Two years ago, almost to the day, I was writing about the travails of the Orion spacecraft's weight issues. Well, the Ares I booster had its Preliminary Design Review (PDR) not too long ago, and it wasn't a happy occasion. Two years ago, my general thoughts were that the Orion could probably stand to lose a bit of weight. Now? Now, it's becoming rather painfully evident that the Ares I booster is woefully underpowered.
The kicker, for me, was this item from Universe Today back in April, saying that the Orion capsule could be down-graded from a crew of six to a crew of four. This is necessary because the Ares I cannot lift the six-man version ... which basically makes this iteration of Orion just about useless for ISS crew change-out. For those of you who haven't kept up, recent expansions have bumped the Space Station's permanent crew capacity from three to six.
Taken together, the obvious conclusion is that Ares I and Orion are in trouble. The schedule will slip to the right, which is no big deal. What is a moderately big deal is that Orion will not be able to perform the job originally advertised. At a crew size of four, it still works as a cis-lunar transport for the lunar landing mission, but comes up short by several seats for ISS emergency crew return.
Now, one might wonder: why, if I've known about the PDR hijinks since late last year, and about the crew downsizing since April, why haven't I been kicking up a fuss? Why haven't I, a space enthusiast since I knew how to read, been shouting from the rooftops?
Short answer: because it really doesn't matter so much. Sure, if that were the only egg in our basket, I'd be worried. But it's not.
Last year, I said that within fifteen to twenty years, the center of gravity of the American space effort would be in private industry, not in government. I have seen nothing since to disabuse me of that notion. Indeed, I may have to revise those numbers downward. In September of last year, the SpaceX Falcon 1 launcher became the first privately-owned spacecraft to enter Earth orbit. Its big brother, Falcon 9, is undergoing tests, and later this year will do its first flight with a Dragon space capsule attached. SpaceX has a contract with NASA to use the Dragon capsule to deliver cargo to the ISS, once the system is proven out. Further, Dragon comes in two flavors: all cargo, or cargo plus crew.
It's almost a certainty that a man-rated Dragon will taste hard vacuum long before any version of Orion does, and by a margin of not less than eighteen months.
So ... given those facts, why worry?
Mind you, we still need Orion, along with the Aries lander and the heavy-lift Ares V launcher. Going back to the Moon, and onward to Mars, is a goal well worth pursuing. But the Stick is as useless as lips on a brick, and needs to go. It'd be great if the new Administrator, Charles Boldin, would put it out of its misery quickly once he takes office. But like any other fatally-injured Federal program, it'll probably limp along like a gut-shot mule for another year or two before quietly expiring while no one's watching, sometime after the 2010 elections. That's just the way the world works.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Space Cadets
Recently, NASA announced the selection of the 2009 Astronaut Candidate class. This is the 20th group selected since the first seven back in 1959, the first group selected since 2004, and at nine, one of the smallest groups ever. The composition of the group is ... interesting.
At a first glance, it looks like there are three pilots and six mission specialists in this group. There are three former test pilots, two flight surgeons, a biomedical scientist, a former ISS flight controller, and two people whose selection I find fascinating. One was a CIA intelligence analyst before being selected, the other was a special assistant to the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Really, why haven't we cross-trained an intel analyst as an astronaut before now? I'd never really thought about it before I saw this selection list, but the idea seems obvious now. Space operations are going to become more important in the future, not less; and we need for our leaders to get good, solid, reality-based advice on what's going on not only in the world but up above it. It'll be interesting to see if she hangs around long enough to get a flight assignment, and even more interesting to see if she goes back to the Agency afterwards.
Likewise, space operations are also becoming more and more important to the military. Cross-training a staff officer as an astronaut also makes good sense. There's a lot of unmanned space experience in the Pentagon already, but there's nothing like the perspective of a man who's been there.
It'll be interesting to see where this class ends up. They're going to be putting the Shuttle up on blocks by the time this group gets out of training, so it's an open question what they're going to ride on when the do get their first missions. But that's a story for another day.
At a first glance, it looks like there are three pilots and six mission specialists in this group. There are three former test pilots, two flight surgeons, a biomedical scientist, a former ISS flight controller, and two people whose selection I find fascinating. One was a CIA intelligence analyst before being selected, the other was a special assistant to the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Really, why haven't we cross-trained an intel analyst as an astronaut before now? I'd never really thought about it before I saw this selection list, but the idea seems obvious now. Space operations are going to become more important in the future, not less; and we need for our leaders to get good, solid, reality-based advice on what's going on not only in the world but up above it. It'll be interesting to see if she hangs around long enough to get a flight assignment, and even more interesting to see if she goes back to the Agency afterwards.
Likewise, space operations are also becoming more and more important to the military. Cross-training a staff officer as an astronaut also makes good sense. There's a lot of unmanned space experience in the Pentagon already, but there's nothing like the perspective of a man who's been there.
It'll be interesting to see where this class ends up. They're going to be putting the Shuttle up on blocks by the time this group gets out of training, so it's an open question what they're going to ride on when the do get their first missions. But that's a story for another day.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Holy Wiffleball, Batman!
