Stuck in the Cave

For Earth Day of this year Bill Maher ran a piece on his HBO show entitled “New Rule: Make Earth Great Again.” When I finally saw the bit in June, I was writing a piece on the Saturn V, so I saved this critique until now. Essentially, Maher believes we should squash the idea of colonizing Mars because it gives us free rein to destroy Earth. Money used to conduct Mars landing missions and colonization were also targeted by Maher because the money could be spent repairing or improving Earth. Maher also stated that evolution had shaped humanity to thrive only on Earth, and he made clear his opposition to being a part of a multi-planetary species.

I know, that is a lot to absorb. Stated within The Space Endeavor's mission statement is the advocation of space colonization. And, as you can imagine, I have several issues with his line of thought. My goal here is take his key points, outlined in the first paragraph, and offer a strong rebuttal. 

Oh, and Buzz Aldrin is my spirit animal for this article.

Maybe you should ask Buzz about Mars, Bill. 

First, it should be stated that Mars is not a back-up planet for humanity, and destroying Earth is not a good idea. However, being a good custodian of Earth and hoping to colonize Mars are not mutually exclusive ideas. We can take care of Earth and have a permanent human presence on the fourth planet. Money is an often-cited excuse to oppose robust space exploration, but that argument falls short too. America is the wealthiest country in the world, which makes the U.S. more than capable of funding grand adventures in space. Other nations can spend more on space, but, like America, there is a terrible misalignment of spending and taxing priorities. So, on Maher’s two largest points, Earth being first and money, his argument appears to be very weak.

Another argument Maher made is just downright silly. Claiming that evolution had shaped humanity to only thrive on Earth has a major fundamental flaw—evolution has also shaped us to possess enough cognitive abilities to develop the needed tools and machinery to venture into space. Therefore, why should we restrain ourselves to only one planet if the technology can be created to explore new ones? Humanity can explore space, and we should not squander that gift.

Finally, Maher said he does not believe we should become a multi-planet species, which a perfectly valid opinion to have—but I must disagree. Humanity cannot chain itself to only living on Earth forever because it goes against our very nature to push boundaries and explore. Not to mention the possibility that a threat to human existence could come from space, such as an asteroid. If we choose to pull back on exploring deep space, our chances of averting that disaster diminish. Continuing to be a one planet species will likely sign a premature death certificate for human civilization as we know it.

My reaction to Maher's little rant. (GIF Credit: giphy.com)

I understand that the segment was designed to be funny, and Maher has a point about not destroying Earth, obviously. My problem was the strong implication that humanity should stay grounded on Earth simply because it is our original home. Bill Maher’s thoughts on Mars colonization and exploration appeal to the lowest, simplest, naivest, and darkest aspects of humanity. This type of appeal has often been used throughout history to exploit people through populist movements.

Constantly gravitating towards the simplest answer in space policy, or public policy in general, usually leads to less than favorable results. We can take care of Earth and colonize Mars at the same time. I never said it would be easy, but that is what makes each challenge a worthy endeavor. Civilization can do amazing things assuming we have the courage to repel the cynics and the doubters. Hence, the real thrust behind my critique—attacks directed towards exploration and advancement will ultimately leave humanity stuck in the cave. 

Can't wait until we explore this beautiful world. (Photo Credit: NASA)

Here's a link to Bill Maher's thoughts on Mars, but be ready for some deep bull sh-t. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrGFEW2Hb2g

If you desire more space related content, which I know you do, check out The Space Endeavor's Facebook page!!

The Mighty Saturn V

This month Lego released their version of the Saturn V rocket that carried humanity to the Moon, and those kits quickly became backordered. Thankfully, I was able to get my hands on one before they became scarce (otherwise I would not have been a very happy man). Building the kit, pictured below, motivated me to do a quick write up on the basics of the Saturn V for all of you.

