AeroGo's Xanga

NASA Needs to Be High-Tech Again

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:37:50 GMT

Several years ago, we discussed here on AeroGo what I consider to be NASA's basic problem. Rather than build steadily on past successes, in the manned space program since Von Braun's retirement, NASA has repeatedly thrown away the capabilities we developed and started over from scratch. In the unmanned program there's room for improvement, too, as we shall see.

Indeed, yesterday the pattern continued. Stennis Space Center conducted the final planned test of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (video), one of the world's most advanced rocket engines, reusable, with an outstanding record of reliability. I hate to see us losing this valuable space hardware.

Instead, in its main "operational" development programs, NASA needs to develop each new capability - rocket engine/stage, spacecraft, space station component, etc - in such a way that it can be a building block that, once developed, could be used repeatedly by combining in various ways. This is how Von Braun did things, re-using engines and stages, using the S-IVB stage for Skylab, putting the Apollo Telescope Mount in place of the Lunar Module, etc. There was actually an Apollo Applications Program that looked for ways to creatively re-use Apollo hardware.

Here is the basic strategy I outlined three years ago:

NASA must learn to plan in a more incremental way, creating building blocks with each operational program that can be pieced together in any number of ways.

NASA needs to plan for the future in a way that consistently balances shorter-term operational programs and longer-term advanced technology efforts.

"Operational" (manned and robotic) programs should be based on proven "building blocks".

A second, less expensive (largely unmanned) set of programs should be tasked with aggressively developing new spacecraft technologies.

Operational programs would get most of the funding but would not be allowed to starve out "advanced technology" funding.

Exploration and scientific missions would be flown using both categories of hardware, with exploration and science goals being primary for operational hardware and secondary for advanced technology hardware.

I noted, "Space technology is just too expensive to reinvent the wheel over and over, and NASA needs to stop eating its seed corn by plowing too much money into overly-ambitious manned programs that starve out high-risk technology development. In the long run, a balanced R&D strategy will ensure real growth in our manned and robotic capabilities without science losing out." I would add:

NASA needs a process for gradually seeding out to industry building blocks as the technology matures, rather than holding on to all of them, bloating its staff/budget and in effect competing against the growing commercial space industry.

An example of a mission where science could have benefitted was the missed opportunity to visit Halley's Comet in 1986. The U.S. was contemplating such a mission, but projected costs were mounting and time was running out. What we should have done is pursue an advanced technology mission using more capable but less-proven technology (e.g. electric propulsion). We could have achieved a primary goal of gaining experience with new space technologies in a faster-paced and lower-cost program. Science return from Halley's Comet would have been a secondary goal, but even if it didn't work out, the advances in our understanding of electric propulsion would have made another comet mission much more feasible.

And lest you think this is a far-fetched scenario, this is more or less just what happened a decade later when NASA sent the Deep Space 1 mission, using electric propulsion to the comet Borrelly. Electric propulsion (DS1 ion engine, above left; engine test, above right) was a technology that had been sitting on the shelf since the 1960s, so DS1 would have been a big success even if it hadn't produced any science return, but in fact it did- the best comet images and data ever (Comet Borrelly, below left; false-color composite of Borrelly's coma, below right).

Deep Space 1 was an example of the sort of win-win mission strategy I am suggesting here. You set up a mission so that even if some objectives aren't achieved, you still advance technology, and if everything does work out, you reap a science windfall. This is the right approach to take for the lower-budget high-risk technology development part of NASA's program. It doesn't mean you don't do big operational projects like Cassini, but there'll be a lot better options for these big-budget missions because of the technologies validated through the advanced technology portion of the program.

There have in fact been several attempts at taking such a technology-investment approach. One was NASA's Applications Technology Satellite series of the 1960s-70s, revived briefly with the ACTS mission. Deep Space 1 was itself an early success for NASA's New Millennium Program, which was doing for unmanned space technology much of what I've outlined here. Unfortunately, it too seems to have withered away, the victim of budget pressures.