They say when it rains, it pours. That sure seems to be the case this week. First, we have what looks like an incipient revolution in Iran. Now ... hold on to your hats, boys and girls, because it's looking like the future is about to arrive.
I'm talking about the "Wiffleball" series of prototype fusion reactors built by the late Robert Bussard's Polywell outfit. Classical Values has more of the scoop here.
Now, let's not read more into this than is actually being said. They aren't all the way there yet. There's still a full-scale unit to prove out. There are still a lot of technical details to get done right. But at the same time, let's realize what's actually happening, here.
First: The WB-7 prototype generated results sufficiently interesting for the Navy to spring for a larger and much more powerful device, WB-8. To me, this says that the data to date is solid enough that the Navy thinks this is a line worth pursuing.
Second: The Navy is asking for a conceptual design for a follow-on WB-9 device. This says that if WB-8 does work as advertised, they might want to hit the ground running for the next step.
Third (and perhaps most importantly): The Navy is asking for a WB-8.1 mod that will explore a different reaction than what has been looked at to date. Instead of a deuterium-deuterium fusion reaction, WB-8.1 will run on hydrogen and boron-11. That's key, because while the D-D reaction is easier to start, it spits out stray neutrons as part of the process. That's bad for several reasons. One, neutrons carry energy away that's damn near impossible to recover and use. And two, stray neutrons tend to make things radioactive. But some reactions, such as the one between hydrogen and boron-11, produce no stray neutrons. Not only is more of the energy recoverable and usable, but the reactor equipment and structure will not eventually become too radioactive to use safely.
Fourth: The Navy is asking Polywell to make its p-B11 rig compatible with all future WB prototypes. Well, we can see where this is going.
The obvious reading of the tea leaves here is that the Navy is looking for a replacement for its current generation of nuclear reactors. Makes good sense, really; nukes are damned expensive, aside from being moderately hazardous to run. If you can replace it with an electric gizmo that eats non-radioactive fuel and spits out electricity, that saves you plenty of money and grief over the life of a ship.
As a side benefit, we also get to use this technology dirt-side, to replace all manner of filth-producing power plants. Nuclear, gas, coal, no matter, they all produce something unpleasant as a side effect. This, on the other hand, produces helium. Just helium. Helium, far from being noxious or unpleasant, is occasionally useful. Besides which, abundant clean power changes things. Lots of things.
And as another side benefit ... well, if it works out, a 3-meter diameter reactor looks like it should have a power-to-weight ratio useful for driving a fully reusable surface-to-orbit rocket. And once you're in orbit, in terms of energy you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System. Cheap, reliable access to space changes things. Lots of things.
I'll keep watching, fingers crossed and knocking on wood, but it sure looks like we're finally moving forward.
I'm talking about the "Wiffleball" series of prototype fusion reactors built by the late Robert Bussard's Polywell outfit. Classical Values has more of the scoop here.
Now, let's not read more into this than is actually being said. They aren't all the way there yet. There's still a full-scale unit to prove out. There are still a lot of technical details to get done right. But at the same time, let's realize what's actually happening, here.
First: The WB-7 prototype generated results sufficiently interesting for the Navy to spring for a larger and much more powerful device, WB-8. To me, this says that the data to date is solid enough that the Navy thinks this is a line worth pursuing.
Second: The Navy is asking for a conceptual design for a follow-on WB-9 device. This says that if WB-8 does work as advertised, they might want to hit the ground running for the next step.
Third (and perhaps most importantly): The Navy is asking for a WB-8.1 mod that will explore a different reaction than what has been looked at to date. Instead of a deuterium-deuterium fusion reaction, WB-8.1 will run on hydrogen and boron-11. That's key, because while the D-D reaction is easier to start, it spits out stray neutrons as part of the process. That's bad for several reasons. One, neutrons carry energy away that's damn near impossible to recover and use. And two, stray neutrons tend to make things radioactive. But some reactions, such as the one between hydrogen and boron-11, produce no stray neutrons. Not only is more of the energy recoverable and usable, but the reactor equipment and structure will not eventually become too radioactive to use safely.
Fourth: The Navy is asking Polywell to make its p-B11 rig compatible with all future WB prototypes. Well, we can see where this is going.
The obvious reading of the tea leaves here is that the Navy is looking for a replacement for its current generation of nuclear reactors. Makes good sense, really; nukes are damned expensive, aside from being moderately hazardous to run. If you can replace it with an electric gizmo that eats non-radioactive fuel and spits out electricity, that saves you plenty of money and grief over the life of a ship.
As a side benefit, we also get to use this technology dirt-side, to replace all manner of filth-producing power plants. Nuclear, gas, coal, no matter, they all produce something unpleasant as a side effect. This, on the other hand, produces helium. Just helium. Helium, far from being noxious or unpleasant, is occasionally useful. Besides which, abundant clean power changes things. Lots of things.
And as another side benefit ... well, if it works out, a 3-meter diameter reactor looks like it should have a power-to-weight ratio useful for driving a fully reusable surface-to-orbit rocket. And once you're in orbit, in terms of energy you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System. Cheap, reliable access to space changes things. Lots of things.
I'll keep watching, fingers crossed and knocking on wood, but it sure looks like we're finally moving forward.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Tree of Liberty ...
