Notes from ISDC 2011

ISDC 2011

The National Space Society hosted the 2011 International Space Development Conference in Huntsville, AL from May 18-22. Since it was so close, I decided I couldn't pass up the opportunity to hang out and network a bunch of fellow space professionals and enthusiasts. I had only attended one other ISDC prior to this one, in 2007. That conference was pretty good, but most of my memories of it are of sitting in Dallas traffic going to or coming from the conference venue. Fortunately, traffic was not an issue this time and I got to spend much more time attending the conference itself.

Relatively speaking, however, I don't think I enjoyed the 2011 ISDC quite as much as the 2007 ISDC. I found myself watching speakers and panels drone on and on about space policy and politics, with the occasional historical perspective on NASA and the space industry. After a couple of days of this, I found myself to be underwhelmed and mostly bored with the presentations in the main conference tracks.

Well, as it turns out, they were keeping most of the best speakers and presentations sequestered in the lunch and dinner talks - each of which required a $30 or $50 meal ticket to attend. Since I was attending the conference on my own dime, and since I have spent much of my adult life so far as a poor grad student, I couldn't bring myself to shell out an extra $200-$300 on top of what I had already committed to travel, hotel, and registration. Fortunately, the NSS has started to post these talks online. The Moon and Back blog has also been posting presentations and interviews from the conference.

Some Observations

The theme of the conference this year was "From the Ground Up." Supposedly, this was to be a conference about what it takes to get us from here to there - there being a significant amount of human activity in outer-space. What that amounts to, apparently, is much haggling and debate about our national space policy, FAA regulations, NASA's human spaceflight budget and Congressional mandates to build a super-heavy-lift launch vehicle.

As an engineer and a scientists, I went into the ISDC hoping that I would hear some discussions about the technological and engineering challenges that need to be addressed before humanity can begin to leave Earth in large numbers and for long durations. However, as the conference wore on, I began to see that the technology is no longer the long pole in the tent. Engineering problems have engineering solutions, and with proper resources allocated, an engineering solution can be found to all of the problems currently facing extended human spaceflight. What we are lacking are those resources, and a coherent strategy to guide the development of the required technologies and infrastructure.

Despite my overall disappointment with the conference, there were a few high points as well. There was an excellent presentation by Michael Doornbos of Evadot. I think I will have to dedicate an entire blog post to that one. Then there was also the Google Lunar X-Prize panel, also moderated by Michael. And then I got to meet with a couple of fellow Part-Time Scientists team mates. We worked together to hack one of our R0 rover prototypes into working order in time to demonstrate it during and after the GLXP panel session.

Michael has a passion for space and a wonderful ability to pass it on to just about anyone he meets. His talk was on "How to inspire kids by thinking big in space." His concern is that we are not doing the kinds of things we need to be doing in order to give our children something larger to aspire to. Long gone are the days when everyone knew the names of the astronauts and felt intimately connected to their missions.

ISDC 2007 - Day One

Well, I figure I should report my impressions of day one at the International Space Development Conference before I read any one else's , and while it's still somewhat fresh in my mind.

First of all, I have a little gripe. The traffic in and around Dallas is a nightmare. I don't know how it stacks up against other major metropolitan areas, but I've been stuck in Dallas traffic for a total of five hours now, and I've only been here two days. From what I'm beginning to learn from some locals is that the conference location at the Hotel Intercontinental could not be in a worse location as far as commuting goes. Hopefully the weekend traffic will be more merciful, although I'm skeptical since it is Memorial Day weekend.

I did get to see Shannon Lucid and Don Pettit give their presentation in the morning. During and after the lunch break I spent some time talking with folks in the halls and at the displays. This is the first ISDC I have attended, and really my first space related conference. So, it was fun talking to other people who are as passionate about space as I am.

The presentation by Drs. Lucid and Pettit was mostly about the mindset of living and working on the frontier. As both of them have been on long duration missions (six months on Mir for Dr. Lucid, and six months on ISS for Dr. Pettit), they have a unique perspective on life on the new frontier. Dr. Pettit has also recently taken part in a trek across Antarctica looking for meteorites; a journey which he paralleled with his stay on the ISS.

The pair discussed many different aspects of frontier life, but the one I was most interested in was the science of opportunity discussed by Dr. Pettit. He described the ISS and Antarctica as non-intuitive environments: places where everyday can bring new and unexpected experiences. In these environments, discoveries are just waiting to be made.

I wish he would have spent more time talking about those moments of discovery. In my opinion, this is one of the most important reasons why we are sending people into space. Most of the low-hanging fruit, in terms of scientific discovery, have been picked. To make new discoveries, someone has to study new phenomena, or possibly even well known phenomena in new environments. On Earth, this requires spending increasing large amounts to create these new environments in particle accelerators. However, their are many things about the universe that we take for granted just simply because we experience them every day. These things become part of our intuition and typically get pushed to the back of minds. By experiencing the non-intuitive environments, as Dr. Pettit describes, "...we can become children again, and experience the world with a child's curiosity". (quote paraphrased)

After lunch, I got to spend some time talking with James Bauer of Armadillo Aerospace. It is truly amazing what this small group has been able to accomplish. I can't help but think of Steve Wozniack hacking together the first Apple computers in his garage and the effect that effort had on the world of computing. I think that John Carmack and his team are poised to do the same thing for the world of rocketry.

Yes, Pixel was on display, and I got to tell you that this is an impressive machine. It's impressive mostly because it looks so simple. I've been to several Air & Space museums and have seen some of the rocket engines developed by and for NASA. Those things are a maze of wires and tubes and components. I think you really have to know what you are looking at to truly appreciate their design. However, Pixel is the very model of simplicity. I'm not trying to trivialize their work. I think the simplicity of their design is brilliant. Less parts means less things that could fail, which means (or could mean) greater reliability. It also means that they are cheaper and easier to build than your typical rocket engine; a feature the they intend to capitalize on as they move towards building their modular rocket design.

I also had the opportunity to talk with Tom Ligon of Energy Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC²). I've got to say that the system he is describing seems almost too good to be true. He claims that the power output of the fusor reactor scales with the seventh power of reactor radius. I asked him if there were any upper limits to this scaling. He replied that Dr. Bussard has thus far only considered reactor designs up to 6 meters in diameter. That is an enormous amount of energy. We're talking about 6 GW out of a roughly 6 meter diameter reactor (if I'm remembering correctly), and the output goes straight to DC; no more heat water turn turbine.

When someone makes that kind of prediction and only has preliminary experimental data to back it up, I can understand why it would meet with some skepticism. Still, if they are successful, this technology could literally change the world. Given that potential, I don't see why they would have any difficulty raising a couple of hundred million dollars they need to definitively establish its viability. But that's just it. I get the sense that the effort is strapped for cash. I have seen bigger grants awarded to academic institutions to conduct basic research. So, I can't help but think that there may be other factors at work behind the scenes.

Anyway, that's all for now. I try to post more in the next couple of days as I have time.