Random Thought: Mass NASA Spaceflight Externships

I just had a crazy thought this morning, that while probably unworkable--we'd probably all be better-off if 99% of government policy proposals were sent directly to the paper-shredder--might be a way to start extricating NASA from it's current manned spaceflight morass.

The following ideas were what led me to this thought:

• With the way our government is structured right now, NASA's primary customer is not the American people, but Congress. And in spite of any high falutin' rhetoric about the common good, the reality is that Congresspeople are people just like the rest of us, and tend to see things from the filter of what benefits them most. In the case of NASA, Congresspeople care most about keeping highly paid aerospace professionals working in their districts (and hopefully therefore voting for them). If the shuttle program employed 6 people in a garage, do you really think there would be anywhere near as much passionate interest in "the gap", and "workforce retention issues"?
  
• That said, Congresspeople do have souls. They actually do care at least on some level that NASA is doing something that sounds plausibly useful--it's just that they want them to be doing that plausibly useful thing while employing thousands of people in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, California, and Utah.
  
• Constellation has a high probability of dieing sometime during this next administration. The only reason why it isn't dead now is that those Congresspeople are worried about having 10,000 unemployed aerospace professionals deciding to vote for their opponent in the next election for not protecting their jobs. But as technical problems, delays, and cost overruns start adding up (along with the realization that Constellation isn't going to be protecting most of those jobs), expect to see the knives come out.
• One of the single biggest costs in any aerospace project is payroll and related overhead. For instance, while I don't have exact numbers (and wouldn't be legally able to give them if I did) and even though MSS doesn't pay anywhere near as much as NASA does, I wouldn't be surprised if 1/2 to 2/3 of our expenditures to-date have been payroll and related overhead. The typical burdened rate for an aerospace engineer is in the $100-200k/year range.
• The idea of the Air Force or NASA running paid "externships" (where an employee or contractor of theirs works with some specific company, with NASA or the Air Force paying their salary in exchange for benefiting from the cross-pollination of ideas) has been gaining traction lately.
  

So, what if we cranked this idea to 11? What if instead of trying to make another multi-billion dollar shuttle-flavored boondoggle, Congress instead directed NASA to offer most of its shuttle workforce as "externs" for industry? Armadillo Aerospace and several of the smaller alt.space companies have demonstrated how much more you can get for a given amount of money if you don't have to pay your employees. Imagine if, phasing in over a period of a few years, all of the sudden it was possible to get skilled aerospace technicians and engineers, and not have to pay the full burdened cost yourself?

The benefit for Congress would be that those aerospace engineers would still be being employed, but they'd be working on projects that were actually being run more by market-driven companies, and not as much by the whims of an ossified bureaucracy. The goal would be to use this as a way to help promote aerospace development in those aerospace states. The same money would be spent, the same jobs would be protected, but the effort expended would be more aligned with what the market actually determines to be useful. With the availability of much cheaper labor, it would become much easier and cheaper to launch an aerospace startup than it currently is.

The benefit for the rest of us, is that as those former shuttle employees are divided up among a larger number of commercial enterprises, the incentive structure for the Congresspeople will shift more towards promoting the growth of a strong industry, as opposed to running centrally-planned megaprojects. Also, it might be possible to structure the program such that the externs gradually transfer from NASA payrolls to those companies over the course of a few years, freeing up that money for NASA to act more as a customer while also at the same time possibly allowing NASA to be more able to survive the coming fiscal environment. For instance, for the first year or two of the program, maybe NASA is paying for most or all of the salary of a given extern, but after that each year the company has to pick up another 20% of the tab until at some point the extern is no longer a government contractor but a commercial employee.

Now, even if this policy isn't entirely nuts, the incentives structure will matter a lot. First off, you don't want to make greybeards so cheap that nobody will hire new college students. One way of doing this would be to require a given company to hire at least one fresh college grad for every extern they get. Also, as some of those externs start retiring, some of the money that was going to their salary could instead be transfered to matching funds for hiring fresh college students. Second off, you don't want companies using this as a way to lay off their existing workforce and just mooch off of the state. So you setup some rule that as they lay their own people off, they little by little lose access to those externs. I'm not sure how exactly you would determine who is eligible for externs. Maybe some sort of lottery or draft like they do with many professional sports? I'm not sure.

Anyhow, it's a crazy idea, but I bet you if you took those 10,000 NASA employees, and instead had them working on commercial projects that it would close the gap a lot faster than pouring more money down the Ares-I rathole. Of course, interfering with the market always causes unintended consequences, the only question is would the end result be better or worse than the current status quo.

What do y'all think?

[Update: 11:37am]

One piece of feedback I got back offline was that this idea would look too much like a direct subsidy to ever work. Well, ignoring the fact that congress just passed one of the most pork-o-licious farm subsidy bills ever, I think there are some ways to deal with this concern. I think one way to frame this is as a "privitization" of the NASA manned space transportation industry. In all the debates about workforce retention, NASA and Congress continuously refer to these employees as "national assets". Well, if they're national assets, why not transition them over a few years from a 100% government owned and operated asset to one that is mostly commercially owned and operated? Just a thought.

The other thougt would be making sure that all aerospace (and even some non-aerospace) companies have equal access to benefiting from this externship pool. Ie, anyone can become involved, that way it isn't benefiting one specific aerospace company at the expense of all the others.

Moonatics at large

by guest blogger Ken

Howdy everyone! I hope everyone's enjoying a nice, relaxing Memorial Day weekend. I just unloaded the nephews on their dad and am taking a quiet moment to contemplate...

I recently listened to the Dennis Wingo and Peter Kokh interviews on The Space Show, and I was struck at how similar the messages were. A stepwise building up process that provides longterm benefits not just to a permanent space presence and space faring, but also to planet Earth.

Dennis, of course, is in the midst of a series of missives on developing the Moon over at SpaceRef. Peter Kokh is an emeritus of the Moon Society, and longtime editor of the Moon Miner's Manifesto. The MMM alone is reason enough to join, and there's even a program to make it available to your local libraries for a nominal fee so that even more people can get familiar with the idea of developing our human destiny on the Moon.

There are a few themes that are becoming more common. The use of current Sun power to supply our energy needs rather than the stocks of accumulated dead dinosaurs and plants. Only nuclear and geo power are exclusive of our Sun's effects. Solar, wind, hydroelectric, hydrocarbon, all of them are present or past Sun power. Rather than fouling our planet and fouling our air to provide energy, it makes sense to get the energy in space directly from the Sun and transmit it to where it's needed. Peak Sun is not expected for another 4 billion years or so.

The hitch is trying to build anything suitable entirely from Earth. It's just too punishing to try to do so, which is why it's increasingly making sense to send the seed plant and equipment to the Moon and build the low-value added stuff like extruded titanium support girders or sheets of vacuum-processed Solar cells (the Moons got a fair amount of vacuum, you know, about 15,000,000 square miles to work with). Launch the low-value-added stuff from the Moon (even doing some assembly where it's easier to do so with a bit of gravity), and focus on launching the lesser amount of high value-added stuff from Earth.

Dennis also advocates using the ISS as a staging point, rather than a microgravity lab. He has a strong point, as the microgravity science guys would really rather have freefloating platforms, unperturbed by human-induced jitters. This can be done in LEO near the ISS, and will increasingly make business sense if the ISS is adapted to use as a staging point, but ultimately it makes sense to do so further out, at our good friend EML-1.


Staging to EML-1 from ISS is pretty much no different dV-wise than from a 40, 28, or 0 degree orbit, so it makes sense to start now and build up capabilities at other inclinations as it becomes appropriate to do so. Once at L1, all kinds of options open up. As can be seen in the graphic, Freeflyer platforms can be sent on long orbits that come right back to where they started from. This gives ample processing time for the microgravity experiments and eventually production. L1 is also a great place to stage for a mission to the asteroids, especially if you're supplying oxidizer from the Moon. In the end I have to agree with the Asteroid guys that the debris in cis-Jovian space needs to be mapped out and cleaned up. This is going to be the quickest way to start moving polluting industries off-Earth, by supplying raw materials at a higher degree of purity at a cheaper price.

L1 is also a good spot for running servicing missions to GEO. You can also go anywhere on the Moon's surface 24/7, which makes pseudo-arguments like North Pole vs. Equatorial vs. SPAB kind of moot because from L1 you can do each one as appropriate. Mr. Wingo, and IIRC Mr. Kokh, prefers a North Pole location, in part because it offers access to more metal heavy mare materials at Mare Frigoris. I, like NASA, prefer SPAB because of the scientific questions surrounding the fossilized remnants of the biggest smack in the Solar system. Parts of the Aitken Basin (the AB part of SPAB) exhibit mare-ish characteristics unusual for the far side. Still, it is more than twice as far to the nearest good source of mare material, in Mare Humorum, as at the North Pole.


Still, in the long run most of the materials for a space-faring civilization are going to come from asteroids, not lithic gravity wells. Including life-support stuff like nitrogen and carbon for the Moon. Which would give the Moon leverage in transacting that stuff with Earth. If there's ever going to be agriculture on the Moon, or even Mars somehow, then it's going to take a fair amount of support from our asteroid friends.