The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
-- Thomas Jefferson
The people of Iran are presently making a down-payment on the price of Liberty. The cost is high, as we well know:
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.
-- Thomas Paine
Stout hearts, brothers. Though the road be long and hard, rest assured that there does not exist a cause more worth the fighting for. All the world is watching, we're all pulling for you, and we know you can do this. Keep the pressure on, make the fence-sitters come down and dance, and force the Army to choose.
Win or lose, this is your day. Don't waste it.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
What's in a Name?
There's quite a lot that goes on outside of my notice, especially if I've been busy with other matters, so I mostly missed the blog-scuffle surrounding the outing of Publius by one Ed Whelan. I wouldn't know either of them from Adam, to be honest. I only find the issue of interest because ... well, it brings back some memories. I've been on the 'Net in its various forms for quite a while now, and anon-pseudo-public question has always been there. You'll find proponents for each approach. And you'll find individuals for whom each approach is exactly right, and exactly wrong.
I got my start on the 'Net in 1992 or so with GEnie. Just about everyone had a handle. A handle was nothing more or less than the name you went by. For a while, I went by "Deacon Blues". But after about a year or so, I had an epiphany. I noticed something about the people online for whom I had the most respect. They were always courteous, helpful, good-natured ... and almost invariably, they went by their own names. I decided right then that I would do the same, and I've flown my flag proudly ever since.
It's a decidedly mixed blessing.
Nothing ever really dies on the 'Net. All of my Usenet escapades are still there, searchable all the way back to my first post, way way back when. So, if you roll this way, you really can't hide anything. If you Google my name, you'll eventually find it all ... plus at least two other guys, which really kind of surprised me. (It's not an especially common name...) Still, I knew that going in. I don't mind the accountability. It makes me think twice, so that I don't say anything that I'll profoundly regret later. I can take pride in the fact that, for the most part, I've written nothing I'd be ashamed to have my daughter stumble upon someday.
On the other hand ... Elsewhere here on Blogspot, you'll find my colleague Mr. X over at Chair Force Engineer. He speaks a lot more candidly about his industry -- maybe even his employer -- than I ever would, and probably has much to fear if his identity were compromised. I fully understand why he's adopted a pseudonym. Publius, a non-tenured professor of law, wanted to keep his professional identity distinct from his opinion writing. That's also a valid concern. And then there are people with legitimate concerns about attracting stalkers. There's no limit to the full-on crazy some people on the 'Net can muster. I can't complain about their choice.
On the other other hand ... Anonymity gives some people license to become the rude public nuisance that they always wanted to be, but never had the nerve. I can only think of a handful of "real" names that I can associate with genuinely unpleasant people I've encountered online. Most of the jerks, trolls, and oxygen thieves I've run into hereabouts have been cruising under fake names. They exist to derail discussions. They thrive on vandalism. You still see them on blog forums today, but let me tell you, their troll-fu is weak. The trolls of old could utterly destroy a newsgroup. There were two particularly bitter flame wars I remember, both about ten years ago, both instigated by anonymous trolls. In one case, the troll's primary victim was unusually diligent, and ended up cracking his real ID. Said troll vanished post-haste, and was missed by no one. But the damage had been done, and the quality of conversation never really recovered. The other one got really ugly. A complaint was filed with an ISP, which resulted in the guy losing his job. He stayed around, under his real name, but got in a second flame-war with -- get this -- another anonymous troll. That flame-war ended in a fist-fight one Saturday morning outside of the city limits. Yes, even with blog-trolls, the modern 'Net is an improvement. Usenet was an angry, angry place. I don't miss it.
Anyway, that brings me to another serious disadvantage of pseudonyms. People who disagree with you can become obsessed with finding out who you really are. They think it's like shaving Samson's hair, or giving Superman kryptonite underwear. They think that by outing you, they can get you to shut up. And sometimes they're right. That doesn't make it fair or honest, but occasionally, it's effective. Yet another reason I hoist my flag proudly: no secrets, no drama.
It's worked pretty well so far.
I got my start on the 'Net in 1992 or so with GEnie. Just about everyone had a handle. A handle was nothing more or less than the name you went by. For a while, I went by "Deacon Blues". But after about a year or so, I had an epiphany. I noticed something about the people online for whom I had the most respect. They were always courteous, helpful, good-natured ... and almost invariably, they went by their own names. I decided right then that I would do the same, and I've flown my flag proudly ever since.
It's a decidedly mixed blessing.
Nothing ever really dies on the 'Net. All of my Usenet escapades are still there, searchable all the way back to my first post, way way back when. So, if you roll this way, you really can't hide anything. If you Google my name, you'll eventually find it all ... plus at least two other guys, which really kind of surprised me. (It's not an especially common name...) Still, I knew that going in. I don't mind the accountability. It makes me think twice, so that I don't say anything that I'll profoundly regret later. I can take pride in the fact that, for the most part, I've written nothing I'd be ashamed to have my daughter stumble upon someday.
