with the DoD, external-tank-derived core stage various White House staff offices, CBO, augmented by two RSRBs and a new Earth GAO, and our Congressional oversight departure stage (EDS), has been less committees. Our analysis showed that for controversial, but still not without its vre the combined crew and heavy-lift launch the desired lift capacity, the comparative vehicles, the development cost of an EELV- reliability, and the development and life- derived architecture is almost 25% higher cycle costs of competing approaches. than that of the Shuttle-derived approach. Performance, risk, and cost – I’m sure you The recurring cost of the heavy-lift Ares V are shocked. is substantially less than competing The Ares I lift requirement is 20.3 mT approaches, and the recurring cost of an for the ISS mission and 23.3 mT for the EELV upgraded to meet CEV requirements lunar mission. EELV lift capacity for both is, at best, comparable to that for Ares I. the Delta IV and Atlas V are insufficient, All independent cost analyses have been so a new RL-10 powered upper stage in agreement with these conclusions. would be required, similar to the J-2X So, while we might wish that “off the based upper stage for Ares I. We considered shelf” EELVs could be easily and cheaply Opponents of the Vision for Space Exploration using additional strap-on solid rocket modified to meet NASA’s human argue that a focus on human exploration will boosters to increase EELV performance, spaceflight requirements, the data say eliminate funding for smaller NASA Earth- but such clustering lowers overall otherwise. Careful analysis showed EELV- based exploration missions like the AIM reliability. It is also important to consider derived solutions meeting our performance mission, which collects data on Polar the growth path to heavy lift capability requirements to be less safe, less reliable, Mesospheric Clouds (PMCs). (Source: CIPS which results from the choice of a and more costly than the Shuttle-derived Experiment data processing team at LASP) particular launch vehicle family. Again, we Ares I and Ares V. are designing an architecture, not a point Now is a good time to recall that all of solution for access to LEO. To grow the trades discussed above assumed the use The smaller launch vehicle puts a crew significantly beyond today’s EELV family of a production version of the Space Shuttle in LEO every time it flies, whether they for lunar missions requires essentially a Main Engine (SSME). But, returning to a are going to the ISS or to the Moon. The “clean sheet of paper” design, whereas the point I made earlier, we continued our larger launch vehicle puts the lunar (or, Ares V design makes extensive use of system analysis following the architecture later, Mars) cargo in orbit. After existing elements, or straightforward definition of ESAS, looking for refinements rendezvous and docking, they are off to modifications of existing elements, which to enhance performance and reduce risk their final destination. Once the rationale are also common to Ares I. and cost. We decided for Ares I to make an for this particular dual-launch EOR Next up for consideration are mission early transition to the 5-segment RSRB, scenario is understood, the next question reliability and crew risk. EELVs were not and to eliminate the SSME in favor of the is, logically, “why don’t we use the existing originally designed to carry astronauts, and J-2X on the upper stage. Similarly, EELV fleet for the smaller launch?” I’m various human-rating improvements are elimination of the SSME in favor of an sure you will understand when I tell you required to do so. Significant upgrades to upgraded version of the USAF-developed that I get this question all the time. And the Atlas V core stage are necessary, and RS-68 engine for the Ares V core stage, frankly, it’s a logical question. I started abort from the Delta IV exceeds allowable with the EDS powered by the J-2X, offered with that premise myself, some years back. g-loads. In the end, the probabilistic risk numerous benefits. These changes yielded To cut to the chase, it will work – as long assessment (PRA) derived during ESAS several billion dollars in life-cycle cost
SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 15 savings over our earlier estimates, and and in some cases we don’t even know concepts and hardware as possible, foster the use of a common RS-68 core what those questions will be. That is the including the capsule design of Orion, the engine line for DoD, civil, and commercial nature of engineering development. But we Shuttle RSRBs and External Tank, the users. are going to continue to follow the data in Apollo-era J-2X upper stage engine, and Praise is tough to come by in our decision-making, continue to test our the RS-68 core engine. We’re capitalizing Washington, so I was particularly pleased theories, and continue to make changes if on the nation’s prior investments in space with the comment about our decision on necessary. We have been, I think, technology wherever possible. I am really the 5-segment RSRB and J-2X engine in extraordinarily open about all of this. quite proud of the progress this multi- the recent GAO review: “NASA has taken Following the practice I enunciated in my disciplinary, geographically dispersed, steps toward making sound investment first all-hands on my first day as NASA/industry engineering team has decisions for Ares I.” Just for balance, of Administrator, in connection with the then- made thus far. But even so, the development course, the GAO also provided some other pressing concerns about Shuttle return-to- of new systems remains hard work. It is comments. So, for the record, let me flight, we are resolved to listen carefully not for the faint of heart, or those who are easily distracted. We can do it if, but only if, we retain our sense of purpose. In this regard, I’m reminded of two sobering “My considered assessment of the quotes from the CAIB report. First, “the previous attempts to develop a replacement Constellation Architecture is that while we will vehicle for the aging Shuttle represent a failure of national leadership.” Also, the encounter a number of engineering design Board noted that such leadership can only be successful “if it is sustained over the problems as we move forward, we are not decade; if by the time a decision to develop a new vehicle is made there is a clearer facing any showstoppers.” idea of how the new transportation system fits into the nation’s overall plans for space; and if the U.S. government is willing at acknowledge on behalf of the entire and respectfully to any technical concern the time a development decision is made Constellation team that, yes, we do realize or suggestion which is respectfully to commit the substantial resources that there remain “challenging knowledge expressed, and to evaluate on their merits required to implement it.” gaps”, as the GAO so quaintly phrased it, any new ideas brought to us. We are doing That sort of commitment is what the between system concepts today and that, every day. We will continue to do it. mantle of leadership in space exploration hardware on the pad tomorrow. Really. We So, in conclusion, this is the architecture means, and the engineers working to build do. which I think best meets all of the Constellation know it every day. Thus, I It’s time now for a little perspective. We requirements of law, policy, budget, and can only hope to inspire them, and you, are developing a new system to bring new common sense that constrain us in the post- with the immortal words of that great capabilities to the U.S. space program, Shuttle era. It certainly does not satisfy engineer, Montgomery Scott, of the USS capabilities lost to us since the early 1970s. everyone, not that I believe that goal to be Enterprise: “I’m givin’ ‘er all she’s got, It isn’t going to be easy. Let me pause for achievable. To that point, one of the more Captain.” Thank you. a moment and repeat that. It isn’t going to common criticisms I receive is that it “looks be easy. Did any of you here today think it too much like Apollo”. I’m still struggling was going to be easy? to figure out why, if indeed that is so, it is May I see a show of hands? How many bad. My considered assessment of the Michael D. Griffin is the Administrator of you thought we were going to re-create Constellation Architecture is that while we of the National Aeronautics and Space a capability for the United States to go to will encounter a number of engineering Administration (NASA). Mr. Griffin the Moon, a capability well beyond Apollo, design problems as we move forward, we gave this speech before the Space and do it without any development are not facing any showstoppers. Transportation Association on January problems? Anyone? Constellation is primarily a systems 22, 2008. So, no, we don’t yet have all the answers engineering and integration effort, based to the engineering questions we will face, on the use of as many flight-proven
16 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 MARK YOUR CALENDAR
AAS National Conference and 55th Annual Meeting
Pasadena Hilton Pasadena, California November 17-19, 2008
Membership Type Membership Application Member ...... $85 Affiliate...... $85 703-866-0020 Senior Member...... $100 Retired...... $35 www.astronautical.org Teacher (K-12)...... $35
Student (full-time) ...... $35
○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○
______Payment Method Mr./Ms./Dr. Last Name First Name ❒ Check Enclosed ❒ ______Credit Card Title Company ❒ Visa ❒ Amex ❒ MasterCard
______Address Credit Card Number
______City State Zip Code Expiration Date
______
Phone E-mail Signature ○○○○○○○
