tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320353502024-03-05T07:38:25.383-08:00Earth Space ContinuumA blog about all things related to the development of space and its relevance to our life on EarthUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-89464806121096490822009-10-18T20:43:00.000-07:002009-10-18T23:22:35.733-07:00No longer working at C&SpaceYes that's right, I've quit C&Space, but typically for this blog, I've waited a couple of months before announcing it.<br /><br />The last few years, including both work and study, have been very fulfilling and I certainly don't regret the time spent in Korea. The opportunity to work in New Space and meeting some of the active players has been a highlight.<br /><br />I don't know if I have the patience to continue this blog in the same way now that I'm not working in the field. Commercial space development seems to be progressing over a period of decades rather than months. I might just prefer to occasionally check to see how things are going and take note of the major highlights (such as the anticipated Falcon 9 and SpaceShipTwo launches) rather than closely following every minor development.<br /><br />If you would like to get in touch with me about anything, please just leave a message in the comments section and I'll get back to you shortly.<br /><br />Good Luck and a happy Thanksgiving and Christmas in advance to all the new-spacers out there toiling to make the last frontier accessible!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-60548973252767281872009-07-20T16:56:00.000-07:002009-07-20T17:57:39.887-07:00Space Settlement postI didn't sign up to do a post on the 20th originally because I thought I might be traveling to the USA, that day, plus I'm in the middle of finishing my paper. This is actually the 21st for me, but I guess in the US timezones it is still the 20th.<br /><br />Rather than a long post on an overall vision and rationale for space settlement, which I believe other bloggers can do <a href="http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=14001">better</a>, I will just throw together a number of statements that summarize my own ideas and opinions.<br /><br />I strongly believe in the concept of space settlement driven by non-government organizations. By this I mean private enterprise, and settler organizations. I'm not sure that it is inevitable, but it surely ought to be. My concept of space settlement is technology driven. I believe that people will venture into space when the tools and infrastructure are available for us to stay. Tools will include, for example, advanced tele-operated robots, and infrastructure will include long term maintainable life support systems, energy harvesting systems such as large solar concentrators, and magnetic field generators for protection against charged particles. While I think there will be a significant element of risk, the environment should be such that we can, for the most part, stay safely within a maintainable technology framework, with plenty of redundant options should anything go wrong.<br /><br />I'm an asteroid settler, myself, rather than a Mars or Moon settler. By this I mean that I think that asteroids are likely to be the first places to be settled and will be much easier to access than gigantic clumps of round matter at the bottom of steep gravity wells. I'm predicting that most prospective settlers will prefer to live in approximately 1 earth g. and have some prospect of returning to earth, and will adapt quickly to the coriolis forces present in a rotating habitat.<br /><br />I think the first settlers will not be in it for the money or even the thrills. Being one of the first off earth settlers is going to be like basically volunteering for the 21st or 22nd century's version of a lifetime of backbreaking labor. The only way the first habitat will be built is by a group of settlers who know that this will be their only option for survival in the long term. They won't be receiving much, if any, monetary benefit, but they will at least obtain their wish of being able to set up a mini-society in whatever way they wish, and having some likelihood that the people around them will share the same values.<br /><br />Unless the space elevator is built, access to space is going to remain somewhat expensive, at least compared with air travel. I know many space enthusiasts are hoping for a vast low earth orbit infrastructure which can provide settlers with the materials they need. I'm not sure this will be the case. Settlers may have to be almost self sufficient, with the exception of certain high value, low mass products, such as medicines, ICs and precision mechanical devices. I think it is an important field of study to understand the technology necessary to maintain a colony with a limited mass flow rate, and mass transfer latency into the colony, and the period of time the colony can be entirely self sufficient based on their level of technological capability and resources.<br /><br />Nothing is free, and the settlers will be paying for whatever supplies they receive somehow. I somehow feel that minerals from commercial mining ventures will not be one of the first exports. The initial exports are likely to be information. First, there will be a lot of interest on earth in the daily lives of these settlers. This could be one of the most valuable exports for quite a long period of time, until space travel becomes commonplace. Secondly, there will be much scientific knowledge to be gleaned from the environment around the settlement, for example observations of the sun and other planets, and detailed research on the composition of the asteroid itself. Later, high quality zero gravity research may also be conducted relatively cheaply by settlers.<br /><br />Lastly, I'd just like to comment that although most of our focus is on finding better ways of getting out of earth's gravity well, there are other, just as important, fields of research that need our attention in order to spread civilization to beyond the planet. I suggest that space agencies in various countries that can't afford a large space program can participate in this kind of research in a really meaningful way. For example I would love to see Australia start a space program based not on developing launch vehicles, but on applying its considerable mining expertise to ways of harvesting materials from asteroids, and using them to build structures. That's a space program I could really be supportive of!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-72977275932422971172009-07-14T17:00:00.000-07:002009-07-14T17:06:56.859-07:00Congratulations SpaceX and ATSBCongratulations to SpaceX for a first successful commercial launch, and congratulations to ATSB for having the guts and foresight to select the Falcon 1 as their launch vehicle and saving a packet of cash by doing so!!