Rocketforge

A thread on SpacePolitics.com had to be cutoff before I could respond to a few questions so I thought I’d bring it here. While the intent of the original post by Jeff was lost, the context of my comment was the “Moon Uber Alles” view held by some on the thread. As a former Moon Society Chairman and co-founder of an RLV company I thought I had something useful to add: This was my original comment:

I spent several years helping the Moon Society and eventually became its chairman. I helped run business tracks at the Space Frontier Foundation’s lunar conferences. No need to convince me that the moon has a lot to offer.

But I left the Society when I finally realized that low cost access to space was necessary for anything other than watching a few government employees planting flags. I said then and I say it now: it has absolutely zero to do with technology and hardware and absolutely everything to do with business models.

That’s why I’m out here trying to build a suborbital RLV company.

The only way to get to the moon to stay is by developing free cash flow from each and every step on the way to getting there. And yes, I think that does mean an NEO mission before you try to for the lunar surface again. But that’s the beauty of business models, there are so many to chose from. If you feel differently and can find the investors then go for it.

If you truly are a “moon firster” then your best best is GLXP teams on a SpaceX vehicle, not recreating Apollo expecting to get different results.

After that a few people asked some question but the comments were closed before I could respond. Those responses are here:

Bill White wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 6:29 pm

@ Michael Mealling

How will a NEO mission generate cash flow?

To be clear, I very much agree with this:

I said then and I say it now: it has absolutely zero to do with technology and hardware and absolutely everything to do with business models. * * * The only way to get to the moon to stay is by developing free cash flow from each and every step on the way to getting there.

Persuade me there will be cash flow coming from a NEO mission and I will advocate for NEO missions. But right now, I just don’t see how revenue will flow from NASA doing a NEO mission.

The art of making each mission (version) pay is in defining a minimally viable product. The idea I have is to find a very small NEO (2 cubic meters at most), grab it with a net-like grappling system, and then bring it back to LEO to dock with the ISS. Sell research access to it, cut off slices and bring ‘em back for collectors, etc. Be a little careful about which NEO you pick (by makeup and orbital elements) and you can make it profitable. Use the cash flow from operations for that mission to pay for the next one where you go after a different type. Each version/mission creates the base funding for the next one.

Bill White wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 6:33 pm

IMHO, GLXP teams should also push the “co-brand with Google” meme when seeking sponsors.

For example, “Acme Corporation is proud to partner with Google to send XYZ Team to the lunar surface” ? – even if Acme doesn’t give a flying fig about space exploration, being a Google partner is brand value platinum.

Maybe some GLXP teams are doing this and I just haven’t seen it.

But this is an example of making money from aspirations and inspiration rather than tangible lunar resources.

Bill, I know that they can use the GLXP brand in limited ways. I’m just not sure about the boundary conditions. Making money from sponsorships based on aspirations and inspiration is all part of branding and is a valid part of the way ventures make money. Some our country’s most successful companies are successful because of the aspirational nature of their brands.

or “How a Democrat out-Republicaned George Bush on Space Policy

Two links that help with the background:

• A Space Program for the Rest of Us
• Towards a Conservative Space Policy

Just to get it out of the way early: I’m a conservative leaning libertarian with the street cred to prove it. I helped organize the first Tea Parties in Atlanta. I helped Harry Browne around Atlanta during his Libertarian Party campaign for president and was even one of his electors for Georgia. I left the Libertarian Party after 9/11. I’m not sure how involved in the GOP I want to be but that seems to be a general issue with all conservatives these days.

The point of all that is to say this:

President Obama’s new policy for NASA is the most fiscally conservative and downright capitalist policy to come along since the agency was founded.

What the President is proposing is that NASA follow with the Augustine Commission called “Flexible Path”. The commission made several observations that are key to understanding why what the President is doing is so important to NASA’s future:

1. We explore to reach goals, not destinations. It is in the definition of our goals that decision-making for human spaceflight should begin. With goals established, questions about destinations, exploration strategies and transportation architectures can follow in a logical order. While there are certainly some aspects of the transportation system that are common to all exploration missions (e.g. crew access and heavy lift to low-Earth orbit), there is a danger of choosing destinations and architectures first. This runs the risk of getting stuck at a destination without a clear understanding of why it was chosen, which in turn can lead to uncertainty about when it is time to move on.
    