I'm certainly not the only one calling for a renewed emphasis on space technology development. John Mankins from The Space Review has written a good article, "To Boldy Go: The Urgent Need for a Revitalized Investment in Space Technology" about the importance of NASA getting back to sustained space technology investment. From the introduction (emphasis added):

"At the beginning of the space age, the United States realized that preeminence in space exploration and development could only be achieved through a commitment to robust investments in advanced space research and technology. ... in the mid-1960s, NASA’s investment in advanced space research and technology was approximately $1 billion per year (in current year dollars), and was directed toward truly ambitious technical objectives such as nuclear propulsion, high-energy cryogenic engines, thermal protection for reusable launch vehicles, electric propulsion, solar energy, automation and robotics, and more. For its day, NASA’s advanced space research and technology program was truly transformational—pressing the frontiers in technology and enabling the space missions of the 1970s and 1980s to achieve goals that were unimaginable for any other nation in the world.

... This “orchard of innovation” yielded missions such as the Viking landers and orbiters at Mars (1976) and the Voyager missions to the outer planets; systems such as the Space Shuttle (1981–present); and, international initiatives such as the International Space Station (1982–present). ...

Unfortunately, the US investment in advanced research and technology for space exploration and development has been reduced to historically low levels, and concurrently has been focused more narrowly than ever before on immediate system designs and development projects. In many respects, the current budget is little more than an “advanced development” program with minimal opportunity for innovation and essentially no possibility that an invention arising from civil space research and technology programs could influence system design decisions, inform budget estimates or inspire new, more ambitious space program goals."

This is very true. If you go back and read the early Kennedy-era NASA budgets, there was a prominent line item for nuclear propulsion. In his Rice University speech you've probably seen replayed several times recently during the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, nobody seems to notice, but what Kennedy actually said was, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." I'm not sure, but I suspect those "other things" were the advanced space technology projects like nuclear propulsion.

Why was nuclear propulsion important? For one thing, we expected to need it to go to Mars. So does this mean Kennedy was already thinking about going to Mars? Probably. In any event, there's no doubt that Kennedy's aim was for America to be the pre-eminent leader in space technology, and he understood we'd never get there without a vigorous advanced technology program, centered on propulsion.

Summer Internships

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:43:23 GMT

If you're not already onto it, there's still time to apply for some neat aerospace internships. Many have application deadlines at the end of January. Here's a couple I mentioned today on @aeroG:

Blue Origin

Masten Space Systems

I'm sure there are many others. NASA has a whole page devoted to student opportunities. These are just a few of the possibilities listed there:

Kennedy Space Center Intern Project

Space Internship Project

UARC STI Graduate Student Summer Internship Project

Many of these opportunities are available at NASA centers and other locations across the country. On the other hand, the Masten folks are at Mojave, which is itself an amazing place (video, below).

AeroTweets Update

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:36:56 GMT

I introduced AeroTweets back in June. It's a great way to make connections with others in the aerospace field. Who knows what that could lead to- help with a school project, a new friend, or maybe even a job prospect? Twitter is also a great way to learn lots more about things than you could through traditional media.

When I look back, I think of so many opportunities missed, times when "if only I'd known about this then". An important part of your education is just learning about what's out there, what opportunities there are, and Twitter is an outstanding way to keep tabs with what's going on, whether it's a space project or even just the latest computer game update!

Now AeroTweets is following more than 1,300 NASA & industry engineers, pilots, astronomers, telescopes, spacecraft, etc. In fact it's pretty much become the norm that each new mission has its own Twitter account (and even an old mission, Lunar Orbiter – which is getting its photos enhanced and digitally archived – has got an account). Here's a few of the most interesting news & mission tweets you might want to follow:

NASA (news fed from http://www.nasa.gov/rss)

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (now undergoing thermal vacuum chamber testing-see LRO page, below)

LCROSS (flies with LRO to Moon in 2009)

India's Chandrayaan1, already there

Mars Phoenix

NASA EDGE (video news, etc.)

Space Vidcast, with lots of live video of launches, etc.

Flightglobal news

Google's Lunar X-Prize official account

Another thing you learn with experience is that relationships really are key. It's not just WHAT you know that matters, but also WHO you know. Maybe this doesn't seem fair, but in real life it's very hard to get anything done without trust, and trust comes from having known someone, preferably for a long time.