On the other hand ... Elsewhere here on Blogspot, you'll find my colleague Mr. X over at Chair Force Engineer. He speaks a lot more candidly about his industry -- maybe even his employer -- than I ever would, and probably has much to fear if his identity were compromised. I fully understand why he's adopted a pseudonym. Publius, a non-tenured professor of law, wanted to keep his professional identity distinct from his opinion writing. That's also a valid concern. And then there are people with legitimate concerns about attracting stalkers. There's no limit to the full-on crazy some people on the 'Net can muster. I can't complain about their choice.
On the other other hand ... Anonymity gives some people license to become the rude public nuisance that they always wanted to be, but never had the nerve. I can only think of a handful of "real" names that I can associate with genuinely unpleasant people I've encountered online. Most of the jerks, trolls, and oxygen thieves I've run into hereabouts have been cruising under fake names. They exist to derail discussions. They thrive on vandalism. You still see them on blog forums today, but let me tell you, their troll-fu is weak. The trolls of old could utterly destroy a newsgroup. There were two particularly bitter flame wars I remember, both about ten years ago, both instigated by anonymous trolls. In one case, the troll's primary victim was unusually diligent, and ended up cracking his real ID. Said troll vanished post-haste, and was missed by no one. But the damage had been done, and the quality of conversation never really recovered. The other one got really ugly. A complaint was filed with an ISP, which resulted in the guy losing his job. He stayed around, under his real name, but got in a second flame-war with -- get this -- another anonymous troll. That flame-war ended in a fist-fight one Saturday morning outside of the city limits. Yes, even with blog-trolls, the modern 'Net is an improvement. Usenet was an angry, angry place. I don't miss it.
Anyway, that brings me to another serious disadvantage of pseudonyms. People who disagree with you can become obsessed with finding out who you really are. They think it's like shaving Samson's hair, or giving Superman kryptonite underwear. They think that by outing you, they can get you to shut up. And sometimes they're right. That doesn't make it fair or honest, but occasionally, it's effective. Yet another reason I hoist my flag proudly: no secrets, no drama.
It's worked pretty well so far.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Air France 447
Very bad news Monday: Air France flight 447, an Airbus 330 enroute from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, went down in the Atlantic Ocean between South America and Africa. We may never know exactly what happened. The "black box" lies under 11,000 feet of water just east of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and will be very difficult indeed to locate, much less recover. But although the details may never be known, I think we have enough information to know the broad outlines of what happened.
Here is the sequence of events, such as we know them as of Tuesday evening:
1) 0133 UTC: Verbal contact with crew at waypoint INTOL.
2) 0210 UTC: First ACARS message, indicating disconnection of the autopilot.
3) ~0210 UTC: Second ACARS message, indicating mode transition of flight control system.
4) ~0212 UTC: Series of ACARS messages indicating failures of the air data computer and the standby instruments.
5) ~0212 UTC: Series of ACARS messages indicating failures of two of three flight control computers.
6) 0214 UTC: Last ACARS messages, indicating electrical system failure, and failure of cabin pressurization.
There's been a lot of discussion about lightning. I tend not to give it much credence. Modern jet aircraft are designed with the full knowledge not that it might get hit, but that it will get hit. They can take one hit, maybe more than one, and still recover full function. So, something else had to have happened.
Tim Vasquez, a former Air Force meteorologist, has a detailed analysis posted on his site. He overlays the flight path of AF447 onto a time-lapse of satellite weather data, which shows clearly that AF447 was flying over some pretty strong thunderstorms. One of the things in the time-lapse picture that pops out at you is a very strong updraft at 0200 UTC, just to the left of AF447's projected flight path.
Flying over thunderstorms is something commercial pilots do all the time, but none of them really enjoy doing it. Somewhere in the southwestern US, hanging over the base ops building, was a sign that read "There is no reason to fly through a thunderstorm in peacetime." Pilots are trained from day one to respect the authority of His Imperial Majesty, Cumulonimbus Rex. Modern storm-avoidance radars, standard equipment on passenger jets, make the job of avoiding dangerous conditions much easier. But still, things can -- and do -- sneak up on you. The weather radar doesn't have a 180-degree field of view. The specifics vary depending on model, but they can only "see" a cone out in front of the aircraft. Under most conditions, that gives a pilot plenty of warning. But, if a fast-developing updraft gets started right after your radar sweeps over it...
The sequence of the ACARS messages was the last piece in the puzzle. I may be wrong, but based on what I know, this is what I think happened.
The aircraft was upset by a very powerful updraft. We don't know exactly what attitude the aircraft was pushed into, but we do know that the autopilot kicked off. They're designed to do that automatically, if the angle of attack or the angle of sideslip get too high. Further, if the aircraft deviates far enough from nominal values for AOA and sideslip, the flight control computer will switch into an emergency mode, giving the pilot more control authority so that he can right the aircraft. Sometimes, that's enough. But the really nasty thing about unusual attitudes is that the data the air data computer relies on to feed the flight controls becomes corrupted. One by one, the flight control computers drop out as they encounter exceptions they weren't coded to handle. In an aircraft with fully fly-by-wire controls, this is fatal. Without a computer to translate his stick motion into control commands, the pilot cannot control the airplane. Inertia takes over. Inevitably, the stresses on the airframe become too great, the structure fails, and the airplane disintegrates.