2. After a list of things that space exploration returns such as spinoffs and science, the Committee had this to say, “… human exploration also should advance us as a civilization towards our ultimate goal: charting a path for human expansion into the solar system. It is too early to know how and when humans will first learn to live on another planet, but we should be guided by that long-term goal.”
    
3. Commercial involvement in exploration: NASA has considerable flexibility in its acquisition activities due to special provisions of the Space Act. NASA should exploit these provisions whenever appropriate, and in general encourage more engagement by commercial providers, allocating to them tasks and responsibilities that are consistent with their strengths.
    

Now, while the committee was instructed not to make recommendations, it was obvious from the meetings and the scoring that the Flexible Path option best matched the goals of what we would like our space program to accomplish.

What the rumors and leaks are suggesting is that President Obama has embraced the committee’s findings and is redirecting NASA to implement the Flexible Path option, including the use of commercial providers for manned launch to Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

What is Flexible Path exactly and why is it preferable to NASA going back to the moon using its own rockets? The gist is that Flexible Path is about building up the capability to go anywhere and do it without going broke. Flexible Path is about going to Venus, Phobos, Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs), Lagrange Points, and yes, even the Moon and Mars when you can figure out how to do it without killing yourself from radiation poisoning. So no, we’re not abandoning the Moon, we’re not abandoning manned spaceflight, and we’re not turning it over to the Chinese. Here’s one example of what a Phobos landing might look like.

Flexible Path Destinations

Here are some of the interesting features of Flexible Path:

• Multi-vendor
  This means that there is no one critical path vendor for launch and possibly on orbit assembly and fueling. One of the problems with Shuttle and even Russian launchers is that if there is a problem the entire line is shutdown while the problem is fixed. With multiple launch providers you can keep flying even if one is having problems.
   
• Multi-capable
  This means that you’re not stuck with one design that can only do a few things well. Shuttle does a few things well but it can’t stay on orbit very long and it is monstrously expensive to fly when all you want to do is deliver water.
   
• Multi-destinational
  This means your launch architecture is flexible enough that you use the same systems, people, and infrastructure to go to ISS, an NEA, or Phobos. Each new destination doesn’t need a custom designed one-off system (what in business we call a silo).
   

Even after this discussion many wonder if its a good idea to outsource the responsibility of America’s leadership in space to a bunch of untried Internet billionaires that haven’t put anything in orbit yet?

The easiest way to answer that is to compare what is being done commercially and what NASA has done lately. First lets take NASA. What many people don’t realize is that NASA hasn’t designed a rocket in over 30 years. The people who did that are long gone. NASA has built the International Space Station, though. That means it has a lot of current knowledge on how to do in space assembly of very complex hardware. The Constellation program which is NASA’s plan for building its own system of rockets is WAY over budget and behind schedule. This partly due to Congress limiting its budget but also due to NASA not designing the system to be operationally efficient. With rockets about 80% of your operational costs are fixed before you ever bend a single piece of metal. NASA simply has no incentive or desire to design something for operational efficiency.

Now lets look at the commercial side. There are numerous companies who have been or are about to fly new rockets:

• Boeing – Delta IV, including the Delta IV Heavy which can lift 28.5 metric tonnes to LEO – 11 flights to date
• Lockheed – Atlas V, 29.4 metric tonnes to LEO – 18 flights to date
• SpaceX – Falcon 9, 10.4 to 29.6 metric tonnes to LEO, designed to be human rated – still in development. First flight expected in March.
• Orbital Sciences – Taurus II, 5.5 metric tonnes to LEO, still in development
• Bigelow Aerospace – Sundancer, an inflatable space station habitat. Gensis I and II already on orbit

There are more out there such as Masten Space Systems (my company), Virgin Galactic, XCOR, Blue Origin, Armadillo Aerospace, Dreamchaser, etc. All building hardware and flying it on budgets that combined are smaller than one years budget for Ares I.