So it never hurts to start early working on building your professional network, even if you're still in high school. Here are just a few examples of the many interesting aero folks you can follow on Twitter (these guys are pretty busy, but who knows who YOU might be able to connect with, given time):

Astronaut Leroy Chiao (Ret.)

SEDS/ISU/X-Prize/Zero G/Space Adventures/etc. founder Peter Diamandis

Wayne Hale, former Space Shuttle Program Manager

CNN space correspondent Miles O'Brien

and, of course, follow me @aeroG!

Finally, I've found a lot of folks are reluctant to sign up for Twitter, which is a bit surprising considering it's free and rather simple to use, but I really want to encourage you to give it a try. If you need a little more of a nudge, consider what a couple of other folks have to say:

OpenNASA (@Skytland):  Social Media: What's the Point?

Business Week Editor-in-Chief John A. Byrne (@JOHNABYRNE):  Why I Tweet

So ... give it a try, and take a look at the AeroTweets list and some of these other accounts' following lists for interesting folks to listen to & learn from!!

More on Twitter - AeroTweets!!

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 05:18:57 GMT

If you're not on Twitter, you really should check it out. Maybe it's not for everyone - it seems like about a third of folks get the point right away, another third wander around and slowly find more value in it (as they find other interesting people to follow), and I guess another third maybe will only use it when they have to (like most every other computer technology).

Anyway, if you're not already following me at aeroG (see last post), you should check that out, it's my main Twitter where I tweet about stuff related to aerospace, research, entrepreneurship, etc.

Now I've made it even easier for you all, because besides the many interesting folks I'm following @aeroG, I've made a whole new Twitter account, AeroTweets that's collected HUNDREDS (over 500 currently) of aerospace twitterers. That's everyone from private, corporate, military and airline pilots to planetary scientists and spacecraft designers, independent rocket developers, many NASA engineers & web folks, and MUCH more!

Twitter's a great way to connect with folks and now AeroTweets gives you both a great way to get started on Twitter and a great way to connect to others in the aero field. To see the list of aero folks, just click on the Following link on the AeroTweets page.

Also, if you are in the aero field or a student, etc., let me know so I can add you on Twitter.

aeroG Twitter Page

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:43:48 GMT

There's been a link at the bottom to my Twitter page, aeroG for quite some time, but if you haven't seen it, you should definitely check it out. I'm using Twitter to make quick and simple links to many aero articles and other valuable content. Here's just a sample of recent items:

Lunar Exploration Summer Intern-New program in Houston for GradStudents/TopUndgrads ApplicDL 2/29

AeroGo|Fifty Years Ago or Fifty Years Later? - New comments re Sputnik era book/Laika/Making Sense of Sputnik list

Congrats to @marckboucher, @OnOrbit http://onorbit.com/alpha, "a new social space news and networking site from SpaceRef" went live last wk

Beautiful photo of Comet McNaught over Chile, taken from Andes mountains above Santiago

[FastCo] Six Sigma & Innovation Culture- Comment: Creators/Leaders innovate, THEN Analysts/Managers make efficient

There's also an RSS link that you can use to subscribe that way:

http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/5659662.rss

Fifty Years Ago, or Fifty Years Later?

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:55:41 GMT

It's a subtle question, but one we need to think about. Today is, of course, the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik 1 (right), and so of the start of the space age. It's a fitting time to think about both sides of this question.

Looking back, to 50 years ago, that achievement certainly qualified as what's called a "watershed event", something that led to a whole bunch of subsequent activity and change. Often such events are only appreciated later, but in some ways the importance of Sputnik was realized immediately. For a decade, science and engineering education got a much-needed surge of interest and emphasis.

The New York Times has given us two very nice gifts to celebrate this anniversary. First, it has produced a quite elaborate series of articles on Sputnik, the space age, etc. Second, it just recently announced that it will no longer be charging for access to at least most articles in its archives, so hopefully the links in this and other posts will keep working! If this example sets a trend for other publications, it could really do a lot for the accessibility of information on the internet.

One of the Times' articles is an interesting first-hand account of that period by Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev's son Sergei Kruschev, who was an engineering student who shared his father's zeal for technological progress.