By opening up the utilization of asteroids from Earth as soon as possible, you ensure a surer footing in the high frontier. It's obvious from the diagram at right, from the Time-Life book 'Spacefarers' in the 'Voyage Through the Universe' series, that L1 is where you want to stage from to build an economy between the Earth and Moon as well as travel beyond. You can get there from ISS. Dennis's idea of using it as a near-term logistics node is not a bad one, and one that does take advantage of existing space assets, even if the transport is apparently becoming a bit problematic. One thing that both gentlemen talked about is having NASA take a more NACA like role in created a common interface between launch vehicles and 'CEVS', so that transport to space would not be tied to any individual launch provider (i.e. NASA). This is what was supposed to happen with the EELVs, and I don't think they're a lost cause if we accept some humility and accept that about 20-25 metric tonnes is the launch market right now and it serves just fine for getting people regularly and frequently into orbit. Increasing the frequency of launches decreases individual launch costs as fixed overhead can be spread amongst more vehicles. This is basic economics, and what we have to work with until we get RLVs figured out. We can assemble a CEV in orbit if it's never going to land in a gravity well, though we might want to consider a bit of aerodynamicity to provide an aeroslowing option.

Providing the common interface means it doesn't matter what your CEV design is so long as it provides the info needed by the interface. Having a common interface means that it doesn't matter who your launcher is. Imagine if the D4, A5, F9, Ariane V, Proton, and Long March were all able to launch a crew to LEO orbit because each adapted to a common interface. That's value-added. Ultimately, I don't think that NASA should have a monopoly on crewed transport to orbit, nor do I think that my tax dollars should be spent by NASA to create a National Space Transportation System. I'd rather they were spent enabling transportation to space for our nation.

***Rant on:

Besides, if ESAS is so all-fired good as a transport system, why wasn't it being competed in the Concept Exploration and Refinement process back in 2004? ATK had it ready. The Safe Simple Soon website was up. The Planetary Society report 'Extending Human Presence into the Solar System'(pdf) was available. Here's the Conclusion from the section on transportation options:

The nation has three or four technically viable domestic launch options for alternative crew access to low Earth orbit in the near term. The selection of one or more on approaches ultimately may depend more on political factors than on cost. For example, will it be acceptable to use a Delta IV or a Sea Launch Zenit-2 to launch astronauts to the ISS if it means closing the VAB and Launch Complexes 39A and B?

On a global level, there are many reasons to make the CEV compatible with as many launch systems as possible. Technically, such redundancy will help avoid the single-point failure vulnerability of the Shuttle system that is currently paralyzing ISS operations. Second, those participants who wish to develop and utilize their own human launch capabilities are more likely to continue to be committed partners during difficult periods. Finally, selling CEVs to the rest of the world could become a notable export opportunity and would enable the United States to retain the lead with respect to defining standards and guiding human launch vehicle operations around the world. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program may serve as a model in this regard.

At this point, SDV designs including both an SRM-based vehicle for CEV services and an in-line heavy-lift configuration appear to be very attractive options for leveraging the investment in infrastructure and people for a quick response. The manner in which the Shuttle phase-out is actually implemented and the determination of which infrastructure elements will then be available for other applications will be major determining factors in whether these vehicles can become viable options for near-term applications.

Boeing even had it as one of its transport options in their study. So if the ATK architecture which became ESAS was the solution, why wasn't it part of the process?

***Rant off.

There are a lot of unknown future industries awaiting us, not just on the Moon, but in between and beyond. Developing these future industries and technologies and solutions could be a wellspring of hope for beleaguered Americans as at least one new industry for the future where we have a competitive advantage. The many Americans we remember this weekend who died for our freedoms and our liberty have made this kind of future possible. We should not disrespect them by passing on the opportunity we have at this time to create a spacefaring, and not just space visiting, civilization. I am doing this space thing not just because I love my nation and want it to prosper into the future (energy, folks. Energy = prosperity), but also because I love my planet and want her to remain a beautiful and savage cradle of humanity.

Sorry Guys

I'm not sure why, but I just haven't been in much of a bloggy mood lately. Most nights by the time we get the boys to sleep I'm too frazzled to do much in the way of deep thinking. Hopefully I'll get out of this rut soon enough.

