Axis Mundi X discussion

So, I'll pick a metaphor I think will resonate with most of us.

Imagine that you had this great idea. A theme for a novel. Not an easy theme, but one that -- with elaboration and hard work -- would tell the world something new about the human condition. So you sat down to write it. You sat down every day, for eight hours a day, for five or six days a week, sometimes more, and you wrote. You wrote just one copy: just this one growing stack of paper was evidence of this mountain of hard work.

For eight years you wrote, without skipping a week or giving up and going on to other things. And finally it was done. After eight years you finally had this beautiful manuscript.

And you took it -- this one manuscript, the sole copy of this theme which took eight years to elaborate -- to an editor. You handed it over and said "this is it! the chance for the world to see something new of the human condition! it has taken me eight years, but at least I entrust it to you.

And then imagine that the editor launched your manuscript to 400 km, turned it into a giant, aeroheated fireball, and crashed it into the antarctic ocean.

This is basically what happened to OCO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/na...

A sad day for JPL, NASA, and climate scientists everywhere.

Bummer.

Will they try again Isaiah? I assume another can be made?

That stings.


I don't have a personal invested interest in the space program and support industries, but I feel every failure like it's my own.

I try to follow the space program - I don't like I used to. NASA has become so politicized. Science needs to be returned to the scientists, and government needs to be shown the door.

Debbie, I can't answer with certainty, but I would say it's fairly unlikely.

This was a $270mn mission. Most of that money was probably sunk on development, but I'd estimate that at least half was spent on the hardware itself and the extremely rigorous qualification test programs that NASA requires flight hardware to go through. So, even if spare flight hardware was lying around, it could not be flown without rebuilding re-testing everything. You're looking at 2-3 years and another $100mn for that. Spacecraft like these are not just like cars where once you have the blueprint you can just hammer out another one.

That's why it's so sad that it was the launch vehicle at fault. Launch costs were probably only $40mn or so, very little compared to all the time, work, technology development and money that went into the instrument.

Well, let's be fair, Orbital Sciences Corporation is the one that fucked this up. They provided the launch vehicle. (Incidentally, they were also recently selected as the launch vehicle provider for my own project... gulp).

But I understand your frustrations with NASA, as I (incompletely) share them.

We need to build the space elevator on the equator.

Umm, this is a joke, but serious too... Ever hear of insurance :)

I think they are just waiting on the carbon fiber, Larry. That will be a big day, and I'm sure with it's own list of setbacks, but exciting none the less.

Ummmm, can you think of a company that would insure a space project??? Seriously?

I don't think you can insure the results but I don't see why one couldn't insure construction and labor, and equipment failure. We do it on the pipeline and these projects run well into the hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't see why they couldn't get some kind of policy together.

It's a good question, insurance. I think it's probably just a numbers thing. I don't know how the pipeline works, but most insurance policies work on principles of statistics, which require many different people paying in to overcome the small chance of a single event among them. There probably simply aren't enough space projects to pay into an insurance policy.

Also, generally, a single fault in a launch system is enough to trash the whole mission (as happened here with OCO). So the price of any small failure might be the whole cost of the mission. This is definitely not generally true of construction projects on earth.

Had a chance to email some folks in the know - one works with a subcontractor in the satellite biz and sez he's more than glad his company passed on working with this ouitfit - or as he says; "clowns". Also, apparently the launch vehicle was a Taurs XL. No shit. Why are we using defunct Detroit scrap iron as launch vehicles? lol

So in the end, NASA isn't wholly to blame here. Now, the only question is: Corporate incompetence or divine providence? Discuss.

Who says corporate incompetence isn't a key component of divine providence?

I was actually at Orbital Sciences Corporation in Dulles, VA 2 weeks ago for a review of our spacecraft bus, which is also subcontracted to them. My impression was that they are highly competent people; generally speaking, they have an exemplary record in this business.

As you can imagine, launching a satellite into space is a process fraught with difficulties, and tiny errors can result in absolute catastrophe. So, "incompetence" is a bit strong.