Of course, likely none of the Soviet space spectaculars would have happened were it not for their program's Chief Designer, Sergei Korolev (at left). He, like his counterpart in America, German V-2 designer Wernher von Braun, had a vision for rocketry that extended far beyond military uses such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). While von Braun had been pushing for years in the U.S. for manned exploration of space, it was Korolev who got the space race started, and ensured that there was a race.

The U.S. had already announced that it was going to launch a satellite into space, as a key part of its contribution to the International Geophysical Year, a concerted global research effort. That leisurely U.S. effort, however, oriented around the Navy's Vanguard program to orbit a very small satellite, ended up experiencing repeated launch failures. After Sputnik, the Army stepped in with von Braun (who, following Operation Paperclip, had been assigned to the Army's Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama) and its Jupiter Rocket.

While the Jupiter succeeded in orbiting the modest Explorer 1 satellite on January 31, 1958, resulting in the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts, the Soviets continued to have a lead for a number of years. This lead was due to a number of factors, not least of which was the Soviets' possessing larger ICBMs, apparently necessitated by the greater "throw weight" of their early nuclear warheads. The Soviets were also a lot more willing to take risks, and many had already paid with their lives by the time Sputnik was launched.

Let us not forget that before Korolev were other pioneers who, as it's said, took the arrows. Most prominent are Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (left) and Robert Goddard. Tsiolkovsky was a prolific visionary who first set out many of the basic scientific and mathematic concepts of spaceflight and determined the rocket equation. While in 1920s-30s Germany, rocket pioneers such as Hermann Oberth would be treated almost like rock stars, Tsiolkovsky received little recognition or opportunity for collaboration with other scientists.

Goddard, who persevered for decades in the development of the liquid rocket engine technology (above right) key to spaceflight, was widely ridiculed early in his career (including, perhaps most notably, by the New York Times). He labored for years with little recognition and assistance beyond that of a few visionaries such as Charles Lindbergh and the Guggenheims, and died just before the advent of a more concerted American rocketry effort.

In the 1935 photo at right, Goddard (center) is flanked by Harry Guggenheim (left) and Lindbergh. To their sides are Goddard's brother-in-law and machinist Albert Kisk (far left) and his machinist N.T. Ljungquist (far right).

Looking forward, from Sputnik to 50 years later, it's clear that in many ways the importance of the event is still not widely appreciated or understood. Sputnik was the crossing of a huge threshold, much as was the Montgolfier brothers' balloon in 1783 and the Wright brothers' airplane in 1903. In some ways, it opened up an even far greater realm for exploration and development, at least the solar system and perhaps beyond.

I'll put off till another time lamenting that so few people even now "get it" about space, that it's a destination and a place to live, like discovering another continent, only so much more vast. Today, we need to be asking the right questions about what allowed such a momentous advance 50 years ago. One particularly interesting question is, "Why did Korolev and von Braun accomplish so much in just a few years?"

A large part of the answer, in my estimation, involved this: the recognition and support of talent. Korolev and von Braun got a lot of help that Tsiolkovsky and Goddard never did. So what does that say about the present and the future?

Today, I'm very concerned that we have lost in many fields the ability to recognize true talent and support it wholeheartedly. This is a subject I'll cover some other time in another place, but throughout our society we need to re-develop the ability to identify truly talented individuals. This proper measuring of accomplishment is a skill that must be taught. Though this skill involves many things, one key aspect is that we must look at how much someone accomplishes with what they've been given, and not just how big a budget they can spend.

Certainly today in our largest space programs, we have a desperate need for technically competent visionaries who can guide us forward, rather than just reinvent the wheel. More generally, we need to have more appreciation for talented folks outside the mainstream government and university programs. Real breakthoughs often - if not primarily - come from outside the cloisters of recognized "experts". It's easy to forget that just six decades ago, rocketry was so scorned in the U.S., that Caltech's Theodore von Karman decided to name his new facility the Jet - not Rocket - Propulsion Lab!

We also need to be looking to invest more in students with a passionate interest in a certain field. This last need is more generally acknowledged, but what is poorly understood is that this sort of thing must be done primarily by folks in that particular field. Researchers who are too busy to devote much effort to teaching and mentoring students may still be accomplishing much that is important, but must realize they're also denying many opportunities.