If they can recover and analyze enough of the debris, that might tell a different tale. I hope they do, and they can. Maybe there's a clue in there that will tell us how to avoid the next accident. Or maybe not. One thing that strikes me sometimes as I drive past an airport and see airplanes sailing gracefully through the sky in exactly the way a hundred tons of aluminum shouldn't ... You've got to know, there's a risk in doing this. It's a small one. It's one we work hard to minimize.
But it'll never, never go away.
[Addendum, 10Jun09: Well, the danger of early speculation is that you end up getting details wrong. It's beginning to look like icing may have played a role. Ordinarily, the air up at that altitude is so cold that supercooled water cannot exist, and icing generally isn't a danger. But a sufficiently strong updraft might be able to haul enough moisture skyward to ice up some exposed surfaces ... such as the pitot tube.
[Airplanes have used pitot-static systems for years to measure airspeed and altitude. Indeed, until fairly recently, they were the only way to measure them. If your pitot tube ices over, you're essentially blind. But, they have heaters that can melt the ice off, provided that they've been turned on. Now here's where it gets interesting. Modern airplanes also have inertial navigation systems, that use a different method to compute speed. You no longer lose all of your information in an ice event ... but which set of information does your air data computer believe? And which set does it show the pilot? Is the pilot flying according to one airspeed, while the computer ciphers out the control laws in another? That can't possibly end well.
[The interesting thing here is that Airbus appears to have anticipated this particular corner, and has had a fix available since January. The upgrades had been propagating through the fleet with no particular urgency. I expect the urgency to step up a notch or two...
[I have to hand it to the engineers at Airbus, though. That was fast work, figuring out what might have gone wrong from fragments and scraps of error messages. It's in the finest traditions of our profession, and accelerated upgrades may well save lives in the future. Well done, gentlemen!]
Here is the sequence of events, such as we know them as of Tuesday evening:
1) 0133 UTC: Verbal contact with crew at waypoint INTOL.
2) 0210 UTC: First ACARS message, indicating disconnection of the autopilot.
3) ~0210 UTC: Second ACARS message, indicating mode transition of flight control system.
4) ~0212 UTC: Series of ACARS messages indicating failures of the air data computer and the standby instruments.
5) ~0212 UTC: Series of ACARS messages indicating failures of two of three flight control computers.
6) 0214 UTC: Last ACARS messages, indicating electrical system failure, and failure of cabin pressurization.
There's been a lot of discussion about lightning. I tend not to give it much credence. Modern jet aircraft are designed with the full knowledge not that it might get hit, but that it will get hit. They can take one hit, maybe more than one, and still recover full function. So, something else had to have happened.
Tim Vasquez, a former Air Force meteorologist, has a detailed analysis posted on his site. He overlays the flight path of AF447 onto a time-lapse of satellite weather data, which shows clearly that AF447 was flying over some pretty strong thunderstorms. One of the things in the time-lapse picture that pops out at you is a very strong updraft at 0200 UTC, just to the left of AF447's projected flight path.
Flying over thunderstorms is something commercial pilots do all the time, but none of them really enjoy doing it. Somewhere in the southwestern US, hanging over the base ops building, was a sign that read "There is no reason to fly through a thunderstorm in peacetime." Pilots are trained from day one to respect the authority of His Imperial Majesty, Cumulonimbus Rex. Modern storm-avoidance radars, standard equipment on passenger jets, make the job of avoiding dangerous conditions much easier. But still, things can -- and do -- sneak up on you. The weather radar doesn't have a 180-degree field of view. The specifics vary depending on model, but they can only "see" a cone out in front of the aircraft. Under most conditions, that gives a pilot plenty of warning. But, if a fast-developing updraft gets started right after your radar sweeps over it...
The sequence of the ACARS messages was the last piece in the puzzle. I may be wrong, but based on what I know, this is what I think happened.
The aircraft was upset by a very powerful updraft. We don't know exactly what attitude the aircraft was pushed into, but we do know that the autopilot kicked off. They're designed to do that automatically, if the angle of attack or the angle of sideslip get too high. Further, if the aircraft deviates far enough from nominal values for AOA and sideslip, the flight control computer will switch into an emergency mode, giving the pilot more control authority so that he can right the aircraft. Sometimes, that's enough. But the really nasty thing about unusual attitudes is that the data the air data computer relies on to feed the flight controls becomes corrupted. One by one, the flight control computers drop out as they encounter exceptions they weren't coded to handle. In an aircraft with fully fly-by-wire controls, this is fatal. Without a computer to translate his stick motion into control commands, the pilot cannot control the airplane. Inertia takes over. Inevitably, the stresses on the airframe become too great, the structure fails, and the airplane disintegrates.
If they can recover and analyze enough of the debris, that might tell a different tale. I hope they do, and they can. Maybe there's a clue in there that will tell us how to avoid the next accident. Or maybe not. One thing that strikes me sometimes as I drive past an airport and see airplanes sailing gracefully through the sky in exactly the way a hundred tons of aluminum shouldn't ... You've got to know, there's a risk in doing this. It's a small one. It's one we work hard to minimize.
But it'll never, never go away.
[Addendum, 10Jun09: Well, the danger of early speculation is that you end up getting details wrong. It's beginning to look like icing may have played a role. Ordinarily, the air up at that altitude is so cold that supercooled water cannot exist, and icing generally isn't a danger. But a sufficiently strong updraft might be able to haul enough moisture skyward to ice up some exposed surfaces ... such as the pitot tube.
