NASA G2

[SCFalken]

That's why I said the person in command has to know how to command.

 

 

Which has nothing to do with aviation or military skills.

 

A long-duration expedition cannot be run in a military manner. Not even close. The Submarine community has nothing on what the Mars expeditions are going to go through (almost 3 years in close proximity with just 3-5 other people, with the rest of the human race several hundred Million kilometers away).

 

The person in nominal (and that's what it will be. Nominal) command had better know how to lead and maintain (as compared to impose) harmony. More project manager, less chieftain. Most of the people with the requisite experience to handle, say space or Mars-environment emergencies, will be Astronauts themselves, further narrowing the pool away from military personnel (especially post-STS).

 

Falken

Edited July 28, 2007 by SCFalken

[SCFalken]

To be quite honest, the idea that the pilot/craft commander/whatever you want to call him only has duties that occupy him 5% of the entire mission schedule is ludicrous.

True. But that breaks down, as illustrated below.

 

Who does the PMs on life support and other mission critical equipment?

Likely ALL the crew will have to participate in PM. For the Mars expeditions, there is going to be more life- and mission-support equipment than any single person could manage.

 

Who is best qualified to lead EVAs and ensure EVA safety when he doesn't go out himself?

Probably the person with the most EVA experience. Who may not be the actual Commander.

 

Who is the most qualified to maintain discipline and ensure the crew stays on the job?

Probably someone who is designated the nominal Commander. Which, again, has nothing to do with aviation or even a military background.

 

Somebody who has a secondary duty to do all of those things, or somebody who is aboard to do those things?

Except that it -will- be a secondary duty. Having an "admin" guy along is not an option.

 

You are conflating "command" with a certain position on the crew. The nominal Commander might well be the Geologist (who is also the Meteorologist, and assistant technician). There isn't going to be a guy along whose sole reason for being there is to give out directions (NASA will be doing most of the mission directives, with the balance of decisions being made by the Specialist onboard themselves) and maybe do PM.

 

I imagine that the early Mission Commanders will be drawn from guys who are in the Mars Expedition manpower pool who were previously on the Lunar missions. That's a wild guess, but I think it's likely.

 

 

Falken

Edited July 28, 2007 by SCFalken

[SCFalken]

Super Paper:

 

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/725/2

 

By Phil Berardelli

ScienceNOW Daily News

25 July 2007

 

Researchers have developed a remarkably simple way to convert ordinary graphite particles into very thin but superstrong sheets that are tougher than steel and as flexible as carbon fiber but can be made much more cheaply. The discovery could spawn entirely new types of materials for applications as diverse as protective coatings, electronic components, batteries, and fuel cells

 

 

Falken

[TSJ]

It's not established how drunk the astonauts were. The news media is reporting it as an established fact. Jim Oberg objects to this presumption:

 

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/07/...ube_3.html#more

[SCFalken]

X-48B

 

Falken

Edited July 29, 2007 by SCFalken

[Ivanhoe]

A few quick hits...

 

The intersection of the sets of research scientists and people with military command experience is not the null set, by a long shot. I've worked with a bunch of folks with military service, including combat service.

 

A long-duration manned outpost may not need a pilot, but it sure as hell will need a mechanic and an electronics technician. As for mission command, a submariner seems like a particularly good choice.

 

For doing EVA work, I'd look at commercial divers. Those guys are used to adverse conditions and not having much of a support system.

[Guest aevans]

Which has nothing to do with aviation or military skills.

 

A long-duration expedition cannot be run in a military manner. Not even close. The Submarine community has nothing on what the Mars expeditions are going to go through (almost 3 years in close proximity with just 3-5 other people, with the rest of the human race several hundred Million kilometers away).

 

The person in nominal (and that's what it will be. Nominal) command had better know how to lead and maintain (as compared to impose) harmony. More project manager, less chieftain. Most of the people with the requisite experience to handle, say space or Mars-environment emergencies, will be Astronauts themselves, further narrowing the pool away from military personnel (especially post-STS).

 

Falken

 

I never said anything about putting a martinet in the job, but you do need somebody that can intelligently impose discipline throughout the flight. The longer the mission, the more this is needed, not less. You also need someone that can assert an immediate command presence in an emergency, and who will know when that emergency has arrived, without guessing. And the need for these kinds of skills is additionally heightened by missions lacking bailout capabilities, such as Moon base rotations or Mars missions. The people that are trained to do this are the military pilots.