○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Mail to: AAS 6352 Rolling Mill Place Membership Benefits Include: Subscriptions to the quarterly The Suite 102 Journal of the Astronautical Sciences and the bi-monthly SPACE Springfield, VA 22152-2354 TIMES magazine, as well as reduced rates at all AAS conferences. Visit the AAS website for additional information about benefits. Fax to: 703-866-3526
SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 17 ANNOUNCEMENT FINAL MANUSCRIPT DEADLINE: August 11, 2008
AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference
Hilton Hawaiian Village Honolulu, Hawaii August 18-21, 2008
The 2008 Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, hosted by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and cosponsored by the American Astronautical Society (AAS), will be held August 18-21, 2008 in Honolulu, Hawaii. The conference is organized by the AIAA Astrodynamics and AAS Space Flight Mechanics Technical Committees. Papers are solicited on topics related to space flight mechanics and astrodynamics, including, but not limited to:
• Artificial and natural space debris • Asteroid and non-Earth orbiting missions • Atmospheric re-entry guidance and control • Attitude dynamics, determination and control • Attitude sensor and payload sensor calibration • Dynamical systems theory applied to space flight problems • Dynamics and control of large space structures and tethers • Earth orbital and planetary mission studies • Expendable and reusable launch vehicle design, dynamics, guidance, and control • Formation flying • History of the US space program • Low thrust mission and trajectory design • Orbital dynamics, perturbations, and stability • Rendezvous, relative motion, and proximity missions • Satellite constellations • Spacecraft guidance, navigation and control (GNC) • Tracking, estimation, orbit determination, and space-surveillance • Trajectories about libration points • Trajectory, mission, and maneuver design and optimization
Papers will be accepted based on the quality of the extended abstract, originality of work and/or ideas, and anticipated interest in the proposed subject. Papers that contain experimental results or current data, or report on ongoing missions, are especially encouraged.
Final manuscripts are required before the conference. The working language for the conference is English.
SPECIAL SESSIONS Proposals are being considered for appropriate special sessions, such as topical panel discussions, invited sessions, workshops, mini-symposia, and technology demonstrations. Prospective special-session organizers should submit their proposals to the Technical Chairs. A proposal for panel discussion should include a session title, a brief description of the discussion topic(s), and a list of the speakers and their qualifications. For an invited session, workshop, mini-symposium, or demonstration, a proposal should include the session title, a brief description, and a list of proposed activities and/or invited speakers and paper titles.
18 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 ANNOUNCEMENT
INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS Authors shall submit their abstracts and papers through the AIAA website at http://www.aiaa.org. Submitting authors are expected to provide:
1. A paper title, as well as the name, affiliation, postal address, telephone number, and email address of the corresponding author. 2. An extended abstract of at least 500 words, and a maximum of two (2) pages with supporting tables and figures, in the Portable Document File (PDF) format. The extended abstract should provide a clear and concise statement of the problem to be addressed, the proposed method of solution, the results expected or obtained, and an explanation as to its significance to others. 3. A condensed abstract (100 words maximum, strictly enforced) to be included in the printed conference program. The condensed abstract shall be directly typed into the text box provided on the web page, and must avoid the use of special symbols or characters, such as Greek letters.
Technology Transfer Warning. Technology transfer guidelines substantially extend the time required to review abstracts and papers by private enterprises and government agencies. These reviews can require four (4) months or more. To preclude late submissions and paper withdrawals, it is the responsibility of the author(s) to determine the extent of necessary approvals prior to submitting an abstract.
No Paper / No Podium Policy. The AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference has a “No Paper, No Podium” and “No Podium, No Paper” policy. If a written paper is not submitted on time you will not be permitted to present the paper at the conference. Also, if the paper is not presented at the conference, the written paper will be withdrawn from the event proceedings. These policies are intended to eliminate no-shows and to improve the quality of the conference for attendees.