[Airplanes have used pitot-static systems for years to measure airspeed and altitude. Indeed, until fairly recently, they were the only way to measure them. If your pitot tube ices over, you're essentially blind. But, they have heaters that can melt the ice off, provided that they've been turned on. Now here's where it gets interesting. Modern airplanes also have inertial navigation systems, that use a different method to compute speed. You no longer lose all of your information in an ice event ... but which set of information does your air data computer believe? And which set does it show the pilot? Is the pilot flying according to one airspeed, while the computer ciphers out the control laws in another? That can't possibly end well.
[The interesting thing here is that Airbus appears to have anticipated this particular corner, and has had a fix available since January. The upgrades had been propagating through the fleet with no particular urgency. I expect the urgency to step up a notch or two...
[I have to hand it to the engineers at Airbus, though. That was fast work, figuring out what might have gone wrong from fragments and scraps of error messages. It's in the finest traditions of our profession, and accelerated upgrades may well save lives in the future. Well done, gentlemen!]
Monday, May 25, 2009
Memorial Day, 2009
From the Lay of Horatius, by Thomas Babington Macaulay:
But the Consul's brow was sad, and the Consul's speech was low,
And darkly looked he at the wall, and darkly at the foe.
"Their van will be upon us before the bridge goes down,
And if once they might win the bridge, what hope to save the town?"
Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late;
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods,
"And for the tender mother who dandled him to rest,
And for his wife who nurses his baby at her breast,
And for the holy maidens who feed the eternal flame,
To save them from false Sextus, that wrought the deed of shame?
"Hew down the bridge, Sir Consul, with all the speed ye may!
I, with two more to help me, will hold the foe in play.
In yon strait path a thousand may well be stopped by three,
Now, who will stand on either hand and keep the bridge with me?"
Then out spake Spurius Lartius; a Ramnian proud was he,
"Lo, I will stand at thy right hand, and keep the bridge with thee."
And out spake strong Herminius, of Titian blood was he:
"I will abide on thy left side, and keep the bridge with thee."
"Horatius," quoth the Consul, "As thou sayest, so let it be."
And straight against that great array, forth went the dauntless Three.
For Romans in Rome's quarrel spared neither land nor gold,
Nor son, nor wife, nor limb, nor life, in the brave days of old.
We Americans celebrate three major patriotic holidays throughout the year. People tend to say the same things at each, forgetting sometimes that each one has its own character. On Veterans' Day, we celebrate the service of all of our veterans, honoring all who have taken their turn keeping the bridge. On Independence Day, we honor everyone, veterans and others, who have served our nation's institutions, faithfully bequeathing a legacy of freedom under law that, God willing, we will in turn bequeath to our sons and daughters. But on Memorial Day, we specifically honor those who paid the ultimate price for our liberty.
Memorial Day is for Nathan Hale. It's for Sullivan Ballou. It's for Lloyd Williams, who led his Marines into that French forest that would be known forever afterward as the Bois de Brigade de Marine. It's for Rodger Young on New Georgia, and Ernest Evans off the island of Samar, and Theodore Roosevelt Jr. on Utah Beach, each earning a Medal of Honor posthumously. And it's for Mel Apt, who was all too briefly the fastest man alive, until his out-of-control X-2 hit the unforgiving desert floor. (If any of those names are unfamiliar to you, please take time to read the linked entries.)
Not many of us know that the Star-Spangled Banner has more than one verse. Francis Scott Key originally wrote four stanzas. The last one begins:
O, thus be it e'er when free men shall stand
Between their loved home, and the war's desolation!
The young men and women we have recently commissioned as Second Lieutenants and Ensigns have signed on to lead their comrades into making that stand, knowing full well what the cost might be. They have volunteered to stand their post upon that bridge, just as the Romans Horatius, Spurius Lartius, and Herminius did back in their day. Most of them will survive their experience. Macaulay tells us that all three survived the battle. But he also tells us that in some versions of the story, Horatius died holding the end of the bridge while his companions withdrew. Some of the young men and women we've commissioned this week will find that fate to be their own.
The task they leave to us is to honor their memory. We must never forget those things for which they gave their last full measure of devotion. We must remember their courage, their honor, their dignity. And we must teach our children to remember, to make these stories of bravery and sacrifice live for each new generation.
For as long as we remember them, they never truly die.
Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Video Del Fuego, Part XXI
Yet another in an on-going series about people who really, truly should have known better:
A lot of what shows up on FailBlog isn't the sort of thing I'd like to pass along. Some vids are quite unfair. Trying to jump a small ditch with a bike isn't inherently stupid, for example, and the scene is only amusing because the guy's equipment failed on him. But guys who jump off a roof onto a trampoline? Or guys who go hood-surfing with no one at the wheel? Fair game. If they had an ounce of sense they wouldn't have tried, and if pain teaches anything at all then they sure won't try again. I feel some empathy for today's featured hero, but really, doesn't this fall under the heading of not treating your equipment with the respect it demands? Remember, kids, if you mess with electricity, it'll mess with you right back. Reddy Kilowatt doesn't suffer fools gladly.