The final point of all this is to encourage all of my friends on the “right” to take this gift from Obama and run with it. We may not agree with the President on much but on this we can.

If you’re curious what you can do about this you can call your elected representatives about it. There are parochial interests out there that are looking to derail this effort because it threatens politically connected jobs in certain districts. Some of even Republicans who twist themselves into the most contorted kind of logic in order to justify spending billions of taxpayer money on a big government program. Yes, I’m talking about you Senator Shelby.

Thought experiment: Are their Near Earth Asteroids you can get to with what you can fit as a secondary payload in a PPOD?

I’m watching the House Committee on Science and Technology’s hearing on the Augustine Committee’s summary report. This committee hearing is a complete cluster fuck. Mr. Augustine has repeatedly said that Constellation would make a good program if it had the extra $3 billion. He even said that Ares I is safe. He is simply not defending his Committee’s own findings. Even our ally Dana Rohrabacher ripped the findings apart.

I’ll state it here now: if this continues then our national space program will never go anywhere ever again. I think we just lost our space program. The ONLY option left for an American lead expansion into space is for the private industry to route around this steaming pile of shit.

So the Augustine Commission published their Summary Report today. At this point the food fight is beginning. ATK and other contractors are starting to spew FUD faster and harder than Microsoft ever did. The question we have to address now is how to make sure the Obama Administration picks the Flexible Path option. Ideally it would pick the Flexible Path option with an EELV for the heavy lift component. But I suspect that either Ares V Lite or Not Shuttle C will be the bone thrown to Northern Alabama in order to buy Senator Shelby’s silence. The important thing is to make sure commercial crew, suborbital science, and fuel depots stays in.

There are several key findings:

“Commercial crew launch to low-Earth orbit: Commercial services to deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are within reach. While this presents some risk, it could provide an earlier capability at lower initial and lifecycle costs than government could achieve1. A new competition with adequate incentives should be open to all U.S. aerospace companies. This would allow NASA to focus on more challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, based on the continued development of the current or modified Orion spacecraft.” [Page 16]

Commercial crew is faster and cheaper:

“The United States needs a way to launch astronauts to low-Earth orbit, but it does not necessarily have to be provided by the government. As we move from the complex, reusable Shuttle back to a simpler, smaller capsule, it is an appropriate time to consider turning this transport service over to the commercial sector. This approach is not without technical and programmatic risks, but it creates the possibility of lower operating costs for the system and potentially accelerates the availability of U.S. access to low-Earth orbit by about a year. The Committee suggests establishing a new competition for this service, in which both large and small companies could participate.” [Page 9]

Are there other ways commercial industry should participate?

“The cost of exploration is dominated by the costs of launch to low-Earth orbit and of the in-space systems. It seems improbable that significant reductions in launch costs will be realized in the short term until launch rates increase substantially―perhaps through expanded commercial activity in space. How can the nation stimulate such activity? In the 1920s, the federal government awarded a series of guaranteed contracts for carrying airmail, stimulating the growth of the airline industry. The Committee concludes that an architecture for exploration employing a similar policy of guaranteed contracts has the potential to stimulate a vigorous and competitive commercial space industry. Such commercial ventures could include supply of cargo to the ISS (already underway), transport of crew to orbit and transport of fuel to orbit. Establishing these commercial opportunities could increase launch volume and potentially lower costs to NASA and all other launch-services customers.

This would have the additional benefit of focusing NASA on a more challenging role, permitting it to concentrate its efforts where its inherent capability resides: for example, developing cutting-edge technologies and concepts, and defining program and overseeing the development and operation of exploration systems, particularly those beyond low-Earth orbit.” [Pages 9-10]

One why to do this:

How will we explore to deliver the greatest benefit to the nation? Planning for a human spaceflight program should begin with a choice about its goals―rather than a choice of possible destinations. Destinations should derive from goals, and alternative architectures may be weighed against those goals. There is now a strong consensus in the United States that the next step in human spaceflight is to travel beyond low-Earth orbit. This should carry important benefits to society, including: driving technological innovation; developing commercial industries and important national capabilities; and contributing to our expertise in further exploration. Human exploration can contribute appropriately to the expansion of scientific knowledge, particularly in areas such as field geology, and it is in the interest of both science and human spaceflight that a credible and well-rationalized strategy of coordination between them be developed. Crucially, human spaceflight objectives should broadly align with key national objectives.