That said, OSC has, in my mind, a lot to answer for with this recent failure. First of all, fairing release is an event with a lot of heritage, meaning it's been done with great success in the past. Why did it fail now? Second, this is the 2nd time that a Taurus XL payload ended up in a mission failure situation. 2nd of 8 launches means a 75% success rate. Very poor in this industry.

So, we'll just have to wait and see what the accident review board says. Course if they say, "God done it," then I will officially recant every half-cocked statement I've ever made about global warming.

I get what your saying. We had new pump turbines engineered here, pump turbines are not that uncommon, but one's bigger then most houses are, so these where engineered and built specifically for the line. When equipment and machinery is built for a targeted purpose it tends to cost astronomical amounts(Heh); it is just the nature of the beast when dealing with the cutting edge. When anything breaks the replacement needs to be retooled, when it doesn't work as intended a fix needs to be engineered tooled and then installed.

I digress, When the SR (strategic reconfiguration) turbines were produced by Siemens we had specific environmental guidelines, and operating tolerances, expectations. The SR turbines were suppose to operate with a 60% and some change reduction in emissions; additionally they were suppose to be robust enough to handle the environment conditions in the arctic. They were suppose to be able to function without reduced efficiency down to -70., and up to +95. And lastly they need to be able to function without interruption for 6 months.

Well Siemens failed across the board we are over a billion into this project and have not met a single milestone (in reality on paper it appears that we are almost done.)

Failure(1) The turbines overheat if it is warmer then +15. We have spent MILLIONS on auxiliary cooling alone and to be honest it isn't really making an impact. On the other side once we hit the -35 mark it starts to freeze up, so we have to throw up an ass load of auxiliary portable gas heaters to raise the temp to optimal operating temps (around zero).

Failure(2) The engineered environmental equipment is a complete failure. The SR turbines simply do not function when they are in place and engaged. If we don't use the scrubbers the SR equipment runs dirtier then the legacy equipment. (this is where the insurance comes in) Siemens is responsible for all State and federal fines accrued during this "dirty" time, and the cost of materials to produce functioning emissions control equipment.

Failure(3) The SR equipment has not has a consecutive operation period of more then 3 weeks at any station that is "complete".

Wow I really digress ok to the point I miss sold my idea... Were 6 years into a project that was suppose to be a 3 year deal. Were at 8 times the cost and still the end is nowhere in sight. If it wasn't for these contracted "ownership of failure" provisions then the pipeline would be bankrupt. So I suppose calling it an insurance policy is not accurate.

Holy crap, that was highly unfortunate, wasn't it?

I heard an interesting statistic a couple of days ago relating to NASA. An oceanic archeologist was being interviewed and he mentioned that NASA's budget could fund NOAA for something like 1000 years. 72% of our planet is under water and we know less about it than we do about outer space. Perhaps some of the NASA budget should be rerouted to NOAA and see if we can't make some headway in a potentially rewarding arena.

That is blasphemy Charissa!

On a long enough time line we die if we stay here. Plus there is a finite amount of resources planet side so we need to expand out. If we go muck about in the water do you know what will happen? The same thing that happens everywhere else, we will ruin it.

So if were going to ruin something lets ruin something far away that will take us aeon's to ruin; outer-space! :D (eh, never mind about the low orbit debris fields...)

well we've already ruined much of the ocean with pollution and over fishing. maybe we can spend some time making up for it, no?

blasphemy is my middle name.

Isaiah, Nick - thanks for the very good info. The Sat business does not suffer fools lightly. It would seem the problem is narrowing to the launch vehicle. There's been some time between launches of late, and all the most recent launches have involved different models. The fact that OSC produces the launch vehicle actually is a good thing IMO and I'm hopeful they can turn the vehicle around.

However, there's a possible larger problem. If we look at OSC and the Taurus XL performance since 2000 - their success rate drops to 50%. From a risk analysis perspective, there are currently serious problems affecting the Taurus XL. I've no doubt there are competent folks there, I'd look to upper management and procurement to eliminate any possible issues there first.