Lego's version of the Saturn V (Image Credit: Lego)

Wernher von Braun, the Saturn V’s architect, created the vehicle to meet the needs of the lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) technique employed by NASA for the Apollo program. To complete a mission using LOR, a new rocket would have to be designed to far exceed the capabilities of von Braun’s previous Saturn rockets, which were much smaller except for later Nova rocket concepts. At one point, NASA officials considered launching several smaller Saturn boosters to assemble a lunar landing spacecraft. Direct ascent lunar mission options were also considered early in NASA's time, but that proposal had many difficulties. These proposals were ultimately disregarded in favor of the LOR approach, which led to the creation of the Saturn V program in January 1962.

Launching for the first time in November 1967 with the mission of Apollo 4, the rocket famously shook Walter Cronkite’s temporary studio so much ceiling tiles fell (video link at the end). All crewed Apollo missions, minus Apollo 7, launched on the massive rocket. Thus allowing the Saturn V to be etched in history.  Sadly, the Saturn V’s final launch was the Skylab 1 mission in 1973—ending years of successful launches.

Apollo 4 launch in November 1967. (Photo Credit: NASA)

The Saturn V currently holds the title of most powerful rocket ever flown, and it remains the only rocket to carry human beings beyond low Earth orbit. Composed of three stages and the Apollo spacecraft hardware, the massive machine stood 363 feet tall. For reference, the Statue of Liberty stands at 305 feet.

During a launch, the first stage, the S-IC, produced 7.5 million pounds of thrust using five F-1 engines. That stage lasted until 2 minutes and 42 seconds after launch when explosive bolts fire and the stage falls into the Atlantic Ocean. Shortly after first stage shutdown, the second stage, the S-II, fires five J-2 rocket engines to push the payload closer to low Earth orbit. A bit after nine minutes the second stage separates, and the third stage, the S-IVB, ignites to make the final push into orbit. The S-IVB fires for over two minutes (2 minutes and 30 seconds) and puts the spacecraft(s) into a parking orbit. At this point the crew would check out the spacecraft before committing to a trans-lunar injection—the S-IVB engine burn maneuver that takes the crew towards the Moon. Once the trans-lunar injection burn is complete, the command/service module separates from the third stage to dock and extract the lunar module. With a job well done, the S-IVB heads into space or is directed to crash into the Moon.

Whenher von Braun standing next to Saturn V first stage engines. (Photo Credit: NASA)

If launching a rocket that weighed over 6 million pounds at liftoff and separating stages to ensure a lunar voyage sounds damn difficult, you are correct. Considering that 1960s technology was employed to make this happen, the task seems even greater given the end of the decade deadline set by President Kennedy. The Saturn V was not only a showcase in our engineering and technology at the time, but a testament to the ability of people to create complex machines to enable our pursuits. I would give anything to have seen more Saturn V rockets built for additional lunar missions. My imagination runs wild with what upgrades could have been made to the Saturn V for voyages to Venus or Mars. Having said that, we can hope the Space Launch System now being built by NASA will continue the legacy of the mighty Saturn V in our lifetimes.

AND as promised, the Walter Cronkite Apollo 4 liftoff video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoVfZpx5dY

As always catch more space content by liking our Facebook Page, and feel free to comment your thoughts or memories of the Saturn V!!

Sources Used:

Apollo 8: The NASA Mission Reports by Robert Godwin

https://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html

https://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/Saturn_V.pdf

Keeping Up with Human Spaceflight News

Staying informed about news in general has been quite the task lately, and human spaceflight news is no different. Over the past few months two large and important stories jumped out of NASA circles. First, as mentioned in a previous blog post, the Trump administration asked NASA to evaluate placing a crew on the first flight of the Space Launch System (SLS). Earlier this month, that plan was formally ruled out by NASA officials. Second, a relatively detailed definition for a lunar orbiting space station came out of NASA. Although the lunar space station story is from March, it has taken me this long to get a grip on my feelings and thoughts—albeit a loose one. Before I rush to my opinions, let’s cover some background information for both stories.