 

Also, you seem to be suggestingthat military pilots who fly in space aren't astronauts. Of course they are -- they just have different duties than mission specialists, wand will continue to.

[Guest aevans]

You are conflating "command" with a certain position on the crew. The nominal Commander might well be the Geologist (who is also the Meteorologist, and assistant technician). There isn't going to be a guy along whose sole reason for being there is to give out directions (NASA will be doing most of the mission directives, with the balance of decisions being made by the Specialist onboard themselves) and maybe do PM.

 

I imagine that the early Mission Commanders will be drawn from guys who are in the Mars Expedition manpower pool who were previously on the Lunar missions. That's a wild guess, but I think it's likely.

Falken

 

Quite frankly, you're speaking from an idealized perspective, without experience of long voyages in confined quarters. Under those conditions humans need real command, exercised by somebody who is present, not a nominal commander plus hand-holding from the front office. People being professionals and supposedly dedicated to the task doesn't keep them from being human, and they have to be handled like humans, not like idealized paragons of virtue and commitment.

[SCFalken]

Also, you seem to be suggestingthat military pilots who fly in space aren't astronauts. Of course they are -- they just have different duties than mission specialists, wand will continue to.

 

Never said that, nor did I mean it.

 

I said that the "pilot" slot will go away. You might have a pilot, but he'll be a Geologist (insert any other critical specialty) 90% of the time. You might have military personnel (especially if the USAF has it's way) onboard, but they will be MDs or PhD's in critical specialties.

 

but you do need somebody that can intelligently impose discipline throughout the flight. The longer the mission, the more this is needed, not less. You also need someone that can assert an immediate command presence in an emergency, and who will know when that emergency has arrived, without guessing. And the need for these kinds of skills is additionally heightened by missions lacking bailout capabilities, such as Moon base rotations or Mars missions. The people that are trained to do this are the military pilots.

 

Yes, military personnel (most of whom are -not- pilots) have those skillsets. As do many, many others. Especially (for the purposes of this discussion), currently-serving experienced Astronauts.

 

That's why, I'm guessing, that the Commanders of the Lunar (these missions might have a few STS pilots and cmdrs left over) and Mars expeditions will be mostly drawn from Astronauts with significant experience and possessing critical skills, background irrelevant.

 

 

Falken

Edited July 29, 2007 by SCFalken

[SCFalken]

Quite frankly, you're speaking from an idealized perspective, without experience of long voyages in confined quarters. Under those conditions humans need real command, exercised by somebody who is present, not a nominal commander plus hand-holding from the front office.

 

Quite frankly, I've got as much or more experience in this particular topic as you do. Unless your a submariner whose been on a 1/3rd decade cruise, with no port visits. Comparing this particular endevour with a 90-day cruise, or 6-month deployment on a CVN, is ludicrous. Such a comparison breaks down immediately.

 

Military command styles, with a single-source authority, won't work over a three-year period. The best you'll get is primus inter pares, who serves to fit the NASA mission plans to on-site facts. Coordinator, not Commander.

 

People being professionals and supposedly dedicated to the task doesn't keep them from being human, and they have to be handled like humans, not like idealized paragons of virtue and commitment.

 

That's nice, and correct. However, it bears no relation to what I stated. I didn't bring up martinets or any extreme examples. I merely pointed out that a "commander" is likely to be no more than a coordinator and arbiter, with NASA making the big decisions, and every member of the crew likely to be as capable of reacting to an emergency as the commander (this is where that "coordinator" part comes in).

 

 

Falken

[SCFalken]

As for mission command, a submariner seems like a particularly good choice.

 

No submariners in the Space Program (that I'm aware of). If they had the academic quals (and many of those guys do), then they'd be as good as aviators.

 

As for mission command: Nope. The best people to lead Astronauts are....other Astronauts. Military command styles (even guys who command men at sea for months) simply aren't applicable (no UCMJ, for one). Also, the isolation and length are in a different category than either submarine duty or Antarctic wintering. So far, we've got nothing even approaching the sort of environmental factors present on a Mars expedition. Which might have something to do with the 6-month Lunar crew tours (if we have problems with them, Mars will be pretty gnarly)...

 

And yes, there are a lot of veterans in the science and engineering fields. As I stated previously (in that, you may have military-source personnel onboard, but because of their academic quals, not their ability to fly).

 

As for maintenance and technical issues, you've got 4-6 hideously overqualified individuals. They are going to be out for 3 years. Chances are, each of those people is going to be a SME, wrt every piece of mission-support equipment present. That's currently true, to a lesser extent, for the STS and ISS missions.