I really don't think NASA is fighting for crumbs, but I would have to say that NOAA has to scrap for scraps. It needs to be better funded. I think the payoff could be huge.

Hmmmm! I am not sure where I stand. On one hand I think that folks like Stephen Hawkins are correct in their assesment that the future long term survival of our species depends on our abiity to get off planet. Although, where would we go? I suppose Mars or evem Europa.

But, I also have an affection for NOAA and for heretics of all types.

First of all, I realize I am biased here, but an organization like the NOAA does not contribute to technological progress or human welfare in an infinitesimal part of NASA's contribution. More importantly, we have no reason to believe that it ever could. This is not because ocean and atmospheric science is intrinsically lacking in value -- no, quite the opposite is the case, as Charissa points out. It's because space technology is so incredibly valuable, which is also why it has historically been such a high priority for industrialized and industrializing nations.

I mean, ever heard of satellites? Most of what we consider as just basic day-to-day communication, as well as the high economic and political fluidity between modern states would be impossible without them. I realize that satellites are often launched by industry nowadays, but the development of that technology was strongly coupled to the heritage of the space program.

The NOAA offers few such technological prospects. I'm not saying they don't exist (that would require prescience), but that they aren't obvious to anyone. And science funding is a risk/benefit game.

I acknowledge that the NOAA may be a noble cause, but it's silly to compare its budget with NASA's on that basis. I think the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is a good idea, but I don't complain that it doesn't have as much money as the FDA.

Isaiah - I am with you on the value and necesitty of NASA. Think of all the techological advancements, not to mention jobs and educational opportunities NASA can provide. The U.S. is crying out for a new industry to rebuild our economy on. NASA could help fund that industry and create opportunities we may not even know exist at the moment.

Then there is the impact on global warming. I imagine the efficient energy and fuel systems would be a by product of working on the prospect of space travel or coloniziation of planets such as Mars.

You are dead on with the sattelite thing.

Agreed. MORE! MORE!

COOOOOOOOOKIES!!

I can't help being s stick-in-the-mud (because I do sooooooo love performing that important duty), but Todd, this has NOT been a good week for global warming.

That said, I'm on board with the importance of NASA. I repeat my call that the Fed needs to get off their back and allow them to excell. The payoff is that NASA will also stop acting like a lapdog to the govt teat.

When you put it that way -- funding and cookies it is

Hi Not Bill - is there ever a good week for global warming? :-) We are having an unbelievably mild winter in Denver this year. Kind of scary. I also read that the Antarctic is melting faster then previously thought.

But, to paraphrase Bun Wat - maybe we should stop thinking either / or and just thinking funding all around.

I have always thought that a well funded space program could help us with global warming on earth. One example may be in cooler, more efficient energy sources and systems.

What do you think about something like that?

aww, Bun, don't spoil the train wreck!

A well funded space programs pays dividends in ways we can't even imagine. Global warming - not so much.

In regards to arctic ice - i just love this:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/0...

"Some people might ask why we don’t simply switch to the EOS AMSR-E sensor. AMSR-E is a newer and more accurate passive microwave sensor. However, we do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data."

Translstion: "...it doesn't fit our model"

BunnWat - bless you for the use of "hypothesis".

Lastly - I've always been a big fan of Gomez Adams

Todd wrote: "Hi Not Bill - is there ever a good week for global warming? :-) We are having an unbelievably mild winter in Denver this year. Kind of scary. I also read that the Antarctic is melting faster then p..."

That's good to know - although the train wreck may have been fun too. :-)

Bringing it back to the space program... I heard this morning that the Shuttle is to be shelved until it's replacement (Orion I think) comes into operation in 2020. Thoughts, is this a good move? Are we now just standing still, or taking a step backwards...

we're in the middle of a recession/depression. I think we can safely say extra expenses right now are not a great idea.

I think putting money into the space program is far more productive then 90% of the "stimulus package"

you think the space program is more important than education?

I think we already spend more money per student then any other country, more money isn't going to make lazy American kids any smarter.

Wow.