Before the Trump administration requested NASA to study placing a crew on the first flight of the SLS, the schedule called for Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) to fly the Orion spacecraft around the Moon without a crew. A second Exploration Mission (EM-2) would fly astronauts around the Moon around 2021 (hopefully). This strategy of an uncrewed EM-1 mission followed by a crewed EM-2 mission still won the approval of NASA managers, thus rejecting the idea proposed by the administration. A crewed EM-1 mission would have increased costs, delayed the launch date, and would have been much riskier. These factors ultimately led NASA to stick with the current crew and mission arrangement.

  

Artist Concept of  SLS Block 1A During Launch (Credit: NASA)

While NASA was tinkering with the idea of adding a crew to the EM-1 mission, details emerged on the agency’s planned lunar orbit (cis-lunar orbit) space station. Construction will begin in the early 2020s with a launch of the SLS carrying the new station’s Power and Propulsion Bus (PPB). Other modules, structures concerned with habitation, will be added to the PPB in later missions. A Russian airlock module will also be added for easier station based spacewalking. Maximizing consumable usage and minimizing waste will be critical design goals for the station, which will prove to be no easy task. Each crewed shift on the lunar outpost will feature a dedicated supply vehicle—NASA still must determine whether the supply ship will be provided by a public or private organization. Although, I would place my bets on a private company providing the supply vehicle.

Overall, the lunar station will provide a platform for dress rehearsal Mars missions and a hub for returning robotic and crewed spacecraft from lunar surface operations. Design flexibilities will also allow Russian and possibly Chinese spacecraft to use the station.

NASA Lunar Space Station Concept (Credit: Popular Mechanics)

Now my opinions.

Leaving the EM-1 mission uncrewed appears to be the best option. Placing a crew on this mission would suffer from serious drawbacks (increased cost, delayed launch, and higher risk). Even with an uptick in funding, the increased risk associated with adding a crew serves no valid purpose without a clear goal in mind. Apollo 8’s trip around the Moon was risky as well, but the risk was taken to increase the likelihood of meeting President Kennedy’s goal. Developing complex hardware like the Orion spacecraft and SLS should be taken in a step-by-step fashion to decrease risk and increase the chances of success towards the end goal. This process can be hastened with adequate funding and human resources, but that is not the case with the American space program right now.

Mixed emotions do not begin to describe my feelings towards the lunar space station concept. Frankly, I am an advocate of virtually any human space exploration that extends beyond low Earth orbit. However, I feel using the lunar station as a means for Mars mission testing or getting to the Red Planet expends more resources and time than a direct path. I would advocate for a path similar to the one outlined in Robert Zubrin’s A Case for Mars. Building and testing habitation, propulsion, and Mars landing hardware in the lunar environment before traveling to Mars could be more efficient. For example, NASA could build and test the Mars mission hardware by long duration Moon landing missions. Eventually, this could lead to an Apollo 10 style dress rehearsal for a Mars landing once NASA officials felt necessary objectives were met.

Another issue I have with the proposed lunar station revolves around Russian involvement. It is no secret tensions between the United States and Russia have been high for many years now, and this tension could derail future joint endeavors. U.S. and Russian officials continue to cooperate on the International Space Station because the project is already completed. I would advise NASA to work with the Europeans, Canadians, and Japanese on future projects to avoid potential issues with Russia stemming from international politics.  

I would love to hear your thoughts on either issue!! And, as always, check out The Space Endeavor’s Facebook page for more space related content!

Sources used:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a25872/nasa-cis-lunar-orbit/

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/12/nasa-rules-out-crew-on-first-sls-flight/

The Greatest Astronaut

The month of April is busy for those interested in space history. Not only did the first spaceflight in human history occur in this month, but the first launch of the space shuttle also lifted off. Additionally, the Apollo 13 accident and the Apollo 16 Moon landing occurred. Even with all of that history, this month clearly belongs to one astronaut, and he also happens to be the greatest in history. Well, according to me. 