Even trained professionals occasionally bungle their taser-fu:
Personally, I think a Taser is more useful for self-protection than a handgun, but either one demands training in its use and handling, and sensible respect in storage and maintenance. Take it for granted, and it will bite.
A lot of what shows up on FailBlog isn't the sort of thing I'd like to pass along. Some vids are quite unfair. Trying to jump a small ditch with a bike isn't inherently stupid, for example, and the scene is only amusing because the guy's equipment failed on him. But guys who jump off a roof onto a trampoline? Or guys who go hood-surfing with no one at the wheel? Fair game. If they had an ounce of sense they wouldn't have tried, and if pain teaches anything at all then they sure won't try again. I feel some empathy for today's featured hero, but really, doesn't this fall under the heading of not treating your equipment with the respect it demands? Remember, kids, if you mess with electricity, it'll mess with you right back. Reddy Kilowatt doesn't suffer fools gladly.
Even trained professionals occasionally bungle their taser-fu:
Personally, I think a Taser is more useful for self-protection than a handgun, but either one demands training in its use and handling, and sensible respect in storage and maintenance. Take it for granted, and it will bite.
Friday, May 08, 2009
A Matter of Priorities
This is an old news item, but I wanted to chew on its implications for a while before I said anything about it. When he unveiled the proposed 2010 DoD budget, the line item that drew the most attention was his announcement that he would end F-22 Raptor production at 187 aircraft. I am somewhat ambivalent about this. On the one hand, our current doctrine relies upon air superiority. Staying ahead is easier than catching up, after all, and we never really want our guys to find themselves in a fair fight. On the other hand, there's a conversation we really need to have about missions and force structure.
Let's roll back the clock about 20 years. Back in the late 1980s, the mission and force structure was fairly plain. We were built up and deployed to receive a Warsaw Pact assault in Western Europe. Some days that looked more likely than others. There was a time when I fully expected to cash in my chips fighting Russians somewhere in Germany. At a minimum, we had good reason to hedge our bets. After World War II, Stalin's policies were expansionist and aggressive. We saw that in both Berlin and Korea. Stalin's successor Khruschchev wasn't as blatantly expansionist, but his rhetoric wasn't what you'd call friendly, either. If you took their founding documents seriously, if you believed that they meant what they appeared to say, there were few conclusions you could reach other than they really believed that the world wasn't big enough for both Communism and Capitalism. They would carry by the bayonet what they couldn't carry by persuasion.
Under that threat, we had to be prepared to defend our allies against aggression. We maintained a large peacetime standing army, something unheard of in American history. We continued to spend at an almost wartime level on national defense. The weapons we developed during those years were designed around that threat.
Then, something totally unexpected happened. The Warsaw Pact fell apart. In the aftermath of that collapse, we never really took a hard look at our force structure, never really figured out exactly what it is we're trying to do with this new world we find ourselves in. We continued to build a Navy designed to take on the Red Banner Northern Fleet, an Army intended to turn back the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, and an Air Force meant to chew up Soviet Frontal Aviation. I've long thought we needed to re-think things. But that never quite happened.
Maybe, just maybe, that conversation will happen now. We need to establish new priorities. We need to structure our defense establishment around what our needs really are today, not around what they were twenty years ago. The question on the table -- and I don't pretend to have a complete answer, much less the right one -- is this: What is America's role in the world? Knowing that, what kind of military can best fill that role?
Breaking it down yet further: Are we the world's policeman? Or are we the friends of liberty everywhere, but the guardians only of our own?
Like I said, I don't yet have an answer. I just have the question. The conversation is way, way past due; and we can't really know what our military should look like until we have it.
That said, I have a few observations about military policy:
1) My esteemed colleague, the anonymous Chair Force Engineer, makes a very good point about the drawbacks of our somewhat ADD approach to military planning. We tend to go through cycles of "Ooh! That looks neat!" followed by "Damn! That's expensive!" This idiocy tends to drive up acquisition prices. Once we know what we need, we should then buy what we need. Just that.
2) As a related point, there's something goofy about the way airplane costs are accounted for. When a news article reports the cost of an F-22 Raptor fighter, for example, that per-airplane cost amortizes the RDT&E cost over the entire buy. This makes each individual airplane look much more expensive than it actually is, based on the marginal cost of building the damn thing. If I had my 'druthers, we'd do it differently. You'd pay up front for the factory, tools, dies, and everything you have to have to build the first example. You'd eat that in the program start-up cost. You have to build that infrastructure anyway, whether you build one or ten thousand. After that, the unit cost would be the marginal cost of actually building each additional airframe that rolls off the assembly line: mostly time and materials. If you build enough, process improvements make each successive lot cheaper, not more expensive. However, I doubt that'll ever happen.
3) I'm not all that upset about the F-22 ending production. She's a lovely bird. And the Raptor rules the skies -- today. But all the same, I know an incipient dinosaur when I see it. Two technologies are coming to maturity that spell doom for the manned tactical fighter. One is the airborne laser, the other is the unmanned combat aircraft. Within fifteen years, we'll see a laser-armed unmanned fighter that is smaller, cheaper, and far more maneuverable than any fighter in the world today. Its main weapon fires line-straight at the speed of light, and cannot be jammed or evaded. If the gunner lays cross-hairs on you, you're done for. I'd rather we started making the down payments on this next turn of the technological wheel than putting another coat of polish on last year's model.