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-41557882752317863562009-06-30T18:18:00.000-07:002009-06-30T18:28:54.251-07:00IEEE Spectrum on MarsOver the last month IEEE Spectrum have been doing a special on "Why Mars, Why Now"<br /><br />They don't seem to have a permanent home for all the articles, so here are a few links in case some disappear:<br /><br /><a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/why-mars-why-now">http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/why-mars-why-now</a><br /><a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/special-reports">http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/special-reports</a><br /><a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/mars">http://spectrum.ieee.org/mars</a> (actually returns a 404 error, but this link was found on an IEEE page and was redirected to previous link. Maybe they intend to make a new page with this link in the future.)<br /><br />I'm putting their spaceflight section in the sidebar links.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-51340994960771182652009-06-22T18:09:00.001-07:002009-06-24T23:30:43.901-07:00Amazing artificial muscle made from CNTIf half the claims in <a href="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/materials/superstrong-artificial-muscles-and-more-from-new-nanotube-material">this article</a> at IEEE Spectrum (actually from March, but I only discovered it a couple weeks ago) are true, we may be about to enter a new era of biomimetic robotics. In my robotics class last year, I learned that robots are usually quite weak for their size. To design a robot that can pick up another robot the same size and weight is still a difficult challenge. This invention may change that. The only thing is I can't see how the wine-rack explanation for how it works matches the claim of 220% dimensional change made in <a href="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/static/artificial_muscles">this video,</a> unless they are referring to lateral dimensional change which doesn't seem to be very useful.<br /><br />There must presumably be some more development work before they can be set to use, otherwise if it were me, I couldn't wait to try putting them into robotic arms and fingers and make a much more impressive demo.<br /><br />Importantly this could be a good initial application for long nanotube fibers. In the video, those fibers look so much like space elevator cable sections!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-43466040147505761882009-06-04T22:31:00.000-07:002009-06-04T23:49:43.638-07:00X37 - some speculationI'm pretty pleased about the<a href="http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html"> story about the X37B</a> in space.com. It's funny how USAF and DARPA seem to be playing tortoise to NASAs hare. While the US military may not be the most efficient organization either, at least they seem have a good handle on what 'operational' means and the importance of having a well thought out plan for maintaining and running a system when it gets past the development stage, and how important it is to design a system with operational requirements in mind. The X37B is, of course, an experimental platform but it is interesting to speculate on what it might develop into in conjunction with a suitable heavy lift launcher.<br /><br />I assume that the planned tests will involve integrating the X37B into an EELV as purely a payload, ie the current 1st and 2nd stages of the launch vehicle will be used. This will put a small winged return vehicle into LEO. It is interesting to compare the possible capabilities of a hypothetical, operational follow up to this system with the needs of USAF in space.<br /><br />As I understand the USAF would like to have the following:<br />-ability to protect/replace assets in space,<br />-rapid and repeated delivery of munitions anywhere, anytime,<br /><br />A followup system to the X37 could possibly have the following capability:<br />-rapid launch to orbit via heavy lift including possible recovery of the first stage if SpaceX are <a href="http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=12848">eventually successful</a> with that,<br />-rapid turnaround between flights if the turnaround time between heavy lift launches can be reduced,<br />-ability to insert an object into orbit and return to a designated landing site,<br />-(maybe) launch to a suborbital trajectory over a target location, followed by powered return to CONUS.<br />-ability to loiter in orbit, with scope for limited orbit changes,<br />-ability to drop a payload during some sections of its non-orbital flight path.<br /><br />some limitations:<br />-Whether you think this limitation is a good or bad thing depends on your point of view, but I can't see this hypothetical system becoming a 'space weapon' capable of dropping munitions from orbit simply due to the impracticability of having to decelerate the payload from orbital velocity, and only being over the target every 90 minutes or so. (although I suppose such a system might solve a need to avoid overflights of aircraft or missiles of other non-participating nations)<br />-The second stage will be disposable for any standard launch system in the forseeable future.<br />-In the event of a full fledged attack on space borne assets, it would be vulnerable to orbital debris.<br /><br />The best part is that a successful operational system will be a good demonstrator for a commercial reusable orbital stage so I'm hoping that something practical comes out of this program. Who knows if one day we might be seeing routine launches of winged orbiters atop VTVL launchers.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-92187768991787551722009-06-04T00:56:00.000-07:002009-06-04T01:16:30.314-07:00changed my links againAfter I got in email contact with the author of the ISS blog offering me a 'link exchange' (see 2 posts back in comments) I strongly suspected based on the email I received that the blog was a mashup done by a group of professionals, probably in a poor part of the world where the work involved might actually pay enough to be worth it. This was confirmed by a google search of a text sample from the blog that returned an article in the NASA site. I should have guessed it before due to the odd nature of the blog's own links. (men's suits indeed!) The link is gone and I've replaced it with a couple of links to sites that make their own content.