 

It'll be interesting to see how far in advance of launch the crew rosters will be announced...(I'm guessing they will undergo at least a couple of years of mission-specific training).

 

Falken

Edited July 29, 2007 by SCFalken

[Jim Martin]

Kinda sorta off the topic, but did anyone else see "Red Planet", and think the military aviator type was asking to get pushed off the cliff?

 

The movie lost credibility for me just viewing the crew selection/personality types. The military aviator type came off as a bully obsessed with his own machismo, and I wasn't particularly saddened to see him take the fall. I'd think NASA would take a bit more care in selecting crew for a 3 year long mission.

[SCFalken]

a 3 year long mission.

 

A 3 year-long (televised) mission.

 

And, yes, I'm guessing the crew will be the most-analyzed group of human beings in history.

 

The "introverted genius/rebel-with-a-cause" archetypes will be deselected really early.

 

Falken

[TSJ]

Russia denies that anybody flew drunk on mission.

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5009035.html

 

Comments section is hilarious!

Edited July 29, 2007 by TSJ

[Guest aevans]

Quite frankly, I've got as much or more experience in this particular topic as you do. Unless your a submariner whose been on a 1/3rd decade cruise, with no port visits. Comparing this particular endevour with a 90-day cruise, or 6-month deployment on a CVN, is ludicrous. Such a comparison breaks down immediately.

 

I know a lot about extended cruises on surface ships. You don't. Okay? The stresses inherrent in such a relatively benign environment, where you have large crews, a large ship, the ability to go outside and get sunlight and fresh air, port visits, etc. are so great that I can only label as folly embarking on any voyage with even more potential stressors without a strong, militarily trained commanding officer.

 

Military command styles, with a single-source authority, won't work over a three-year period. The best you'll get is primus inter pares, who serves to fit the NASA mission plans to on-site facts. Coordinator, not Commander.

 

Who said anything about military command styles throughout the voyage? The point is having somebody who can assume command when necessary, and who can maintain a certain minimum level of discipline throughout the voyage.

 

That's nice, and correct. However, it bears no relation to what I stated. I didn't bring up martinets or any extreme examples. I merely pointed out that a "commander" is likely to be no more than a coordinator and arbiter, with NASA making the big decisions, and every member of the crew likely to be as capable of reacting to an emergency as the commander (this is where that "coordinator" part comes in).

 

You place way too much faith in astronut training. Sure, it's extensive and repetitive and perfectionist and all that. But NASA still sends up missions with experienced military pilots in command, even if some of them are civilians at the time they fly for NASA. My impression is that this will not change any time soon, and that it shouldn't.

[RETAC21]

I know a lot about extended cruises on surface ships. You don't. Okay? The stresses inherrent in such a relatively benign environment, where you have large crews, a large ship, the ability to go outside and get sunlight and fresh air, port visits, etc. are so great that I can only label as folly embarking on any voyage with even more potential stressors without a strong, militarily trained commanding officer.

Who said anything about military command styles throughout the voyage? The point is having somebody who can assume command when necessary, and who can maintain a certain minimum level of discipline throughout the voyage.

You place way too much faith in astronut training. Sure, it's extensive and repetitive and perfectionist and all that. But NASA still sends up missions with experienced military pilots in command, even if some of them are civilians at the time they fly for NASA. My impression is that this will not change any time soon, and that it shouldn't.

 

Probably the experience of age of sail captains is more relevant as they were really isolated, a re-read of Cook's trips or watching the Bounty will surely help.

[SCFalken]

I know a lot about extended cruises on surface ships. You don't. Okay?

Which, as I stated before, has so little in common with an interplanetary expedition, that any comparison breaks down as soon as you describe it.

 

Who said anything about military command styles throughout the voyage? The point is having somebody who can assume command when necessary, and who can maintain a certain minimum level of discipline throughout the voyage.

Which, as I said, are not qualities (especially in context) possessed solely by military personnel.

 

 

You place way too much faith in astronut training. Sure, it's extensive and repetitive and perfectionist and all that. But NASA still sends up missions with experienced military pilots in command, even if some of them are civilians at the time they fly for NASA.

Pilots and Mission Commanders operate the STS. Because the STS ends up as a not-particularly-graceful non-powered aircraft, it makes sense that there is a dedicated pilot, backed up by an even more experienced pilot (the Commander). The Mission Commander has, in most cases, very little input on EVA or mission items.

 

 

Remove the STS, and the underlying reasons for having a dedicated pilot aboard vanish.