If nothing else, the story of Sputnik shows how it's not just big government programs, but ultimately individuals, that are important. The Soviet space program never recovered from its loss of Korolev (who may well have been pushed too hard by the elder Kruschev), and neither has the American program seen the kind of progress in manned flight and rocketry that it saw under von Braun. If we really want to see progress in space exploration and development, we must cultivate individuals, and not just budget line items.

Now, in this spirit, one more thing - today's also a special day because one of my children, who I've written about before, is having a birthday. OK, well ... yeah, of course I thought it was a cool day to have for a birthday!

787 Nuts, Bolts & ... Bits

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:52:33 GMT

I wrote last year about the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Amidst the many problems with Airbus' huge new A380, the 787 development, though behind that of the A380, has seemed relatively smooth, with only comparatively modest delays.

The Dreamliner was rolled out (below) on July 8th ... that's 7/8/07 in case you didn't notice ! ... Now we're hearing, unfortunately (or perhaps finally), of what the New York Times has called "the first significant setback" to its development schedule. The first flight will reportedly be delayed two-three months (the A380, after flying for over two years, is expected to enter service October 25th).

It's hardly a surprise that the 787, with a number of major innovations, is experiencing some difficulties, yet I was a bit surprised Boeing's still saying these won't impact the plane's May 2008 delivery target. Instead, the flight test schedule will be shortened.

While the delay is being attributed to several things, including a shortage of fasteners, production of specialized parts, and flight software development, whenever I see an announcement like this, it's the word "software" that jumps out at me. Perhaps software is not a big source of delays on the 787 - Boeing built a very expensive Integrated Systems Lab in the 777 project to help with that - but software development delays have been such a common source of difficulty for project managers, that you can't help but wonder.

Boeing's Mike Bair, who runs the 787 program, was quoted as saying that the sofware work "was mis-estimated on how much had to get done" and that it was a "horse race" as to which issue (fasteners or software) was the bigger source of delay. The problem is, while it's easy to write the specs ahead of time with something like a fastener, you often don't know what you need with software until you're well into developing it.

Photo credit: Yasuhiko Obara

Of course, Boeing and Honeywell, Boeing's partner on the fancy 787 flight management system, have done flight software many times, so I wouldn't expect any big surprises, but it's a well-known fact that software projects very commonly experience nasty delays. Software is especially difficult because, unlike an item like fasteners, you can't just put more people on it and make it go faster. In fact, as Fred Brooks showed in his classic essay/book, The Mythical Man-Month, adding people can actually make a software project go slower!

Boeing, for example, can send folks to the various fastener plants and work with them to increase production and make sure the highest-priority fasteners are made first (the 787 rolled out in July was still lacking about 700 itself). On the other hand, putting more software engineers on the project would mean the ones working on it already would have to interrupt their work to train them, then spend more time in meetings and various other forms of communicating as they coordinated their efforts.

Besides software, other hurdles remain. Boeing must complete two structural test aircraft, one for static testing, including the wing ultimate load test (which also damages the fuselage), and the other for fatigue testing (where many take-off, pressurization, and landing cycles are simulated). These airframes will never fly, of course. Regarding the engines, the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 was certified last month. Certification of GE's GEnx, the other type offered on the 787, is expected later this year.

It's ironic that a shortage of fasteners should be a hold-up, since one of the advantages of a composite aircraft like the 787 is that it uses a lot fewer of them. Of course, I guess these are still mainly rivets, not nuts & bolts!

There's reportedly been considerable controversy in particular over how to do the 787's wing ultimate load test. Traditionally Boeing has conducted these tests past the 150% ultimate load requirement and all the way to failure, breaking the wing. This isn't an easy choice to make with the 787's carbon fiber reinforced plastic wing, which would spread carbon particles into the air upon fracturing, necessitating an expensive environmental cleanup. Apparently Boeing is just going to take the wing to 150%, hold for three seconds, and call it a day.