<br /><br />To anyone who wants to propose a link exchange, the site you want me to link to needs to have 3 qualities:<br />-be interesting to me,<br />-be maintained by a human,<br />-be of sufficient quality.<br /><br />frankly I would probably fail my own blog based on the last point (and yes I am human :-) )Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-15001511983602405212009-06-02T18:27:00.000-07:002009-06-02T18:45:29.239-07:00Relay board completionI've finished the relay board and it's been working well for several weeks. We can now independently control up to 32 24V valves, expandable to 35, plus 3 spark plug igniters. I discovered that I had made some mistakes with the PCB design after all, when I received it which was a bit disappointing. Fortunately there were some relatively simple workarounds that didn't require carving up the board. I'm not sure if I subconsciously screened the design for really bad errors and just ignored the others. It just goes to show that absence of anxiety about a design should not be the only indicator of the quality of said design!<br /><br />A reader asked me if we could swap links, so I have put a link to his ISS blog in the sidebar. Somehow, when I changed the blog design the old links were lost. I'll have to get around to adding some more soon.<br /><br />I'm heading into a period of reduced busy-ness, especially following my final exam next week, so hopefully I can start posting a bit more often. There is certainly no shortage of topics to post about at the moment!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-66113445496061827412009-04-13T00:05:00.000-07:002009-04-13T01:10:25.862-07:00Finished the relay board PCB designI've been spending much of the last two weeks designing a PCB to hold the relays and associated drivers for the 24VDC power signals to the engine valves and the 220Vrms power to the igniters. (This is the first time I have designed a complex PCB. The reason for the new board is that the current board doesn't have enough 24V channels even with additional relays glued onto the top of the board.) I finally sent off the file to Sunstone Circuits on Saturday.<br /><br />Some time ago I read an entry in Wayne Hales' blog about the origin of<a href="http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog.blog/posts/post_1234377477800.html"> "burning rocks"</a> issues and how they still give the Space Shuttle Flight Director sleepless nights.<br /><br />Well, I can tell you that "burning rocks" anxiety is a real factor, even with such a trivial matter as sending a PCB file off for manufacture. In my case, if I have made a mistake, in the worst case it would cost around $300 to get the boards remade. More likely I would have to do messy board mods. (possible because the boards are only 2 layer) In the event that the board could not be modded the lost time waiting for the faulty board, finding the problem and fixing it, then possibly getting the board remade would be a significant issue. It could conceivably cost up to 3 weeks, so I was understandably cautious.<br /><br />Based on previous experience, not to mention having burning rocks on my mind, I was not completely unsurprised to get a sudden anxiety kick at the point when I was prompted to enter my credit card details. Of course I closed the window straight away and put the anxiety to good use, trying to think of things I might have forgotten. (such as component clearance off the edge of the board) I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that having got so close to committing myself, I could feel my mind straining to think of something I had neglected to consider seriously.<br /><br />As it stands I don't recall making any changes to the PCB between the first and final submission attempt, but when I finally did pay up and submit the PCB design I had very little anxiety about my design, and was more concerned about using the 10% discount coupon.<br /><br />Burning rocks issues are real. I think, if it hasn't already happened, there needs to be some serious studies into the psychological mechanisms behind it and whatever is learned needs to be integrated into engineering courses.<br /><br />In any case, the next test will be to find out if their absence implies a clean design, as I will find out when I get the PCBs in a week or so! In the mean time, to avoid burning rocks issues I recommend some imaginary brinkmanship. Pretend that the design you are submitting three months before the final article is launched is actually going to be used in action in two weeks, or one week - or tomorrow. Hopefully those little issues your mind blanks out so easily will be forced out into your consciousness :-)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-48012953878608817142009-03-18T21:14:00.000-07:002009-03-18T21:45:20.090-07:00What's keeping me so busy, and link to smart grid articleI haven't posted for a little while because I have been fully occupied with:<br />-Modifications to make the CHASE-10 Engine Monitor-Controller (CE-MORE) easier to use,<br />-working on the next upgrade to the CE-MORE that will allow active control of the engine (which I also intend to be related to my masters degree paper) .<br />-Starting my last two classes for the masters degree course.<br />-Planning how to complete the modifications to the CE-MORE gui to put all the system specific configuration data into separate files.<br />-Working with the other engineers as we prepare to move the test facility to a different location, ie start to put together procedures for making the CE-MORE portable.<br /><br /><br />In spite of all this activity, I had time to read<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123378462447149239.html"> this article</a> on the Wall St Journal about a trial smart grid project in Boulder, Colorado, which is similar to what I talked about in a <a href="http://spacecontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/02/smart-metering.html">previous post</a> (I'll have to start calling this an energy blog!). There's no indication that the users will be given the opportunity to preselect a cutoff cost for their power usage, as I had proposed, however I did notice that the power utility, Xcel, wants to be able to modify the power cost at 5 to 10 minute intervals, which suggests that customers really, really ought to be able to cut off power to their appliances or modify the thermostat automatically at a price threshold. If this were the case, I don't think many people would need or want to track their electricity usage in such minute detail as the article described.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-77668667647916511412009-03-05T23:41:00.001-08:002009-03-05T23:42:47.421-08:00Ideas on promoting clean energy through your electricity billHere's my policy suggestion on how to set up the fee structure for electricity usage, to promote clean energy (ie non polluting, reduced or nil CO2 emissions).