Rocket Scientist

Anybody keeping up with space stuff probably knows that the Constellation program, particularly the launch vehicle–Ares–, is having some issues.  Weight is always an issue, but other problems like vibration and “launch drift,” a vagary of solid rocket design that means that items can drift into each other as solid propellant burns with some unevenness. Uneven burning equates with moments of unexpected impetus or not enough, which can lead to inadvertent contact - never a good thing with rockets.
I have my own impression of current programs and efforts, but I’m not closely enough involved to have an informed opinion of these issues and problems.  And, although I have decided opinions about some of the decisions have been made, particularly with regards to safety, the program and management has been so volatile and has changed direction so frequently, it’s often hard to determine what impressions are still valid.  Nor am I cleared to discuss it publicly, so I won’t.  Nor will I speculate on the future for Ares, at least not here.
However, the issues do bring to mind a few key salutary lessons for space programs in general, or really, any complex technical endeavor.

1. Small changes can have big impacts.  Ares is using a lot of “heritage hardware,” for example, but using them in new ways and new configurations.  Those changes, however minor they might have appeared at first glance, are having considerable impacts as the design has matured.  A solid rocket motor, for instance, seems a very simple type of rocket motor.  In reality, there are many aspects to consider.
2. Space travel ain’t easy.  I can’t stress this enough.  I hear a great deal about commercial human spaceflight, including how it will be so much simpler, so much easier, so much less expensive than what we’ve done before.  Unh-hunh.  Well, NASA has tried that path before, too, several times. It looks easy, but it’s not. SpaceShipOne was successfully flown to the edge of space.  Haven’t heard of many flights since those two that won the X-Prize, have you?  Me either.
3. Design means compromise between often conflicting requirements.  However, compromise too much, and the design can suffer.  For example, cutting cost or rushing to meet a schedule can push decisions that can have serious repercussions.  And that isn’t cost- or schedule- (or design-) effective.

I will tell you my own view on technology in general, but space technology in particular: do it right the first time.  My father-in-law used to work as a technician on nuclear submarines and then did electrical word/design for space systems (still does).  He did gorgeous work and, when everyone around him were screaming and rushing and trying to do this and that on impossible schedules, he’d keep going at his same pace.  In nuclear submarines, he told me, you did it right the first time because failure was deadly.  Guess what, that’s true of space, too.  It may not be the technician/engineer/controller/space professional at risk, but someone is at risk.  When someone buys substandard components because the schedule demands it or because it’s less expensive, they take a chance that it won’t hold up like it’s supposed to.  Same with cutting corners on testing or assembly. It’s foolish beyond belief to think that doing something over, replacing something on orbit, or even late in the flow, could possibly be cost or schedule effective.
Do it right the first time.  I can’t think of anything better for an effective program, better from a cost or schedule perspective (even if it seems to be costlier or more schedule intensive), better for safety, better for reliability.
Do it right the first time.
How hard is that concept?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS