ISS-Alpha

I had a thought recently concerning public engagement with NASA's human spaceflight program. I was puzzling how the Hubble telescope, and the Mars rovers could get such good exposure with the public, and yet the ISS and Space Shuttle, let alone the astronauts themselves are barely acknowledged. I had also been reading a number of articles which described NASA's PR problem as essentially not being able to tell a good story. (We'll assume for the moment that they actually have a compelling story to tell.)

Then it slowly dawned on me. To understand the public's engagement with certain aspects of the space program, just look at how they refer to Hubble, Spirit, and Opportunity. This as opposed to The International Space Station, or the Space Shuttle Atlantis. Or even, The Crew of Expedition 20 to the ISS. Do you see the difference?

The Hubble Space Telescope, and the Mars Exploration Rovers have been successfully anthropomorphized. They have been transformed from mere pieces of hardware into entities unto themselves. We care about whether Hubble is revived and rejuvenated or left to burn up in the atmosphere. We've started rooting for those plucky little probes that just keep on going and going, exploring the places that we fancy ourselves going someday. People tend to imagine that these probes have grit and determination, even if they realize deep down that they are just remotely controlled devices.

And it really is not that hard to do. I believe that humans are at least partially hard-wired to attribute familiar qualities to inanimate objects or even natural physical processes. Consider how the ancient Greeks anthropomorphized the Sun, Moon and planets, as well as wind, rain, seasons, etc. All of these were given the guise of deities, each with their own motivations desires, and emotions. It is this ability to project human qualities onto these inanimate objects that allow us to empathize with them. This empathy moves us to interact more fully with the object. This allows us to better understand it and possibly respond more effectively when its behavior suddenly changes.

What conclusions can we draw from this? Well, apparently it's not enough for a mission to be nominal, and its science output to be outstanding. To be truly successful in capturing the imagination of the public, there has to be some part of the mission which people can identify with. Whether it be an probe, a spaceship, an astronaut, or even the science itself, when the story is told there needs to be something that people can empathize or identify with.

Now, let's see if I can remember my creative writing lessons correctly: To tell a compelling story, you need to have a sympathetic character, the hero, who must obtain something of great value (either in general or personally). Then, there is the journey, wherein there are obstacles to be overcome and problems to be solved along the way. Then, there's the climax where the goal is within reach. And finally, the resolution; where the hero either gets what he is after and/or realizes something more profound after having made the journey.

Nearly all of our spaceflight endeavors have all of the elements of a good story. Unfortunately, we have not had very many good story tellers. Just off the top of my head, the ISS is an excellent story waiting to be told. It's more than just a place. The ISS is the realization of an epic quest to establish a foothold among the stars. It's very existence is a testament to the imagination, ingenuity and dedication of humanity. That what it wants more than anything is to be allowed to fulfill its potential as a research station, and a way point to the stars for humanity. It is a port of call (come on people, think Babylon 5).

ISS-alpha has been on a journey from concept to reality for thirty years. Her birth was tricky, and she has grown quickly throughout these first twelve years of life. Now, she is nearly fully grown and ready to start a useful and productive life. But wait, there is still trouble ahead. There are those who would see her fail, even now. Those who would starve her of the resources she needs to stay aloft and to care for her human crew. Those who do not recognize her true potential to do great things for humanity.

Will ISS-Alpha be allowed to continue on her quest? Will she be allowed to continue caring for her human crew? Or will the short-sighted bureaucrats deny her the opportunity to prove her worth? Will she be destroyed in a flaming death when she can no longer keep herself aloft? What lessons have we learned from ISS-Alpha while following her on her journey? What more is there that she can tell us by allowing her to continue?

People are not always rational. They make decisions based on what they feel is the right thing to do in any given circumstance. I've heard several times that we could have built and launched an improved version of Hubble for less money than we've spent in the various missions required to upgrade and repair it. Meh.. Maybe, maybe not. But if we were to do that, then they would be just another bunch of satellites, like a Chandra or Spitzer. They will continue to produce great science through out their useful service lives, but when they eventually fail, they will have no chance of redemption.

If we really want to reach out to people beyond our narrow circles of fellow space enthusiasts, we have to learn how to tell a compelling story about all of the great (and not-so-great) things that are happening. We have to tell the story in such a way that people actually start caring about what happens next. They need to be engaged to the point where they can't help themselves but to imagine what it must be like. If we tell the story right, then our audience should be able to come to their own conclusions and actually form their own opinions as to what they think we should be doing in space. Whether these opinions are good or bad, they will at least have them and will be prepared to make an issue out of it if it happens to come up in conversation in the future. This is the kind of engagement we need to get from the general public.