John W. Young (I didn't leave you hanging for long) is the ultimate American astronaut, and he practically owns the month of April in space history. Two of his six missions, Apollo 16 and STS-1, launched during April. Although these are his most famous missions, his legacy extends far beyond those flights.

John Young's 1986 NASA portrait. (Credit: NASA)

Captain Young graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1952 earning a degree in aeronautical engineering with highest honors. After graduation, he entered the U.S. Navy and eventually began flight training. By 1959, he had graduated from the U.S. Navy Test Pilot School, which allowed him to test the F-8 Crusader and the F-4 Phantom. Young set time-to-climb records in the Phantom before entering NASA.

In 1962, John Young was selected as an astronaut. Three years later Young joined Gus Grissom for the Gemini 3 mission, which was to test the crewed Gemini capsule in space. Later in the Gemini program, Young would become the Commander of Gemini 10 with pilot Mike Collins. This mission tested rendezvous and docking procedures along with an EVA by his pilot. These missions honed the spaceflight skills he would need during Project Apollo and beyond.

John Young in the Gemini flight suit. (Credit: NASA)

John Young’s first Apollo mission came with the lunar landing dress rehearsal of Apollo 10. For this important test, Captain Young served as the command module pilot while Tom Stafford and Gene Cernan flew the lunar module around the Moon. Years later, his chance to land on the Moon would come during his command of Apollo 16. Ken Mattingly and Charlie Duke would join him, with Duke helping land the Lunar Module Orion. Their mission explored the Descartes Highlands, where the lunar explorers gathered over 200 pounds of rocks and drove over 16 miles with a lunar rover. Nearly two years after returning from the Moon, Young became the Chief of the Astronaut Office—serving in that position until 1987.

Young's famous flag salute on Apollo 16. (Credit: NASA)

However, going into administrative duties didn’t ground Young. In 1981, he took command of the world’s greatest test flight with STS-1. He flew Space Shuttle Columbia along with Pilot Bob Crippen to a picture-perfect landing at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Flying Columbia on that very first mission was one of the riskiest flights in spaceflight history because the vehicle had not been partially tested in space before a crew was placed aboard. John Young’s legendary career would come to a close with STS-9—his sixth spaceflight. Space would put Young to the test on that mission. Just before reentry, two general purpose computers on Columbia failed. After that problem was resolved, two auxiliary power units caught fire during landing. With all of these issues, Young still guided Columbia home.

Young would go on to serve in administrative roles at NASA during the 1990s before retiring in 2004. Throughout Captain Young’s career he pushed the boundaries of space exploration proving his skills as a commander and pilot time after time. His famous Southern drawl and quiet demeanor served as a cornerstone for the NASA Astronaut Office through many years. John Young has and will continue to inspire countless others to continue his legacy of exploration to objects far beyond the Moon. He may not be a household name in America or around the world like Neil Armstrong or John Glenn—but he should be.  

Check out The Space Endeavor's Facebook page for more space content!!

Sources:

https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/young.html

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-9.html

“Into the Black: The Extraordinary Untold Story of the First Flight of the Space Shuttle Columbia and the Astronauts Who Flew Her.” By Rowland White 

America First? Not in space with this budget blueprint.

The Trump administration released their first budget blueprint today, and NASA could face a decrease in spending. As you can imagine, The Space Endeavor, strongly opposes such a near-sighted and uninformed budget design for America’s space agency. If America hopes to maintain our leadership in space and continue to push the boundaries of exploration, NASA will need a substantial budget increase. Like many other presidents, Trump has abandoned the needed investment for robust space exploration. Unlike other presidents, he has signaled the unwillingness to adequately study our home planet—fearing the results will counter his own opinions. Having said all of this, this is not the final budget. Only Congress has the power to budget, but they will likely come close to the administration’s proposal.

What did NASA lose and keep?