<br /><br />To start with, let's make some some basic assumptions. If you don't agree with them, so be it. I think they represent mainstream public opinion.<br /><br />I think most people agree that non CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) coal plants are not great for the environment. However they continue into the 21st century due to their obvious advantages of low cost, reliable output and long term plentiful supply of fuel. Therefore by the same token, most people know that in the short term we can't do without them.<br /><br />On the other hand, with the possible exception of nuclear, clean energy sources just aren't capable of competing on all fronts with coal. However there's no doubt that we have to have it to ensure our supply of electrical energy if we either want to start shutting down coal plants or grow our energy supply further.<br /><br />Therefore we need some way of promoting clean energy that ensures the best technology is given the best chance regardless of what it looks like.<br /><br />So here's my idea:<br /><br />First, divide all electricity sources into two categories. Let's call them Old Energy and New Energy. Old Energy would include non CCS coal plants and any other energy source we really don't like. New Energy would include everything else. Natural Gas plants could fall into either category, or you could make a third just for it, but I think that would be too complicated.<br /><br />Every single household and every business, would have two parts to their electricity bill, a separate charge for Old Energy and for New Energy. At any one time, only a certain number of kilowatts can be charged to the Old Energy portion of the account, and anything else must be charged to New Energy. The maximum number of Old Energy kilowatts at any time during the day may be fixed per household, or perhaps legislation would have to be introduced so that larger households have a higher allowance.<br /><br />The purpose of this would be to limit the amount of Old Energy that may be produced while allowing low income households to access Old Energy at a reasonable price. Meanwhile those households that wish to pay more could do so, and shouldn't be made to feel guilty for being energy hogs since they are not competing with the poor for their supply of New Energy and the energy is clean isn't it? The smart metering I talked about in my previous post would ensure that no-one gets nasty shocks when they get their end of the month/quarter bill, regardless of their income or energy expenses.<br /><br />Under this scheme, all subsidies for New Energy sources would be eliminated and the market would decide itself the value of New Energy sources that might vary depending on the time of day, or even at random, as might be for some wind energy plants.<br /><br />I can see at least one major weakness in this idea (I wonder what the others are!), which is how to allocate Old Energy amongst large and energy intensive businesses, that require reliable baseload power at a predicable cost. Perhaps after the initial allowance of Old Energy has been divvied up amongst households and small businesses, businesses could bid for the rest, in a similar manner to carbon credits. It's a bit complicated but it might just work.<br /><br />Another lesser weakness, in my opinion, is that there may not be much scope for reducing the supply of Old Energy over time, without hurting low income earners. It is hoped that over time, as the economies of scale for generating New Energy start to kick in, the cost difference will decrease, but there is no guarantee that this will happen. Depending on how 'compassionate' your government likes to be, some New Energy sources with baseload capability could be subsidized and put into the Old Energy category just to keep everyone happy.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-60745872513196521322009-02-26T00:45:00.001-08:002009-02-26T01:01:27.888-08:00Busy todayI was going to write a follow on post about electricity metering, but I was too busy today. I coded the GUI for the test system controller using Python/Tkinter, and was stuck for a while trying to figure out how to put a message to the user temporarily over the main display while the system is converting the acquired data to csv format, a process that can take several seconds.<br /><br />The problem was that the screen doesn't refresh until the callback that starts the process is complete. Eventually I found out how to generate an 'alarm' after a specified delay which can be attached to another callback. So the first callback puts up the message and starts a separate thread that converts the data, then exits to allow the main window to refresh. Then the alarm occurs after about 1 second and the alarm callback blocks until the convert process is complete, then closes the message. Simple!<br /><br />Are there any better ways? (apart from not using Tkinter)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-37683426574179500332009-02-23T21:17:00.000-08:002009-02-24T20:25:17.893-08:00Smart MeteringI was surprised to find that it took Google to <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/power-to-people.html">develop</a> a method of actually allowing the consumer to see their electicity use and payment in real time. Naively I had assumed that this is what smart metering is about when I first heard the term.<br /><br />However it is not clear if they intend to fulfil the second part of my very own 'Smart Metering Vision' by providing the means for consumers to set appliances to automatically turn off (and alert the owner) when electricity rates, changing in real time, reach a 'cutoff point'.<br /><br />Surely, this is the only way to allow a free market for electricity to exist. The user decides in advance how much they are willing to pay, and it is up to the utilities to try and provide sufficient power to maximise their profits in a competitive environment. To me it seems a much better solution than brownout inducing price caps, or having the utility arbitrarily switch off your heater/aircon/dryer.<br /><br />I have some more thoughts on electricity metering and how to integrate with a pricing structure that promotes clean energy without selective subsidies or high prices across the board. But they will have to wait until another day, maybe tomorrow. ;-)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-38025672879830578562009-02-23T21:11:00.000-08:002009-02-23T21:15:41.375-08:00Problem with testing new turbineWe encountered a problem related to our new turbopump turbine. The turbine spins up a lot slower than we expected. This apparently has a ripple on effect to other parts of the test system in a way that I don't fully understand. Various flow rates and orifice sizes will have to be adjusted. I hope it doesn't delay us too much. I'll provide more updates as information comes to light.