These more tangible benefits exist within a larger context. Exploration provides an opportunity to demonstrate space leadership while deeply engaging international partners; to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers; and to shape human perceptions of our place in the universe. The Committee concluded that the ultimate goal of human exploration is to chart a path? for human expansion into the solar system. This is an ambitious goal, but one worthy of U.S. leadership in concert with a broad range of international partners.

Apparently the American Astronomical Society is meeting today and is currently discussing “planethood” and the future of Pluto. I gave some thought to this last year and decided to post it here for comments. The idea is to move away from defining something as a planet or not and simply classify non-stellar objects using the Earth as a base planetary mass.

A planetary class is halfway between the mid point and the midpoint of the next class.

Planetclass begins at 5 planets and goes down to .5 planets

The brown dwarf limit is 4,131 planets, or 4.131 kiloplanets. This would solve the entire debate about Pluto and the rest of the Keiper Belt Objects since they would simply range from milliplanets (Pluto) down to nanoplanets (embryonic comets).

(In case you’re not a UNIX geek, the title of this article is the search and replace function in VI)

The official action that creates something like the Augustine Commission is the publication of a notice in the Federal Register. That happened yesterday and can be found here. The stated objectives for the commission are:

The identification and characterization of these options should address the following objectives:
(a) Expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS);
(b) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low Earth orbit (LEO);
(c) stimulating commercial space flight capability; and
(d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities.

Now, if you are remotely familiar with US space policy, these objectives will seem very familiar. From President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration we have the following goals and objectives:

• Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and
  beyond;
• Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;
• Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support
  decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and
• Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security,
  and economic interests.

The only real differences are that the new Commission is asked to look at ISS directly and commercialization and sustainability are given more prominence. These were mentioned in Bush’s VSE document but weren’t given the same prominence. Just as Bush did, Obama has created a Commission to figure out the details. Bush created the President’s Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond which produced A Journey to Inspire, Innovate and Discover. In that report it outlines the charter objectives for the Commission as:

1. a science research agenda to be conducted on the Moon and other destinations as well as human and robotic science activities that advance our capacity to achieve the policy;
2. the exploration of technologies, demonstrations, and strategies, including the use of lunar and other in situ natural resources, that could be used for sustainable human and robotic exploration;
3. criteria that could be used to select future destinations for human exploration;
4. long-term organization options for managing implementation of space exploration activities;
5. the most appropriate and effective roles for potential private-sector and international participants in implementing the policy;
6. methods for optimizing space exploration activities to encourage the interest of America’s youth in studying and pursuing careers in mathematics, science, and engineering; and
7. management of the implementation of the policy within available resources.

So what’s the difference between then and now? The main one seems to be that Griffin chose to ignore much of that original Commission’s recommendations. He threw sustainability out the window and completely ignored that “Go as you can pay” finding. Given all of that, one would think that, sans a new section on closing the gap and recovering from the Whitehouse’s lack of oversight of Griffin, you should be able to load the Aldridge Commission report do a few search and replace operations with names and dates, and republish it as is. There are some things in the Aldridge Commission report that I didn’t agree with such as its assumption that manned space is still NASA’s purview. But all of this brings me back to 1) why was the Aldridge Commission report ignored and 2) what makes anyone think that Augustine’s report won’t also be ignored? What is different this time?

Until someone figures out how to route around Congress and the “standing army” issue nothing is going to change. If Augustine’s report is anything like the Aldridge Commission’s then it too will be ignored and NASA will keep going down the rat hole of bureaucratic institutionalization.

Hmm… Route around the problem… What a great idea!