Below is a great video from the earlier test of the 777 wing, in 1995. These are spectacular tests, and this one goes all the way to destruction of the wing. You can see the relief on the engineers' & managers' faces as they get to 150%. I wrote last year about Alan Mulally, who is highlighted in the video, and once ran the 777 program. He left Boeing last year to take up another tough challenge, being Ford's new CEO.

Despite all these difficulties, let's not forget that the 787 will be a major advance in airliner technology and passenger comfort. Even if the beautiful cabin renderings are not to be fully believed (airlines typically cram in a lot more seats), the 787 brings many innovations. The big advance in composite construction brings many other benefits, including anticipated lower maintenance costs due to fatigue and corrosion, lower operating/fuel costs due to lighter weight (and more efficient engines), and improved cabin comfort from lower cabin pressure (6,000 ft. vs. 8,000), higher humidity (which has been kept low in airliners to prevent corrosion from condensation), bigger windows and other improvements in cabin dimensions.

The Dreamliner also will offer advanced cabin air filtration and an elaborate gust suppression system, using pressure sensors around the aircraft, to provide a smoother ride. The aircraft even has a standard engine interface, so airlines can easily switch between the Trent and GEnx, potentially lowering their costs by increasing competition between these key suppliers. Finally, perhaps it's just a bit ironic that Boeing's using an airframe made of carbon, along with a lot of help from improved engine technology, to make a new airliner that will have a significantly lower carbon footprint.

Some Great Video

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:47:03 GMT

After good coverage of the launch Friday, today I've been enjoying watching the ISS spacewalk from NASA TV. I posted these links last night on the LiveJournal Spacexploration community, and while I figure many of you already know about these, in case you don't you should check the NASA TV feed accessible from either of these pages:

http://www.space.com/spaceshuttle/index.html

and

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

I've just kept it running in the background on my Mac these last three days. Sometimes there's more going on than others, but for those of us who don't have time to watch it on cable all day, it's interesting to be able to track the mission online for an extended period of time and just follow along and see the sequence and pace as they've launched, prepared for rendezvous, docked, and begun preparations for a series of spacewalks.

NASA TV also runs video highlights every so often, and press conferences, etc., so in the slow times you might see some stuff from earlier in the mission if you missed it as well as see (such as during the press conferences) the sorts of analysis that goes into resolving the various issues arising during the mission.

To follow along with what they're currently doing, check SpaceFlight Now's STS-117 status page. You can also see what's coming up the next few days by referring to their regularly-updated and detailed Master Flight Plan schedule.

In the top image, Mission Specialists Jim Reilly and Danny Olivas are working in daylight on the photovoltaic array which is to be deployed later in this spacewalk. The bottom image shows the station and one of the astronauts late in the night portion of that same orbit, with sunrise again approaching as they are south of Australia.

When you watch these guys at work, just bear in mind that it's all a lot tougher than it looks, especially in zero-G. I can't help thinking about how back in the mid-80s, a lot of folks, including some astronauts and many engineers, including yours truly, were rather skeptical that NASA could pull off the many complex spacewalks required to construct the ISS.

For this reason as well as many others, it's impressive to watch them build this big station. If you'd like to learn more about it, I'd recommend the Space Station DVD of the IMAX film. Hopefully despite previous announcements, NASA will see fit to make good use of it once it's completed. Let's also hope that we'll see a lot more construction in space before too long; some of us have got lots of stuff we'd like to build!

How Missiles Are Changing the Rules

Wed, 30 May 2007 05:14:07 GMT

Anyone who's read AeroGo carefully knows I'm a big fan of Kelly Johnson. I'm not the only one, either. The man was perhaps the greatest aircraft designer of all time. I get hits all the time from folks searching for info on him, the Skunk Works aircraft, or his 14 Rules. Even my (very cool) wife has a large picture of the SR-71 on her office wall.

So what's this have to do with missiles? Well, some of you will think of Johnson's F-104 (left), in my view one of the prettiest jet fighters of all time, so sleek that they called it the "missile with a man in it". But that was a 1950s design, back when there were still a lot of potential improvements left in fighter aircraft.

Toward the end of his career, seeing that designers were rapidly approaching the limit of what could be expected out of a manned aircraft, Johnson increasingly began to view unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and missiles as the future of combat and reconnaissance aircraft.