IMPORTANT DATES Abstract Deadline: February 4, 2008 Final Manuscript Deadline: August 11, 2008
Questions concerning the submission of papers should be addressed to the technical chairs or AIAA technical support at [email protected].
AIAA Technical Chair AAS Technical Chair Dr. W. Todd Cerven Dr. Michael Gabor The Aerospace Corporation Northrop Grumman Mission Systems 15049 Conference Center Drive, Suite 600, CH1/410 1555 North Newport Road Chantilly, VA 20151-3824 Colorado Springs, CO 80916-2727 703-633-5655 / 703-633-5006 (fax) 719-570-8278 / 719-570-8048 (fax) [email protected] [email protected]
All other questions should be directed to the General Chairs:
AIAA General Chair AAS General Chair Dr. David K. Geller Dr. Aaron Trask Utah State University Potomac Engineering Solutions 4130 Old Main Hill 11654 Plaza America Drive, Suite 634 Logan, Utah 84322 Reston, VA 20190 435-797-2952 / 435-797-2417 (fax) 703-808-0609 [email protected] [email protected]
SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 19 AAS NEWS
Full Registration: includes all sessions, continental breakfasts, refreshment breaks, two luncheons and three receptions. AAS Member...... $360 Non-Member / Renewing Member...... $445 U.S. Government / Academia...... $285 Register now at One-Day Registration...... $220 www.astronautical.org Special Registration: includes all sessions, continental breakfasts, refreshment breaks and three receptions. Student (full-time) / Teacher (K-12)...... $30 Retired (over 65 and not employed full-time)...... $75 Press (with credentials)...... No Charge
20 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 AAS NEWS
46th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium Exploration to Commercialization: Going to Work in Space Greenbelt Marriott Hotel, Greenbelt, Maryland March 4-6, 2008 AGENDA
Tuesday, March 4 - Patricia W. McCarthy, Director of Spaceport Operations, Space Florida 6:00 pm Future Leaders Networking Reception - Neil Milburn, Vice President, Federal Liaison and Program Manager, Armadillo Aerospace Wednesday, March 5 5:00 RECEPTION 7:15 am Corporate Members Breakfast 7:30 Registration Opens / Continental Breakfast Thursday, March 6 8:30 Welcome 7:30 am Registration Opens / Continental Breakfast Frank Slazer, AAS President 8:30 Keynote 8:40 Introduction of Keynote Speaker Alan Stern, Associate Administrator for Science, NASA HQ 9:15 Earth Science from Space Edward Weiler, Director, NASA GSFC Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and 8:45 Keynote Atmosphere (NOAA Administrator) (invited) Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator Mary E. Kicza, NOAA Assistant Administrator, National Environmental 9:30 BREAK Satellite, Data & Information Services 9:45 Perspectives on the 50th Anniversary of NASA’s Founding 9:45 Investing in Technology to Enable Future Science Missions in Roger G. Launius, Chair, Division of Space History, NASM, Space Smithsonian Institution Laurie A. Leshin, Deputy Director for Science and Technology, 10:15 Reflections on Humans Working in Space NASA GSFC William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Space Operations, 10:15 BREAK NASA HQ 10:30 Faces of the Future 10:45 Sustaining a Human Presence in Space Alexis Livanos, Corporate Vice President and President, Northrop Richard J. Gilbrech, Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems, Grumman Space Technology NASA HQ 11:15 Moon Science 11:15 The International Role in Expanding Human Presence in Space David E. Smith, Deputy Director for Planetary Science, Solar System Lon Rains, Editor, Space News Exploration Division, NASA GSFC 11:45 LUNCHEON 11:45 LUNCHEON Rep. Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader, D-MD (invited) Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-MD (invited) 1:15 pm The Unknown History of the Vision for Space Exploration 1:15 pm Summer Jobs: Hubble Servicing Mission (VSE) Frank Cepollina, Manager, Hubble Space Telescope Development Project, NASA GSFC Stephen J. Garber, History Division, NASA HQ 1:45 Space Weather: Survival of People and Robots 1:45 Prizes and Emerging Markets: Encouraging Commercial Space Louis Lanzerotti, Distinguished Research Professor, Center for Capabilities Solar-Terrestrial, New Jersey Institute of Technology Ken Davidian, Commercial Development Policy Lead, NASA HQ 2:15 BREAK 2:15 BREAK 2:30 Mars on the Horizon 2:30 A Ticket to Ride: An Emerging Space Adventure Industry James B. Garvin, Chief Scientist, NASA GSFC Moderator: Clayton Mowry, President, Arianespace, Inc. 3:00 Before Earth and Beyond Mars: Planetary Science Panelists: Jonathan Lunine, Professor, Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, - Bretton Alexander, Executive Director, X PRIZE Foundation The University of Arizona - George Whitesides, Executive Director, National Space Society 3:30 Astrophysics Beyond 2020: The Big Questions - George Nield, Deputy Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Mario Livio, Head, Office of Public Outreach, Space Telescope Transportation, FAA Science Institute - Franceska Schroeder, Principal, Fish & Richardson, P.C. 4:00 NASA at 50: Oh, Say Can You See? 3:30 Spaceports and Commercial Space Launches Wesley T. Huntress, Director, Geophysical Laboratory, Moderator: John Campbell, Director, Wallops Flight Facility and Carnegie Institution of Washington Suborbital and Special Orbital Projects Directorate, NASA GSFC 4:30 Closing Remarks Panelists: Frank Slazer, AAS President - Billie Reed, Executive Director, Virginia Commercial Space Flight 5:00 Reception - Celebrating NASA’s 50th Authority Special Guest: Alan Stern, Associate Administrator for Science, - Stuart Witt, General Manager, Mojave Air and Space Port (invited) NASA HQ
SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 21 NOTES ON NEW BOOKS
In the Shadow of the Moon: A Challenging Journey to Tranquility, 1965-1969
Reviewed by James M. Busby
In the Shadow of the Moon: A Challenging Could we have maintained cool heads like instead focus on how they bonded to Journey to Tranquility, 1965-1969, Neil Armstrong and Dave Scott if we were complete their complex task. It is told not Francis French and Colin Burgess, spinning out of control aboard Gemini 8? only in their words, but in the words of the University of Nebraska Press, 2007, 448 Could we have cut Gene Cernan adrift if other close members of the Mission control pages, ISBN 0803211287 [hardcover]. he had died during the Gemini 9 space team who trained beside them. Outward Odyssey Series: A People’s walk? In The Shadow of the Moon finds these History of Spaceflight Volume 2. The book also goes into the lives of those brave people near the end of their lives. who almost made it, like the original crew That is what makes these books so In the fifty years since the space age of Gemini 9 and the astronauts who important. Most books or autobiographies began, many writers have tackled the perished in the tragic Apollo 1 fire. It also have arrived during or soon after stories of early space explorers. Most of covers the loss of Soyuz 1 with Cosmonaut astronauts’ space careers. Here, these these books concocted histories larger than Vladimir Komarov. The authors reveal explorers’ lives are examined from the real life. By the mid-1970s, writer Tom many failures that occurred on Soyuz beginning and conclude with descriptions Wolfe’s The Right Stuff finally blew some before Komarov’s flight, and how close of how they fared once back on Earth. This of the stardust off these lives, letting us other Russian cosmonauts came to death. series will be read by future generations meet the people beneath the spacesuits. The writers have gone beyond old soviet when they want the complete perspectives In the late 1990’s, two respected space propaganda to tell the untold stories of of the original generation of space enthusiasts and educators from opposite heroic cosmonauts through new and recent explorers. sides of the world decided to follow that interviews. course with a more comprehensive This volume captures the anxiety and overview. Francis French (now of the San haste shown by both nations at the height Diego Aerospace Museum) and Colin of the space race, illuminating the United Burgess (an accomplished writer who States’ risky decision to launch the first formerly worked for Qantas Airlines) lunar mission after only one manned test began pulling together friends