Monte Davis on ISS and Microgravity Science

[Note: As a bit of a preface to this repost from a usenet group, I wanted to give a bit of background. I first got interested in the whole commercial space thing when I was 16, mostly through a usenet group I had stumbled on called sci.space.policy. Unfortunately, as time went on, the group's signal to noise ratio got worse and worse. Things were still survivable when I got back from my mission in 2002, but have slid rapidly since then, with most of the old regulars having moved on. I haven't given up 100% on usenet, but due to the awful S/N ratio, I'll typically just google to see if certain specific individuals have posted anything interesting lately. With Henry Spencer gone, I'm down to just a handful of people on there whose posts I look for (Monte Davis, Jorge Frank, and Derek Lyons). Every once in a while, I'll stumble across a gem that reminds me why I haven't completely turned my back on usenet, such as this one from Monte Davis a few days ago]

There's been a lot of discussion, particularly at Space Cynics about ISS, its suitability for microgravity science, and the utility of microgravity research and development in general. Today, most people who have been following the program agree that the ISS has been a bit of a debacle, and most agree that the way ISS is run and the existing space transportation situation pretty much preclude any real commercially useful microgravity research from happening. However, Monte makes some useful points about the situation that while I've made similar points in the past, bear reemphasis. Here are Monte's comments (with my emphasis):

(Derek Lyons) wrote:
>Which, in my book, makes the person who thinks that's a condemnation
>of the Shuttle... an idiot. Because that was the goal of the Shuttle
>from Day One, to work with a space station.

The seemingly neat circularity emerged after the fact. With cheaper
and more frequent access, the station could have been built soon and
cheap enough, equipped and staffed adequately, to actually *do* the
kinds of research originally promised.

But with the successive delays and downscoping, that has never been
possible. Unfortunately, that has discredited the whole premise and we
get the "all we do is go around in circles in LEO" mindset, and a
vague sense that "they tried all that free-fall science and nothing
panned out" -- when in fact, all but a few token bits of science have
been squeezed out by the demands of just getting it "complete" before
the oldest parts reached the end of safe service life.

(NB: I'm not claiming the most hyped promises -- the giant protein
crystals, perfect ball bearings, breakthroughs in undersatnding
free-fall physiology etc -- would have paid off; I'm saying there's
never been a chance of finding out with the very limited equipment and
even more limited time available for them).

It's as if I'd tried to build a house on a mountaintop using a
Lamborghini to carry materials and workmen. Surprisingly, the house
ends up a lot more expensive, less spacious and well-equipped than I'd
hoped... and I conclude "well, that proves a house on a moiuntaintop
is a dumb idea."

While as Monte says, the fact that we haven't even really had a chance to try doesn't prove that microgravity research will ever produce real benefits, it does mean that there is a chance if things are done differently that we might get better results. There are plenty of challenges out there facing large-scale microgravity research and manufacturing, particularly due to the snail's pace of progress when compared to terrestrial approaches that try to eliminate the need for microgravity. But I think one of the hopeful things that could come from the latest wave of commercial space endeavors is an environment much better suited towards real research and development. Between suborbital microgravity services (from existing players like Up Aerospace, and hopefuls like XCOR, Armadillo, us at Masten, etc) in the nearer term to commercial stations and free-flyers like what Bigelow is trying to do, things are starting to move in a direction where the rapid iterations that good science needs can become possible.

That doesn't mean it will work, but it does mean that this time we'll actually get to find out one way or the other.

Welcome to the Club!

Zond, on NASASpaceflight.com, just posted a link to a new European commercial space venture, Orbspace. Like Masten Space Systems and Armadillo Aerospace, Orbspace is pursuing a suborbital VTVL vehicle, which they intend to use for both manned and unmanned applications. As I said over there on NASASpaceflight, I think this a really positive development. While there have been several international companies that have announced ambitions to field suborbital vehicles, only some of them have been taking an approach that I thought gave them a good chance to realistically go anywhere. One of the others that I think is taking a decent approach is Project Enterprise (some of the people involved in that project are friends of mine), which is partnered with the Swiss Propulsion Lab. If Orbspace is trying to be a European equivalent of MSS or Armadillo, Project Enterprise is more like an attempt at a European XCOR.

There are some bloggers who seem to be perpetually stuck in a Cold War mentality, always looking for the next USSR, and a return of the glory days of the Space Race. The fact that this would be totally counterproductive is apparently lost on these people (as is the weirdness of people who claim to be free-market capitalists rooting for socialist design bureaus that would've been right at home in the former Soviet Union). I really think that it is entrepreneurial space ventures like Orbspace and Project Enterprise that really represent the future of international space competition. I'm not afraid at all of the Chinese national space program beating us back to the Moon--they're following a dying and deprecated model of space development that hopefully won't last too much longer into this century. What does cost me a little sleep every now and then is wondering what's going to happen when Chinese entrepreneurs start seeing the success of US and European commercial space groups, and decide that they could make a buck at that too...

Welcome to the club guys!