Glenn Reynods linked to How David Beats Goliath and had this to say about it:

Is getting active in every Congressional district kind of like a full-court press? But don’t wait for elections: “Insurgents operate in real time.” Give ‘em something new to react to all the time. But it’s not easy: “Effort can trump ability―legs, in Saxe’s formulation, can overpower arms―because relentless effort is in fact something rarer than the ability to engage in some finely tuned act of motor co?rdination.” And remember this, too: “When the world has to play on Goliath’s terms, Goliath wins.”

This is part of what has bugged me about the Tea Parties I’ve been helping organize here in Atlanta and around the country. As we finished the first and started talking about the second one on April 15th, myself and others began asking what the protests were attempting to accomplish. The answer was exposure and getting fiscally conservative politicians elected. But both of those goals amounted to playing the game by Goliath’s rules. Modern protesting for media impact was invented by the left. And electing fiscally conservative representation assumes that the Tea Party movement reflects a majority of the electorate. Recent polls suggest it isn’t. Both amount to asking the other side’s permission to be relevant.

But whether or not you are a minority doesn’t matter. In today’s world its actually an advantage if played well. Taking Malcom Gladwell’s admonishment to play to your own strengths, lets do some analysis. What differentiates the people in the Tea Party movement from those in Goliath’s army?

1. We work. Hard.

One of the major complaints about the first tea party event was that it was on a week day which meant few people could come because of work. Most of the participants are between 30 and 60 and are in their prime working life. One of the reason’s Goliath’s Army can protest so well is that most have are young enough that taking time off from the Gap is relatively easy.

2. We pay taxes.

Because we work most of us earn enough to be above the “pay no income taxes due to deductions” line. That means the bulk of the income tax receipts to the IRS come from us. We may be the ones who are saddled with the burden but it also means we have a good bit of power if we decide to wield it.

3. We are geographically diverse.

We live in and have ties to “fly over country” that Goliath’s Army simply cannot relate to or easily access. Properly organized we can “flash mob” every middle of nowhere Congressman where ever he/she may be.

4. A good percentage of us are traditional single earner families.

That can mean that kids and mothers (or fathers) may have the time to do distributed activism kind of work. “Play dates” can be created where kids create the collateral that a subversive campaign needs.
Think about all of those can drives during World War II.

5. We are more patriotic.

While patriotism (“love of country”) does exist on the left, the majority of those waving flags, supporting troops, and going to July 4th celebrations are largely on the right.

6. We are more religious.

Self-identification as Christian and church attendance is higher among those on the right. Churches make a great community nucleus to build around.

7. We are more respectful of and comfortable with the military (and vice versa).

Former military people understand organization, motivation, duty and honor. By using their skills and motivating them to become involved we can create a very strong and reliable organizational background.

8. <insert something here>

What do you, as a Tea Party participant, think should be added?

In all of the cases Malcom Gladwell discussed, the guy at a disadvantage was also in the minority. The left has captured public education and turned it into an indoctrination system. Because of that we may not be in the majority. Even if we are, that doesn’t mean we can’t get what we want. If anything the past century has been about minority groups demanding and getting what they want. Its time for us to demand that and do what it takes to get it.

This time of year I usually get a few requests from aerospace students about how to get into the business. Some have usually talked to someone who is convinced that aerospace is a dead end business. Over time I’ve developed a few themes that I’ll list here:

Old vs New

I’m in the “new” space business so my advice is kind of skewed. This end of the industry is fun, vibrant and cash poor. The “old” end of the business pays well but it is fickle: contracts are canceled, government programs are realigned, and your career is more in the hands of Congress than yours. I don’t know squat about the aeronautical side of the industry. If you are thinking about joining the New side of the industry you should be prepared to be poor and live the “startup” life for a while. Its a fun ride, especially if you are young.

Work for NASA but leave before it makes you cynical

Parts of NASA can be fun and interesting. NASA Ames is a good example. Having NASA on your resume is valuable (I’m not sure why, but it is). But only stay there a few years or else you will get sucked into the cynicism and bureaucracy.