In his memoirs, Kelly: More Than My Share of it All, Johnson wrote (p. 191), "It may seem traitorous from an aircraft designer, but I see a diminished role for the manned military aircraft and more reliance on remotely piloted vehicles and missiles. When you can put 20Gs of maneuverability in a missile while a man can pull only 9Gs at most ... when you can provide a missile with the search capaiblity to find its target; and when ... relay links ... can give rapid readout in real time ... why send a man over enemy territory at all?"

One of Johnson's last major projects, in fact (as far as I know), was the large D-21 reconnaissance drone/UAV (right, atop M-21 carrier aircraft, a modified A-12), which was used in an apparently unsuccessful effort to gather intelligence on China prior to Henry Kissinger's secret visit in 1971.

By the 1970s, advances in aircraft structures, etc., had indeed led to fighter performance that was testing the limits of human pilots. Advances in microelectronics really took off about this time as well, followed in the 1980s by widespread miniaturization of sensors. Aircraft no longer needed to be as large for many roles, and remote or even autonomous control also became practical.

Certainly, one of the first really dramatic outcomes of these trends was the modern cruise missile, an impressive leap forward that I intend to cover later. Around this time, however, much of the promise of missiles and UAVs seemed to be overshadowed by a radical new development: stealth.

Kelly Johnson was skeptical of stealth technology, which was pursued by his successor at the Skunk Works, Ben Rich. Rich, in his highly informative book Skunk Works, tells us (Ch. 2) that Johnson was very skeptical both of stealth itself and that such an "ugly" aircraft could ever fly.

Of course, stealth worked very well, and gave a new lease on life for manned fighter jets, or rather small jets called fighters, actually flying a precision strike mission. Stealth also regained viability/survivability for large penetrating bombers, the B-2 being the only example. Viewed from another perspective, it could on the other hand be argued that stealth in a way eliminated much of the need for fighters, since aircraft could penetrate enemy defenses without additional escorts.

While stealth may have delayed the dominance of missile and UAV designs, I believe we are now entering a period where rapid advances and proliferation in missile and UAV/UCAV technologies will cause them to steadily rise in strategic importance. There have been a number of important developments in recent years, mainly outside the U.S., which seem to point to such a potential. I hope to discuss these trends, and their implications to the U.S. and others, in several future posts.

While the V-2 rocket came too late to yield a major advantage to Nazi Germany, in general we can say that since the 1950s missile technologies, starting with Soviet ICBM development, have a recurring track record of giving a leg up to seemingly lesser military powers. In 1982, the British Royal Navy found itself seriously threatened by the surface-skimming Exocet missile (Exocet 2, right). Later in the decade, the U.S. began arming the Afghan resistance (Mujahideen) with shoulder-launched Stinger surface to air missiles, dramatically shifting the balance of power in their fight against the Soviet Union.

I expect we'll see more examples of such turning-of-the-tables in years to come, and so believe that this growth trend in missile technology and proliferation is something we need to study carefully and try to understand. A failure to take these trends seriously might well lead to a significant military setback, not too many years in the future.

I Don't Know Quite How to Say This, But ...

Wed, 09 May 2007 18:10:59 GMT

"You're fired!" - Donald Trump

"After careful consideration of your application, regretfully we have made the difficult decision that we are unable to admit you to _______ University for the coming year. As you know, we receive many more applicants than there are places available. We want you to know how very sorry we are to have to make this decision. We wish we were writing with a different decision. We wish it were possible to admit you, and we hope you will accept our best wishes." - _______ University, c. 2007

Hmm ... in some ways academia always makes things so much more complicated than business! But I suppose you end up feeling about the same. The fact is, no one likes rejection. It's hard to talk about. Ever since I read a good article about the college sweepstakes last month, I've been thinking I should write something but, as the title says, I'm not quite sure how to put it.

I am sure I don't fully appreciate how much pressure is on a lot of students nowadays to get into a top college. Our society has become much more polarized between the haves and have-nots, and now almost all good-paying jobs require a lot of certification. In any case, if you're one who's just been rejected, or maybe about to go through the whole process, I'd like to try to give you a little perspective on the matter (and a little encouragement ).