and flight. Apollo 8’s crew was launched resources to tell the personal histories of because of fears that a Soviet manned lunar the men and women who first stepped off flight was preparing for take off. On our planet. They felt that the end of the Cold Apollo’s return from the Moon, the War marked the time for a proper astronauts were almost lost in space as they accounting of the lives of early space suffered a major navigational failure. The explorers, before they were gone. Soyuz 4 and 5 docking mission was In The Shadow of the Moon begins in launched only weeks later in the middle of 1965 with the first mission of Project a snow storm. Soyuz 5 was almost Gemini, the start of the busiest period of destroyed on its return as its service module manned Space travel to date. The writers re-entered backwards. It nearly burned up describe the lives of astronauts who faced before crashing to Earth. Cosmonaut deadly challenges every time Gemini, Volynov survived with a smashed jaw and Soyuz or Apollo flew. Many of us who broken teeth, but he would fly again. grew up in those days wondered how we The book concludes with a very different would have handled emergencies in space. look at the crew of Apollo 11, the first men James M. Busby is Director of the What would we have done if we were on to land on the Moon. Most readers know Aerospace Legacy Foundation in the malfunctioning Titan II like Schirra and that this was a more divergent crew than Downey, California. Stafford? Would we have stayed or ejected? any other Apollo lunar team. The authors
22 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 UPCOMING EVENTS
AAS EVENTS SCHEDULE AAS CORPORATE MEMBERS
March 4-6, 2008 The Aerospace Corporation 46th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium Air Force Institute of Technology Exploration to Commercialization: a.i. solutions, inc. Going to Work in Space Greenbelt Marriott Analytical Graphics, Inc. Greenbelt, Maryland Applied Defense Solutions, Inc. For information: Applied Physics Laboratory / JHU For information: www.astronautical.org Arianespace March 27, 2008 Auburn University International Polar Year: Understanding the Poles Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. of the Earth, Moon and Mars The Boeing Company Marie Curie Auditorium Braxton Technologies, Inc. Paris, France Carnegie Institution of Washington For information: www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb Computer Sciences Corporation Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University April 7-11, 2008 General Dynamics AIS Short Course: Humans in Space – George Mason University, CAPR Challenges for Exploration University of Tennessee Space Institute Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc. Tullahoma, Tennessee International Space University For information: Jacobs Technology, Inc. www.utsi.edu/ContEd/courses.htm Jet Propulsion Laboratory KinetX, Inc. June 13-15, 2008 *Student CanSat Competition Lockheed Martin Corporation Amarillo, Texas N. Hahn & Co., Inc. For information: www.cansatcompetition.com Noblis Northrop Grumman Space Technology June 29-July 1, 2008 *F. Landis Markley Astronautics Symposium Orbital Sciences Corporation The Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay Raytheon Cambridge, Maryland SAIC For information: [email protected] The Tauri Group August 18-21, 2008 Technica, Inc. *AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference Texas A&M University Hilton Hawaiian Village United Launch Alliance Honolulu, Hawaii Univelt, Inc. For information: www.aiaa.org Universal Space Network November 17-19.2008 University of Florida AAS National Conference and 55th Annual Meeting Utah State University / Space Dynamics Lab. Pasadena Hilton Virginia Tech Pasadena, California Women in Aerospace For information: www.astronautical.org Wyle Laboratories
*AAS Cosponsored Meetings
SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008 23 Non Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Permit #565 Springfield, VA
6352 Rolling Mill Place Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22152-2354
Address Service Requested
24 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2008