Work in Mojave but leave or else you’ll never get married

Find a company bending metal somewhere in Mojave and work with them for a while. Do an internship if you can. The point of view out there is invaluable for letting you know that, in the end, working hardware always trumps Powerpoint. But the social life in Mojave sucks if you are a guy. If you are female and into space then Mojave gives you a target rich environment.

No matter what, build something

Some Aerospace programs focus on simulations. Some focus on hardware. No matter what your program’s focus, get out and build something on your own. Get some of your buddies together and commit to building a regeneratively cooled biprop rocket engine before you graduate.? Or go rebuild a car. Or a house. Just build something. Especially if it requires you to learn welding, machining (no, not CAD/CAM, but basic old school non-CNC mill/lathe stuff). Then go learn CAD/CAM and make something really pretty and complicated. Use all of this to create a portfolio. Put that portfolio on your VisualCV.

Internships!

Several people on twitter reminded me of this one. I thought it was kind of obvious but it needs to be said. Assume that you will spend each summer doing an internship somewhere. Do two at a MINIMUM. Paid or unpaid doesn’t matter. The unpaid ones are usually more interesting and fun. Try and do one outside your comfort zone (if you are an AE try something like working with a company building grocery carts). Use internships to explore your target employers later. Many companies hire interns in full time after they graduate. Some internships suggestions: a Web 2.0 startup, your Congressional representative, a design house, a non-profit (XPRIZE, AIAA)…

Go to some key conference and meet people

My current short list for conferences to go to: ISDC, Space Access, NewSpace, and SmallSat. Make yourself some business cards. Talk to people. Dress well, but don’t wear a suit. If you’re not used to networking then go to some networking events in your local city and get some practice at it. But don’t be mechanistic about it. That other person is just as interesting as you are, find out about them before you start selling yourself.

Use LinkedIn, VisualCV, and yes, Facebook

There are a lot of tools out there that help you keep in touch with the people you meet and help you expand your network beyond the ones you already know. Use them. And clean out your sophomore year frat party pictures on Facebook.

Know your industry intimately

Read all of the space related blogs and trade rags you can. You don’t have to know every dinky little NASA program, but be aware of industry wide politics and trends. While you are networking with people you should be able to speak intelligently about and be current on things like NASA’s Constellation program woes, who SpaceX, what ULA does, what Operationally Responsive Space is, etc.

Join Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS)

If you don’t have a SEDS chapter then create one. If you do, then join and get involved. The friends and connections you will make are invaluable.

Go get an advanced degree. Get it from the International Space University (ISU) if you can

With the economy the way it is, think about continuing on and getting a Masters. Think seriously about getting your Masters in something different than your undergrad. An AE undergrad and an MBA is a formidable combination. Think seriously about getting that Masters from the International Space University (ISU). ISU alumni are a very tight and influential group. Spending a year in France is something you can do easily when you are young. Its much harder when your married and have a mortgage and kids.

Become an expert at something

Find some aspect of aerospace that you know better than your professors or anyone else in the industry. Blog about it. Buck the trend of your fellow graduates and learn project management. Find some way to differentiate? yourself from everyone else.

Do something risky

You are young. Your living expenses and commitments to others are as low as they will ever be in your adult life. Now is the time to double down and try something that us old farts would think its insanely foolish and risky. If you do this right it will probably lead to the next piece of advice.

Spectacularly fail at something

Try something really hard and really risky that you care about. If you succeed, then try something else until you fail spectacularly. Failure is a great teacher. And you will fail at something. Its helpful to learn how you deal with failure early.

Be Loud! (via @tim846)

Via twitter Tim Bailey (@tim846)said, “being *loud* about what you’re doing & want to do: vids of what you build, write a blog/forum/comment, ask for internships“. Engineers sometimes forget that part of your career is marketing yourself. You don’t need to be the Sham Wow! guy, but you do need to proclaim who you are, what you care about, and what you have done loudly and proudly. Ben Brocket, one of the most recent hires at Masten Space Systems, moved to Mojave without a job, lived in a van and did everything it took to get a job with one of the companies out there (us! woot!). He didn’t wait for a recruiter to call him. He saw the kind of job he wanted, made sure he was qualified and did what it took to get it.