I don't think that the stimulus bill is just throwing money at lazy students. It is providing funding for more (and better quality) teacher education, more technology and updated resources for schools, things that will help to stimulate the lazy student brains.

Sending more money to space is the waste, imho.

Maybe he wants to send the lazy American kids into orbit? Hang on......that might just work!!

there is nothing wrong with the children. children are a product of their environment. the problem is systemic within the public education system. and in some cases the problem is also within the home.

We cannot compare our public education system to others. We have a completely unique nation in this regard. We have to look inside the system itself to solve the problems. Some schools are adequately funded... many are not. Teachers themselves do not make enough money in this country to attract the best people to the profession, and the level of bureaucracy only makes it worse. Too much of the money spent on education goes to text book companies, management, Union Dues, career politicians, and pork... not nearly enough of the funding gets to the places it is needed most, the schools themselves.

If we don't fix our education system in this country so that our children are capable of competing in this age of challenges when we need our best minds, then we are losing the best wealth this country has before it even gets out of the gate, and we deserve for Asia to take over the world.

Hear hear!!!!

So restructure the education system, don't give it more money to burn. I say again we spend more per student then anyone else. More money won't help. Spending what they all ready have in a responsible way might. Agood place to start is working on the points you brought up.

And I laugh out loud at anyone that says American kids aren't lazy.

A huge generalisation that! There are lazy kids the world over (there are a percentage in my NZ classroom), but there are also motivated and industrious children....in every country, including America!

You need to get past that Debbie. The main point being more money isn't going to turn around the american education system. The system needs to be purged.

Now there's a good plan...get rid of students and teachers.....voila!
Purging is a drastic remedy that may result in even worse failures. Money is needed to turn it around, change the focus and pay people enough so that worthy teachers are attracted and retained.
Our education systen in NZ is not perfect, but from what I have read and heard, yours is worse!
And get past what? The FACT that you made a huge generalisation??!!

Get the FedEx delivery people to run the schools.

Look, I'm pretty sure I agree partially with what Nick is saying, and I am very sure y'all are turning his point into a straw man.

I happen to think that the US educational system is a catastrophic clusterf--k. Someone needs to rethink every aspect of it, from the ground up. I might even say that the system needs to be "purged." I wish it were unnecessary to note that this doesn't mean getting rid of teachers and students.

Where Nick and I diverge is in that I think that this process would probably -- and deservedly -- take a lot of money. I even think a lot of money would do good in the present system. This is the only institution that could vie for my attention more than the space program (for selfish reasons) and energy research (for, presumably more altruistic ones). If we want to talk about the "multiplier effect" of a dollar of stimulus spending, it's hard to imagine that a dollar could be multiplied (in terms of actual output of goods and services) more than by competently investing it in education.

Ugh, don't be so reasonable Bunny. Now I just have to agree with you 100% again. Big surprise there.

Let me add -- there is a point at which I would indeed say, "the educational system needs to demonstrate that it is making good use of the funds it gets now before it should get more." Given the staggering inefficiencies introduced by bureaucratic structure, I think this is only fair.

But we are far, far below that threshold. Education probably has the lowest ratio of funding-to-intrinsic worth of any government program/agency.

Texas has a "Robin Hood" law that takes property tax revenues from richer areas and gives it to the less affluent ones. I think it helps somewhat -- but the results are still a lot of under-educated students end up graduating the system.

Utah funds the schools primarily using state income tax, which Texas proudly doesn't have. I believe the Utah system works better.

NZ state schools are funded by income taxes too Isaiah, and schools have a decile ranking based on the socioeconomic makeup of the neighbourhood they are in. Lower decile schools have a bigger operations grant. Decile 1 = very poor area, and decile 10 is wealthy. I teach in a decile 3 school. The biggest change needs to be in curriculum. We have an enlightened curriculum here that can be adapted to suit a school philosophy but the key tenets and achievement objectives cannot be changed. Our curriculum focuses on promoting deeper thinking skills, problem-solving approaches and inquiry learning. This is where the US system falls down in too many states. Perhaps it should not be left to state govts and individual school districts??