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-28700789983085781272009-02-19T00:45:00.000-08:002009-02-19T00:48:58.031-08:00Spilling TestsWe spent much of today out in the cold doing spilling tests. We got some odd results from some of the flowmeters, so we'll investigate those, and if it turns out that there are no serious anomalies, we'll be go for a full engine firing.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-62197686963504126102009-02-15T20:15:00.000-08:002009-02-17T01:31:34.550-08:00That NASA Management VideoI recently became aware of this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_424YskAfew&feature=channel_page">video</a> on NASA management problems (via <a href="http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4328">zdnet</a> and <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100346538">npr</a>). It was apparently was put together by astronaut Andy Thomas and was acted out by actual NASA employees. According to Hobbyspace it's been known about for a while now.<br /><br />If the issues acted out in the video are representative of NASA, it raises concerns about NASA's ability to complete large projects on time and on budget that are much more serious than just the usual problems of large organizations.<br /><br />Specifically, my concern is this: suppose an organization with the management problems outlined in the video takes on a large project. This project is then divided into separate sub-projects with each sub-project corresponding to a subsystem that is specified with a list of requirements strictly based on a set of top level requirements that represent the goals of the system as a whole. The subsystems are then in turn broken down and more requirements are derived for them.<br /><br />As a simple example, suppose there are 10 subsystems, each with its own project and management team. Each team is working hard to ensure that the subsystem meets its requirements, but no more than that. Because the people in the organization are dedicated and competent, 9 out of 10 projects result in a subsystem that meets the requirements, however one unlucky project team happens to get the subsystem with unknown problems, that couldn't have been predicted at the start of the project. They miss the requirements goals by about 30%. Now, because all the other teams were only trying to meet the requirements, not exceed them, and only managed to exceed them by a few percent at most, there are no easy ways to make up for the loss in performance or capability. It may be possible to ask some of the other teams to do a redesign, but the other teams, not wanting to make it seem that their initial design was flawed, all vouch for their own designs, based on the unarguable fact that their current design <em>meets the requirements.</em><br /><br />The only alternative is to push the problem up into the next higher level of integration, where problems with other sub-systems meeting their requirements are starting to accumulate and cause serious performance/cost/performance issues. Eventually, it is found that the entire system design is flawed as measured against the requirements, forcing either costly design changes or reducing the performance requirements to an obtainable level.<br /><br />Short of deconstructing the entire organization, I can think of two possible mitigation measures that may be taken to protect against the above scenario. The first method is just to ensure that all performance requirements have generous margins. This involves giving the design team a set of performance requirements that are tighter than strictly necessary, with the option of loosening them later on, however it does somewhat corrupt the whole concept of having the requirements fully derived from the top level, and unless communication with the organization is very good, the individual teams may not have a clear idea of how critical the requirement actually is.<br /><br />The second is to form 'tiger teams' that actively go out and search for bad designs, and correct them. I suppose this could be quite effective, and could also be used as a formidable 'stick' to threaten low level managers with if their team's design is suboptimal, given the ego bruising that would occur if one's own design were overhauled. However, I doubt that tiger teams are often used this way, although I could be wrong. And even if it were the case, a manager might just think it easier to weather the storm, when the tiger team members come knocking on his/her door, judging the risk of being 'caught' with a poor design preferable to a pre-emptive design change making it look like the team got it wrong from the start.<br /><br />In any case this approach could have the unwanted, serious side effect of fostering a herd mentality amongst the staff, who learn never to stand out from the crowd for fear of being picked out by a bunch of domain experts hunting for a reason to justify their jobs. If done badly, a tiger team approach could be disastrous for employee morale.<br /><br />Ultimately the best solution is 'organizational redundancy', by which I mean utilizing multiple organizations with differing management cultures and design methodologies, and allocating work strictly on the basis of past performance. Clark Lindsey commented in his blog entry about this video, saying "The only way I see NASA overcoming this problem is to move product development out to commercial companies and letting them compete to build the products". If this were the case, the US taxpayer could have a lot more confidence that their money is being used effectively, and the USA would have a much more vibrant and viable space program.<br /><br />Unfortunately, given the political realities, an outsourced space program seems unlikely, in which case we can only hope that either the problems shown in the video are exaggerated, or that somehow NASA can reform itself. If the video is being used at management retreats, at least they have gotten to the stage of acknowledging the problem. The next stage is treatment, but I guess we won't know the results until the next big government mandated project. Personally I don't think the US taxpayer will want to wait that long.<br /><br />Will Ares I and V be NASA's last launch vehicles?