 

 

To summarize: I'm betting that the Pilot Astronauts go away. Military personnel will enter the Astronaut Corps on their academic quals, not on their aviation skills.

 

Secondly: No one will be going on the Mars expeditions who is not possessed of critical scientific and technical skills. In practice, that means that a crewmember will wear the "leader" hat as a secondary function, with his or her primary function being Geology or another critical skill area. If the Hab (or whatever vehicle lands on Mars) needs a pilot, someone already present on the crew will be -trained- to do so.

 

 

Falken

[Ivanhoe]

Probably the experience of age of sail captains is more relevant as they were really isolated, a re-read of Cook's trips or watching the Bounty will surely help.

 

These days, however, use of the lash is frowned upon. And 80% of the crew won't consist of shanghai'd farmers.

 

American whalers routinely went on cruises for more than a year, though they made port/landfall to re-provision on the way. Again, all volunteers and mostly experienced merchant seamen.

[Ivanhoe]

As for maintenance and technical issues, you've got 4-6 hideously overqualified individuals. They are going to be out for 3 years. Chances are, each of those people is going to be a SME, wrt every piece of mission-support equipment present. That's currently true, to a lesser extent, for the STS and ISS missions.

 

In short, bull. Being a SME does not mean you can repair a circuit board, diagnose and replace a malfunctioning valve in the air system, etc. How many PhD geologists overhaul their car engines, can recharge an A/C, troubleshoot and repair a flaky power supply, etc? Its not just the scientific equipment that will be involved; there will be life support, comms, HVAC, fuel & energy systems, and a myriad of other systems that will need maintenance and repair.

 

Look at the complement of surface combatants; for every crewman tasked with weps or sensors, there are 3 or 4 tasked with just running the ship.

[SCFalken]

Its not just the scientific equipment that will be involved; there will be life support, comms, HVAC, fuel & energy systems, and a myriad of other systems that will need maintenance and repair.

 

And 4-6 people will be collectively responsible for maintaining all of it.

 

It's not like they can get SEARS to send a van around.

 

You've got two choices:

 

1.) Send one guy along who is the maintenance guru, and somehow knows how to maintain ALL of the systems we are discussing. Hope nothing happens to him and he doesn't get sick or overworked (maintaining all those systems is something I am sure will generate an unmanageable backlog of tasks for one man).

 

OR

 

2.) Spend a lot of time training 4-6 PhD-bearing Astronauts to maintain all those systems.

 

No matter what, you don't have enough people for a good division of labor. Everyone will have to carry part of the maintenance burden. That means teaching Geologists how to be powerplant technicians and electricians, augmented during the expedition by NASA groundside SMEs.

 

 

Falken

Edited July 29, 2007 by SCFalken

[SCFalken]

In short, bull. Being a SME does not mean you can repair a circuit board, diagnose and replace a malfunctioning valve in the air system, etc.

 

 

A hundred million kilometers from the nearest repair shop? That's exactly what it means.

 

Those systems have to work, and be maintained. The only people available are the expedition crew (4-6 personnel). Ergo, they are your labor pool.

 

 

Falken

[Guest aevans]

SCFalken:

 

I appreciate your reasoning, but I think you're engaging in penny wise, pound foolish thinking. There's no law writ in stone that you have to maximize science return by maximizing scientists. The only unbreakable rule in mission design is that you balance all factors to optimize the chance of getting some return. For manned missions, one of the things you have to balance in that equation is that humans require leadership and direction, and that under exploratory conditions the best leadership and direction usually -- not always, but usually and more reliably -- come from military training. That you also need someone that is trained for and preferably experienced in handling in-flight emergencies leads naturally to including a military pilot. No, it's not the most efficient use of personnel, if what you care about is science return. But it is a very efficient use of personnel if what you care about is maximizing the potential for mission success.

Edited July 30, 2007 by aevans

[SCFalken]

 

Decent overview of the basic Constellation program (Ares-series, CEV, and Lunar Lander).

 

More motivating version:

 

Current interior layout of Orion:

 

Falken

Edited July 31, 2007 by SCFalken

[ShotMagnet]

How does one save YouTube videos?

 

It'd be pretty cool to show the young'uns 20+ years' hence, 'how it all began'. If indeed we find the political courage to begin again.

 

 

Shot

[Ivanhoe]

How does one save YouTube videos?

 

http://www.indigen.com/dwhelper/index.en.htm

 

http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php

 

http://unplug.mozdev.org/

 

Those three offer an add-on for Mozilla...