• Overall: 2017 Budget ($19.2 billion) → 2018 Proposal ($19.1 billion)
• $102 million loss to the Earth science budget. Most of the budget cuts come from missions attempting to gain knowledge regarding climate change.
• Elimination of NASA’s Office of Education (-$115 million), which would likely demolish NASA scholarships for students entering STEM fields and student programs associated with those fields.
• Cuts $88 million from the Robotic Refueling Mission.
• Elimination of missions to place a lander on Jupiter’s moon (Europa) and a crewed asteroid redirect flight using the Orion capsule.
• Space Launch System, Orion capsule, Commercial Crew, and International Space Station funding is relatively maintained.

Bottom line: NASA needs a budget increase—not a decrease. Both political parties have underserved NASA for many years, and it, unfortunately, continued today. America and the world prosper from the advancements and inspiration that NASA provides. Further curtailing an agency that turns dreams into reality only harms the future we hope to achieve.

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-budget-would-cut-earth-science-and-education/2017/03/15/c08e1e2c-0997-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.b28af25d2c7e

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-presidential-budget-2018-proposal/?utm_term=.a1a70362d103

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a25714/nasa-budget-trump-2018/

Serious space policy or continued bluster?

Last month NASA announced they were conducting a feasibility study on adding a crew to the first planned mission for their new rocket—the Space Launch System (SLS). Currently, the first flight of the SLS (Exploration Mission 1 or EM-1) is scheduled for late 2018 with an uncrewed Orion spacecraft. The first crewed mission would occur around 2021 according to the current plan. This study apparently comes at the urging of the Trump administration, which has yet to name a NASA administrator. Is this idea just political bluster?

Before I dive into my analysis of the idea, let’s cover the basics of NASA’s new rocket and capsule. The rocket, SLS, is being designed to take astronauts past low Earth orbit. There will be several configurations known as “blocks” to gain higher performance. Astronauts will reside in the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, often referred to as the Orion spacecraft. It strongly resembles the Apollo Command/Service Module that carried astronauts to the Moon in the 1960s.   SLS and Orion are pictured below.

SLS Block Configurations. Photo Credit: NASA

Artist Rendition of Orion in Earth Orbit. Photo Credit: NASA

With that covered, let’s head back to my thoughts on the feasibility study. I am tremendously skeptical of this potential shift in mission schedule. Without a long-term space policy in place, rushing into a crewed mission serves no useful purpose. Rushing into a plan where astronauts are aboard the first SLS/Orion flight will increase risk substantially. Some of this risk could be mitigated with more funding, but that is unlikely to happen. Additionally, there is no reason to squander precious financial and time resources without a long-term plan in place. It is best to take a step by step approach with space hardware development with no long-term plan in place. My main point is simple—we need a long-term plan (ideally 10-15 years) for space exploration before rushing into anything.  

If the Trump administration would propose—and fund—a robust space policy with specifically defined goals, I would happily support the effort. Having said that, many presidents have offered grand space plans without properly shepherding the proposal through Congress for approval. When plans have been approved by Congress, administrations usually fail to push Congress for adequate funding (i.e. George W. Bush’s 2004 Vision for Space Exploration).

Given the terrible track record most presidents have with space policy, I have serious doubts about Trump’s ability to articulate, push for, and provide enduring support for a robust space effort. President Trump has a history of making grandiose proposals and statements without the needed backing. Furthermore, if President Trump waits until late this year or later to make his space policy proposal, his political capital will likely be too depleted for a major shift in space policy. A major policy change towards increased space exploration outside low Earth orbit will require more funding if NASA continues to operate the International Space Station and other important programs.

At the beginning of this post I asked if this proposal was political bluster by the new administration. My answer: without a doubt. Trump is trying to have a “Kennedy” space moment without the wisdom, support, and effort President Kennedy gave in the 1960s.

Get more thoughts on space news and quick space history bits on Facebook!

https://www.facebook.com/TheSpaceEndeavor/

Learn more about SLS and Orion using the links below:

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/orion/index.html

Sources used:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-studies-adding-crew-to-super-rocket-test-flight/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/02/24/nasa-officials-discuss-trumps-push-for-first-term-moon-mission/?utm_term=.8bc8d290b207