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-82187886839901851772009-02-13T19:44:00.000-08:002009-02-15T21:44:47.781-08:00Toaster from scratchHere is an interesting project: Thomas <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Thwaites</span>, who is studying at the Royal College of the Arts in London, has embarked on the quest to <a href="http://www.thetoasterproject.org/">build a toaster from scratch</a>, using only raw materials such as iron ore and crude oil.<br /><br />Though his reasons in no part mention space colonization, his work could have some valuable lessons for those of us wondering what are the minimum necessary equipment, resources and manpower necessary for a group of people to survive and thrive in a colony mostly separate from the mass produced resources available here on earth. Even at this early stage he has learned how to smelt iron ore using only a domestic microwave oven - a handy skill for an off earth colonist.<br /><br />Some people may disagree with me, but I'm guessing that the first off-earth settlers will be pretty much self sufficient initially. Any supplies delivered on an ongoing basis are likely be limited to lightweight, high value goods, such as roll/fold up solar panels, fuel cell membranes, precision mechanical components, semiconductor devices and medical supplies. Therefore, before they can head out, we will need a clear idea of the infrastructure the settlers will need to maintain their colony at a given minimum mass or value transfer rate from earth.<br /><br />A lot more work needs to be done in physically building and testing the needed infrastructure for an off-earth colony, and the Toaster Project is a step in the right direction! I would like to see a lot more of this kind of thing, and to get our heads around the problem, I suggest it could be done as a kind of competitive event where several teams compete to see who can reproduce various important technologies from scratch the fastest, based on a set of resources that are themselves reproducible. Possible technologies could range from basic ones such as a smelting facility and forge, glass or glue and fabric, to more complex tech such as a pressure chamber, liquid pump, insulated electrical wire, oxygen/hydrogen production or a functioning mining drill. (I think it would make a great TV show!) Ideally, equipment provided for the competition will also be a goal technology for the competitors, to demonstrate that the colony will be perpetually self sustaining with the given equipment set.<br /><br />Let me know if this idea or a variant is already in existence.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-7794760607179761182009-02-12T21:16:00.000-08:002009-02-13T19:43:15.383-08:00Gas Generator TestsHere are some pictures from our recent gas generator tests.<a href="http://www.candspace.com/shop/admin/editor5/uploads/pop_imgview.html?img=http://www.candspace.com/shop/phoroom2/data_room/2009/01/29/49813e2ea4afc.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5302151172155578834" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 268px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHWBScglwu9_nA_YKneLTwNfiQPSQ_PArqa9tNYRLeTNHeYBeIFLxWRnyEz8dHSNPRnvnpePbd2rSqpG8WoGAmdJuHtOZD97q_ILwVHkSz2Vo6Blt9xj87mZ7r1Fo7fTYCPt7jkQ/s320/gas_gen_test_pic.jpg" border="0" /></a> We were pretty happy with the result. The picture is a hotlink to our website which doesn't seem to have the news release in the English version.<br /><br /><br /><br />btw, we have the entire test stand set up inside a temporary tent structure right now to protect ourselves and the engine against rain and snow over winter.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFc_1mXRJEQsdunm7zW7BYUR_bH52O3HI03V7-hNAfsgrDcKLc4zTQ7ydu16Gb77phK2kWDaAEnFX11deuyqrzwLBAuFtjoiA5j2IO1ha9pxSxPB5VaTL1VsR6iTDiOfJRATlfSg/s1600-h/gas_gen_test_pic.jpg"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-49052680383266171042009-02-12T21:14:00.001-08:002009-02-12T21:14:58.344-08:00Thoughts on a universal Launch Escape SystemI'm completely unqualified to provide any serious analysis of this subject but it is my hope that someone else more qualified may pick it up and run with it...<br /><br />I get the impression that a Launch Escape System (LES) on a crewed launch vehicle is not considered the most fundamental consideration of safety. By that I mean that risk analyses tend to calculate the risk of loss of the entire vehicle, and then tack on the failure rate of the LES as an extra factor. I'm sure I've seen the probability of loss of crew calculated like this a number of times.<br /><br />My question is " Can the reliability of the LES, given loss of vehicle be drastically improved?"<br /><br />I suspect the answer is 'yes' for a number of reasons:<br /><br />-Identified Vehicle failure modes as related to LES mostly seem to assume the worst possible scenario, eg an explosion at maximum velocity. But many failure modes may be quite benign from the point of view of the LES, eg drifting out of the correct flight path or loss of adequate thrust.<br /><br />-Not many LESs have been designed. A quick online search that inevitably led to Wikipedia revealed only two that have been or will be used in operational systems, the Ares-I Launch Abort System, and the Apollo LES. There must surely be great scope for iterative improvements.<br /><br />-As far as I know, an LES has never been designed as an individual project with the explicit goal of saving the crew regardless of how the rocket underneath behaves.<br /><br />-If great advances in crash safety can be made in motor car racing, it is reasonable to hope that some of the same principles are transferrable to launch systems.<br /><br />-The next generation of fighter aircraft, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon have extremely capable ejection systems that are intelligent enough to adjust their behaviour for the situation, to maximise the likelihood of survival for the pilot, eg by dropping them down more quickly from high altitude using a drogue shute.<br /><br />Suppose NASA were to make development of a new 'safe' LES that could be fitted to either Falcon 9 or EELV's, or possibly other rockets a priority, the whole method of crewed launch vehicle development could change. With such a prototype LES in hand, NASA could deliberately search for <em>unproven </em>launch vehicles for use in an iterative test regime. This would make a great partnership between NASA and private companies, although admittedly each organization would have almost diametrically opposed goals during the test process. NASA would be happy for catastrophic failures to occur in order to test their system under realistic conditions, while the private entity offering the launch vehicle would be trying to ensure NASA doesn't get to test their LES too thoroughly! A nice problem to have would be where the unproven launch vehicles are found to be too reliable to meet the test objectives, forcing NASA to deliberately rig the launches to induce failures - something that hasn't been done previously to my knowledge.