So, I will be rethinking how I relate to ongoing and future space missions. I want to engage them on a more personal level, but more importantly, I want others, who don't normally think about these things, to be inspired, or outraged, or something.. anything.. except apathetic. Because I've been apathetic. Not about space, but about enough other things to know that there is nothing more frustrating than feeling like there is nothing you can do that will make a difference, especially when we really need to start making a difference.

Thoughts on NASA and the near future of space exploration

I posted the following reply in the NASA discussion group on LinkedIn. The original post was soliciting thoughts on the changes in priorities for NASA in response to the president's budget request.

The Constellation program was canceled because this administration was unwilling to continue investing many billions of dollars a year to develop a whole new launch capability that would not be ready for 7 to 10 years. For this investment, we would get two new rockets that would never have a very high flight rate, and thus would be extremely expensive to operate. That high cost of development was literally starving many innovative science and engineering efforts currently underway, or planned for the near future. The high cost of operations would mean that this situation would continue into the indefinite future. This was a bargain that this administration was no longer willing to make... not when there appeared to be a viable alternative.

This alternative has just as much of a chance of success as the Constellation program, but also requires much less investment and has the potential to offer much greater capacity and redundancy to the US spaceflight capability. NASA is getting a net increase in budget, and the freedom to spend it on actual innovative research and development projects. Some of this research will vastly improve our ability to carry out long duration spaceflight missions, while other research would dramatically improve our understanding of the Earth, and our environment.

As for science on the ISS: The president's budget actually extends the life of the station until at least 2020 - further improving the chances of doing useful science on the station. The SpaceX Dragon capsule is being designed to provide a significant amount of down mass capability for the ISS. Although the Cygnus transport will not initially be able to support this capability, Orbital has made some encouraging remarks regarding their plans to upgrade the Cygnus craft to have reentry capabilities. The ESA has also made similar comments about their ATV modules.

I agree that our backs are up against the wall with regards to the ability of the US to independently access space. But perhaps this sense of urgency will prompt more commercial providers to finally step up to the plate and start investing their own resources in developing this domestic capability - with an appropriate amount of assistance and investment from NASA. However, at the same time, NASA has to back off a little bit and let them develop these systems to the best of their abilities.

No one is suggesting that we immediately start putting astronauts on these new vehicles. (Not like they did for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle, and what they were planning on doing for Orion.) From what I've heard, each new entrant and each new system will have to be proven out over a number of unmanned test flights and/or cargo flights before NASA will consider using them for human transport. This seems both fair and prudent.

Will it be dangerous? Yes. Will their be risk? Yes, of course. There always has been and their always will be. However, if it's an endeavor worth pursuing, then you do you best to mitigate the risk and to plan for all of the contingencies that you can imagine. In the end, though, you have to accept the whatever risks remain and just fly the vehicles that you have.

There will be failures, but we will learn from them. There will be deaths, but not by anyone who wasn't fully aware of the risks. They will choose to go, and when they fall, there will still be others lined up waiting to go. For them, it will be the chance to pursue a dream, and the opportunity to push back the boundaries of science and exploration. If you build it, they will most certainly come.

Dragon as the new CRV?

In my previous post (A more gentle transition) I tossed out an idea that perhaps a Dragon capsule, launched to the station in support of ISS logistics, could be modified to serve as a crew lifeboat while it is docked to the station. I was quite surprised, then, to stumble across this post (The new X-38/CRV: SpaceX's Dragon?) by Rob Coppinger yesterday, which references this article (Race to the International Space Station begins in earnest) by John Croft over at Flight Global.

I had no idea if such a thing was possible; only that it would make sense to try and use the Dragon for ISS crew-return if dealing with the Russians proved to be problematic in the future. Using the Dragon this way would also remove one of the frequently cited reasons why the Shuttle should not be used to service the ISS beyond 2010; namely that it could not remain docked to the ISS for extended periods of time, and thus could not be used as an ISS lifeboat. But if this story is correct, then there are already studies underway to validate this concept.

The primary difference between this report and my hypothetical scenario is that they appear to be studying the prospect of delivering the Dragon capsule in the payload bay of the Space Shuttle. I guess I assumed that the Falcon 9 would have successfully flown by the time this would be needed. I cannot think of any other reason why they would rather use the Shuttle. If Falcon 9 has been successfully flown by 2010, then it would certainly be cheaper to launch the capsule to the station using a Falcon 9; not to mention the fact that the Dragon is designed to be launched by a Falcon 9.

My other assumption regarding how it might be easy to temporarily convert a cargo Dragon into a CRV while it is docked to the station, may have also been a little too optimistic. There are probably alot of sub-systems that would be present in a crewed Dragon (even a minimal reentry version), that would probably not be found on an unmanned cargo Dragon. If absolutely necessary, a crew could probably ride down like cargo; however, they would most likely want a more robust life-support capacity and manual flight controls available in an actual CRV Dragon.

I have just one more idea, that I'd like to throw out there. I've been thinking for some time now that NASA should get a Sundancer class module from Bigelow and launch it into an orbit near the Hubble space telescope. That way, if anything goes wrong with the STS-125 mission, they would at least have the opportunity to use the module as a safe haven until a rescue mission can be mounted.

Now, there may be another way to add crew rescue capability to STS-125. If they are actually studying the feasibility of launching the Dragon on the Shuttle, then perhaps it would be possible to tuck one away in the back of the payload bay for the Hubble repair mission. Would there be room? Would the Dragon be ready in time? My guess is: probably not, but it's an interesting idea none-the-less.

A more gentle transition

There has been much gnashing of teeth concerning the imminent, and all but inevitable, gap in American manned spaceflight capability after the Shuttles are mothballed in 2010. I've been thinking about this problem, off and on, for some time now. Given the current state of NASA and the commercial space transportation industry, there are really only a couple of realistic options for dealing with "the Gap".

The first option is for NASA to continue flying the shuttle a couple of times a year beyond 2010 until a suitable replacement is available. I have never really had a problem with flying the Shuttle past 2010. It will be just as dangerous to fly it then as it is now (and yes, I would jump at the chance to fly in it if it were offered to me). Many have dismissed the possibility of extending the Shuttle service on the grounds that: a) it's too expensive and would consume resources that NASA would rather be devoting to Ares I/Orion, and b) it wouldn't solve the underlying problem of how to get our own astronauts to and from the space station without having to rely on the Soyuz capsules as lifeboats.

In my own opinion, I think that using the Shuttle strictly for crew-rotation and logistics deliveries is a terrible waste of the Shuttle's unique capabilities. Instead, I'd like to see NASA take advantage of these extra flight opportunities to continue expanding the ISS beyond the minimal 'US core complete' configuration. Many additional modules have been, or are nearly, completed. The Shuttle was conceived, designed and built to support the construction of a Space Station. So long as the Shuttle is still active, it should be doing what it does best.

Another possibility for reducing 'the Gap' is for NASA to provide additional resources to companies like SpaceX to assist with the rapid development of launch vehicles suitable for manned spaceflight. For a very small fraction of the resources currently being poured into the Ares/Orion development, SpaceX could potentially have the Falcon 9 rocket and the Dragon capsule ready two to three years before the first Orion capsules would be available.

There may other options which have some chance of mitigating the consequences of retiring the Shuttle before its successor comes online, but for now, I'd like to explore a third option that lies somewhere in between the two options mentioned above.

Let's assume that SpaceX will be able to demonstrate reliable cargo delivery to the station and safe return to the Earth with the Dragon capsule by the end of 2010 or early 2011. At that point, the main thing preventing crew rotation using the Dragon is the development and demonstration of safe and reliable crew launch on the Falcon 9. Elon Musk has stated that SpaceX could have crewed Dragon ready within three years if they were to be funded under the COTS-D program (perhaps a couple more years if no COTS-D funding were provided). That's most likely an optimistic estimate, but even still, that means no crew launch capability until at least the 2012-2013 time frame.

Let's imagine then that NASA is persuaded by Congress to continue flying the space shuttle to the station twice a year until a suitable replacement vehicle is ready. By that time the Dragon will likely have demonstrated the ability to stay on orbit at the station for months at a time and then execute a safe and controlled reentry. With probably very few modifications, it should be possible to convert the Dragon capsule into a crew life boat once it has delivered its cargo to the station. That's a lifeboat that can seat seven (i.e. the entire ISS crew complement with room to spare).

So long as no problems arise, the crews can be rotated in and out on the shuttle. The Dragon could continue to be used to de-orbit important cargo, but in the event of a emergency situation, it could also be used to return all or just part of the crew. Assuming the Russians still have at least one Soyuz docked to the station, the redundant life-boat capability would mean that the station would not necessarily have to be abandoned if only one or two of the crew needed to be immediately returned to Earth.

So, rather than saying either Dragon or the Shuttle, why not say both. We can make the most out of the Shuttles' extension to really finish building out the ISS. At the same time, the Dragon can be fulfilling a useful role as a lifeboat for the expanded crew without having to rely on the availability of additional Soyuz capsules. When the Falcon 9 / Dragon capsule has been qualified for manned launches, then crew rotations can be transitioned from the Shuttle to the Dragon, and the Shuttles can finally be retired for good.