Maybe it's better that I waited a month to post this, to give some folks time to cool down. The college courting process has gotten more and more like an infatuated romance, with a lot of high hopes often followed by a lot of disappointment (surely if you read Xanga you know what I'm talking about!) Maybe by now, some of you will have come back to reality enough to see that it's not the end of the world. At the same time, there's also quite a few long-suffering engineering students out there, wondering if they need to finally see the handwriting on the wall and change majors.

In case no one told you, college is no panacea. Many of the top schools have gotten that way because of their research, and it's no secret that a lot of researchers make pretty crummy professors. Even worse, engineering at most schools is hands down the toughest major, and a lot of people just aren't cut out for it.

You need to keep your options open. One of the themes I'm trying to communicate with AeroGo is that, if you're interested in the aerospace field, great, but don't think engineering or being a pilot is the only way to contribute. There's lots of skills that are needed in aerospace, even - dare I say it - law and accounting!

Another thing you must understand is that college is a marathon, not a sprint. The key is not how you start, but how you finish. You need a plan so that you can finish strong, not all worn out. College is a non-linear process; you only get rewarded for finishing the last semester, not the first seven, and by the way, engineering is really a five-year program. What's really frustrating is that the courses you most look forward to are near the end, where you're typically so busy just trying to pass other nasty courses (stability & control and structural dynamics come to mind), that you just can't devote as much time as you'd like to these courses you've been looking forward to for so long, like aircraft/spacecraft design or propulsion.

For these reasons, if you're not really sure what you want to do, I'd recommend going to a not-quite-so-difficult undergrad school that won't throw your life out of whack, getting through fairly quickly (or else interning/co-opping), and saving some energy and $$ for grad school, which is pretty much expected of folks nowadays.

In any case, always remember that you're the customer, and the school needs you as much as you need it. The better colleges realize this, and go to great lengths to admit a very diverse, high-quality student body with diverse interests. If you do have your heart set on getting into a top school, make sure you slant your application this way, rather than just presenting yourself as another cookie-cutter perfect student.

There are reasons for going to a good private school. Besides connections and the brand, at least one big advantage is they often give you the benefit of the doubt. As one student from such a school told me years ago, instead of admitting a whole lot of students and making them prove themselves afterward, once the school had admitted someone, they were viewed as already having proved themselves to be a good student, so the school didn't have "weed-out" classes like so many state schools did.

Ideally, you'd like to find a school that is looking to invest in their students and listen to them, at least in the areas that are important to you. I'm certainly trying to do that for my AeroGo readers, and I hope you all the best. While there's sure to be some ups and downs along the way, as I've written before, I'm confident you guys are going to be the generation that finally gets us up into space to stay.

Well, if your ego has already been bruised by a rejection letter, let me leave you with a few thoughts from a recent, well-done article by Michael Winerip in the the New York Times, "Young, Gifted and Not Getting Into Harvard" (sorry, subscription required):

"I've done perhaps 40 of these interviews, which are conducted by alumni across the country. No matter how glowing my recommendations, in all this time only one kid, a girl, got in ... It's very moving meeting all these bright young people who won't get into Harvard. Recent news articles make it sound unbearably tragic ...

There was the girl who ... worked all [summer] doing cutting-edge research for NASA on weightlessness in mice ... These kids who don't get into Harvard spend summers on schooners in Chesapeake Bay studying marine biology, building homes for the poor in Central America, touring Europe with all-star orchestras."

He goes on to mention a guy who did cancer research, wrote music, was also a computer whiz and a great cook, but you get the idea. I guess being an over-achiever just isn't the ticket to success it once was, or at least to Harvard. Winerip gives this valuable observation:

"Actually, meeting the soon-to-be-rejected makes me hopeful about young people. They are far more accomplished than I was at their age and without a doubt will do superbly wherever they go. ...

But I've stopped feeling bad about the looming rejection. When my four were little, I used to hope a couple might go to Harvard. I pushed them, but [in the end] I had to learn to see who they were. ... They look around and see lots of avenues to success."

So ... by all means, go for it ... But keep your options open.