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-36864242310188273152009-02-11T19:46:00.000-08:002009-02-12T16:37:39.457-08:00Australia BushfiresBy now most people will have learned of the tragic events of last Saturday in Australia. Over the course of a few hours, over 300,000 hectares of land was destroyed, <S>1000</S>1831 houses were burned down, an estimated 200 to 300 people were killed and 5000 were left homeless. The state affected was my home state of Victoria, and many of the places destroyed we have visited in the past, including the tourist town of <a href="http://www.marysvilletourism.com/">Marysville</a>, which <s>is </s>was just a couple of hours scenic drive from our previous home in Nunawading. It used to be one of my favorite day trip destinations. Fortunately I don't have any friends or family that were directly affected, as far as I know, although I did make a call to a couple in Bendigo we know, who were ok.<br />It is a strange feeling being overseas while all this happened. I didn't find out until Sunday night when my mum called to give me the news. Being so disconnected from the events despite the amazingly comprehensive online coverage yields a sense of unreality to it all.<br />The reason for such utter destruction was an unusual confluence of circumstances. The previous week, the state of Victoria had been subject to a heatwave with temperatures soaring to 43 to 44 deg. C in Melbourne. (109.4 to 111.2F). Then on the day the fires happened, the temperature reached a never before recorded 46.4C (115.5F) along with gale force winds. In Kinglake, one of the worst hit areas, a house surrounded by 16 hectares of almost completely bare paddock <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/dad-should-have-been-told-to-stay-is-not-an-option-20090211-84tg.html">burned down</a>, killing the two occupants even though they were actively trying to save the house, with working pumps connected to a full dam. Survivors describe the locations near the bushfire fronts as raining embers.<br /><br />My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-77793879674652777202009-02-09T19:18:00.000-08:002009-02-10T19:44:02.600-08:00Gearing up for another engine firing testAlmost exactly the same time of year after last year's test we are gearing up for another one. This time things should work a lot more smoothly. We are much better at data acquisition, procedures, etc.<br /><br />My own contribution is the 'CEMORE' (CHASE-10 Engine MOnitor-REgulator) engine controller. Last year I was using a serial interface to shift a small amount of data to the PC from the FPGA. Now I'm using the PXA272 microprocessor on the development board, to provide an Ethernet link to the PC. This is providing a data transfer rate of 256K/sec with our current hardware, compared with 1K/sec of unreliable transmission, previously. The better setup allows the CEMORE to be our basic DAQ system, with the NI DAQ system used as backup on some data channels. For our first test last year, the setup was the other way round, with the NI system as the primary.<br /><br />Other enhancements include the capability to rapidly modify the 'cyclogram', the sequence of actuator controls during the firing, to allow fast turnaround during test attempts, and other improvements for increased reconfigurability.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-26072941070724558712009-02-09T18:26:00.000-08:002009-02-09T21:38:38.769-08:00I'm BaaaaackAfter a hiatus of nearly a year, I've decided to restart this blog. I'm still here in Korea at the same place, pretty much doing the same thing, so what's new, and why did I stop posting for so long and then suddenly start over?<br /><br /><br /><br />Well, there were a number of reasons I stopped posting. Certainly I was just too busy, what with studying part time and working and trying to have enough time for family. But as well as that, I have to admit I was discouraged after my company's first attempt at firing the new engine. There was too much time pressure and I felt that marketing commitments had taken priority over the actual engineering, which ultimately severely limited our marketing potential since we were unable to collect the data during the test that would have shown conclusively whether the test had been a success. Nevertheless the company was able to attract significant investment, just by being able to produce a good display of smoke and fire on the demonstration day, which just goes to show! (By the way, although we didn't get good data, we recorded the firing on video, and there is evidence to indicate that the firing was successful, but the mixture ratio was out, resulting in an almost clear, invisible flame - at least that is what I have been told)<br /><br /><br /><br />Another reason was that I was unable to decide what the blog should be about. There are plenty of really good blogs that post regular news stories, or do detailed in depth analysis of space issues. I certainly have a different perspective based on my location and background but that didn't translate to new topics, so I started to feel that either I had to find new topics and a new focus for the blog, or to fully immerse myself in the nitty gritty of ongoing space related news and discussion in order to provide the quality I expected of myself.<br /><br /><br /><br />Lastly, I found some of my own ideas in flux, and I wanted to be clear about my own opinions before commenting about someone else's.<br /><br /><br /><br />So why start posting again and what am I going to write about anyway? Blogs such as <a href="http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php">Hobbyspace</a> and <a href="http://www.transterrestrial.com/">Transterrestrial Musings</a> offer respectively space related comprehensive online news coverage and detailed in depth analysis and opinion, and there is no point replicating that. Instead I will endeavour to offer a variety of items, such as news about my company, ideas and commentary on space related policy, bits of personal news trivia as it comes up, some news and analysis on Korea, my country of residence, some minor technical stuff, and some daft ideas that come to me from time to time. I have thought of having a different topic for each day of the week, but considering I was posting less than once a month before quitting for almost a year, this could be considered a little ambitious, maybe? Generally, I want to post stuff that might matter to someone else, expands the reader's horizons and perhaps makes their day better.<br /><br /><br /><br />There is one other topic I want to cover, which is a large part of my reason for restarting. Lately there has been some discussion about motivations and reasons for going into space and the role of government and private industry/ventures. I want to weigh in on this discussion with my own perspective and some associated ideas on space policy, which, while being at least partially in sync with the opinions of the better known commentators, have a different focus that might just have an impact with some readers. You will find out what I mean if you keep reading and I keep posting :)<br /><br /><br /><br />Finally, I want to maintain this blog in the spirit of a (web) log, not an authoritative text. I doubt that I will have time to furnish every claim and argument with references, although ideally I would like to. I'm likely to make mistakes and change my opinions over a period of time, or even stop posting altogether for a while if things gets too busy. That's just the way life is.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-11080816502222941762008-02-29T14:28:00.000-08:002008-03-01T14:47:49.309-08:00Successful Firing - and a good show for the spectatorsOn Friday we actually succeeded in firing the new engine! But we did have a few difficulties that made the end of the test interesting. During the chill-down sequence we inadvertently left a purging valve open too long and ran out of liquified nitrogen!<br /><br />So that meant we were stuck with two full tanks of propellant, a nice cold engine but no way to stop the combustion once the test was over. This was all in front of a crowd of maybe 100 invited onlookers and a substantial media crew. They certainly do things in style over here!<br /><br />So what did we do? The show had to go on, of course. I received the command to continue with pressurization and then the firing sequence. The actual firing went without a hitch. The engine made a loud bang during ignition, as I was told would happen. During the actual firing, there was actually less noise than I expected, and the plume was almost invisible. Then after the main sequence was complete, the engine continued to flame for quite a long period of time, spilling quantities of LNG on the ground and causing a spectacular fire. After most of the propellant had burned up, someone had to approach the test stand with a fire extinguisher to put out the blaze.<br /><br />Apparently the engine was unharmed since the temperature of the blaze at the end was too low to cause any damage.<br /><br />So all in all, a successful event. Afterwards I got a glimpse of the thrust level reached during the test and it looked adequate, but I won't quote any numbers because they might be wrong.<br /><br />Afterwards I got to see liquid oxygen (LOX) up close for the first time. The CEO of the contracted company who looks after the engine plumbing had some steaming in an open plastic container and was showing it around. It was a beautiful clear icy blue color. He suggested that we should drink some and it would be a cool and refreshing beverage. :)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-60122844441848806932008-02-28T03:43:00.001-08:002008-02-28T04:20:02.440-08:00Quick updateIt looks like we will be going ahead with the firing test tomorrow! Lots of small delays have eaten into our intended dress rehearsal period such that we only finished the spilling test today. We will only have time for one complete dry run tomorrow morning. The spill test result, while not ideal, was considered acceptable enough to continue with the next stage.<br />We will be situated in a converted shipping container about 40 meters from the engine, so when ignition occurs it will be extremely loud. Our audience, which as I said before includes filmcrews from major Korean media companies, will be not much further away, out in the open. I've been told that it is quite safe, even if something goes wrong, because the propellants will be stored at a lower pressure than for a pressure fed engine.<br />I'm very thankful that the engine control system is now running extremely reliably and I seem to have shaken out all the bugs in the system, including non-critical comms problems that have persisted for some time. I will be very surprised if the control system causes any problems tomorrow.<br />Initially I will be controlling valves individually as commanded by an individual with the title "Test Commander" (The title is probably a translation from Russian to Korean to English, but at least it is unambiguous.) He will also command the other operators to manually open or close the manually operated valves as required. Then, I will click a button to start the automated test sequence that will last for about 30 seconds, with a 10 second burn time.<br /><br />I'll put up a post to describe the result, when I remember!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32035350.post-44285301408660268362008-02-21T22:51:00.000-08:002008-02-22T00:27:59.373-08:00Opinion - Why Space?Since, as I said in my last post, I'm not pressed for time, I thought I'd do a quick opinion piece. Lately, with the presidential primaries in the US, there has been some talk about the reasons for having manned space exploration funded by the government. Personally I can think of only one really important reason - to set up the conditions for economic growth to continue into the long term future. The expression 'environmental sustainability' has reached popular recognition and acceptance, and for good reason. However sustainability has its own risks if carried into the long term. Stagnation, both economic and social, are the inevitable result. A much better model is gradual economic expansion, which can really only be supported by harvesting space based resources.<br />Until recently, I thought this would be a good argument to use to convince government that it is worthwhile supporting research into technology leading to space settlement, but apparently, some don't believe in such long term planning. Funding of the ITER project by the US government has been<a href="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb08/5980"> slashed to only $10.7 million</a> this year, from $160 million promised. The reason given from the article: “R&D resources just aren’t there to support projects that are so expensive and have shown so little potential for promise in the near term.”<br />If that attitude is carried over into space exploration, then the inevitable conclusion will be reached that there is no compelling reason to fund crewed space exploration at all.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0