4) In the current budget climate, it really comes down to a matter of priorities. One way of setting priorities amongst services and programs is this: if you can only fully fund one, which one should it be? If you put that question to me, I'd look you straight in the eye and say without flinching -- it's the Navy. Understand that it's a former Air Force man saying that. My father was a career USAF NCO, and I was an AFROTC cadet myself, but I've read enough military history to know what's important. We are safe from invasion not because we have a powerful Army, nor because we have the world's best-equipped Air Force. Those are nice things to have, but they're not defensive arms for us. Those are the things we use to strut our funky stuff on someone else's real estate. No, the service that keeps them from returning the favor is the Navy. We sleep soundly without worry that rude foreigners will interrupt our rest mainly because the United States Navy is bigger than the next seventeen put together. The USN may not rule the waves, but no one else swings the heavy iron to seriously contest the matter. I'll trade Raptors for more Littoral Combat Ships every day and twice on Sundays. I'm a flyboy born and bred, but still, that's a thief's bargain. As long as we have a nice, strong Navy, I will sleep soundly and contentedly.
5) One last thing about force structure: back before WWII, the general arrangement was that the President did what he wanted with the Navy, but the Congress owned the Army. I'd kind of like to get back to something like that. If I had my way, I'd draw down the regular Army somewhat, and transfer assets to the National Guard in the various States. Then, I'd change the law such that the National Guard could only be mobilized by the President pursuant to a Declaration of War passed by Congress. Not an "authorization of force." Not a "state of emergency." An honest-to-God Declaration of War. Congress needs to step up and do its damn job. The last President ran amok, true enough, but he was aided and abetted by a supine, servile Congress. If we force them to "own" the Army again, maybe that'll change.
In summary: there are both winners and losers in the 2010 DoD budget. But on the whole, things look pretty good.
Let's roll back the clock about 20 years. Back in the late 1980s, the mission and force structure was fairly plain. We were built up and deployed to receive a Warsaw Pact assault in Western Europe. Some days that looked more likely than others. There was a time when I fully expected to cash in my chips fighting Russians somewhere in Germany. At a minimum, we had good reason to hedge our bets. After World War II, Stalin's policies were expansionist and aggressive. We saw that in both Berlin and Korea. Stalin's successor Khruschchev wasn't as blatantly expansionist, but his rhetoric wasn't what you'd call friendly, either. If you took their founding documents seriously, if you believed that they meant what they appeared to say, there were few conclusions you could reach other than they really believed that the world wasn't big enough for both Communism and Capitalism. They would carry by the bayonet what they couldn't carry by persuasion.
Under that threat, we had to be prepared to defend our allies against aggression. We maintained a large peacetime standing army, something unheard of in American history. We continued to spend at an almost wartime level on national defense. The weapons we developed during those years were designed around that threat.
Then, something totally unexpected happened. The Warsaw Pact fell apart. In the aftermath of that collapse, we never really took a hard look at our force structure, never really figured out exactly what it is we're trying to do with this new world we find ourselves in. We continued to build a Navy designed to take on the Red Banner Northern Fleet, an Army intended to turn back the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, and an Air Force meant to chew up Soviet Frontal Aviation. I've long thought we needed to re-think things. But that never quite happened.
Maybe, just maybe, that conversation will happen now. We need to establish new priorities. We need to structure our defense establishment around what our needs really are today, not around what they were twenty years ago. The question on the table -- and I don't pretend to have a complete answer, much less the right one -- is this: What is America's role in the world? Knowing that, what kind of military can best fill that role?
Breaking it down yet further: Are we the world's policeman? Or are we the friends of liberty everywhere, but the guardians only of our own?
Like I said, I don't yet have an answer. I just have the question. The conversation is way, way past due; and we can't really know what our military should look like until we have it.
That said, I have a few observations about military policy:
1) My esteemed colleague, the anonymous Chair Force Engineer, makes a very good point about the drawbacks of our somewhat ADD approach to military planning. We tend to go through cycles of "Ooh! That looks neat!" followed by "Damn! That's expensive!" This idiocy tends to drive up acquisition prices. Once we know what we need, we should then buy what we need. Just that.
2) As a related point, there's something goofy about the way airplane costs are accounted for. When a news article reports the cost of an F-22 Raptor fighter, for example, that per-airplane cost amortizes the RDT&E cost over the entire buy. This makes each individual airplane look much more expensive than it actually is, based on the marginal cost of building the damn thing. If I had my 'druthers, we'd do it differently. You'd pay up front for the factory, tools, dies, and everything you have to have to build the first example. You'd eat that in the program start-up cost. You have to build that infrastructure anyway, whether you build one or ten thousand. After that, the unit cost would be the marginal cost of actually building each additional airframe that rolls off the assembly line: mostly time and materials. If you build enough, process improvements make each successive lot cheaper, not more expensive. However, I doubt that'll ever happen.
3) I'm not all that upset about the F-22 ending production. She's a lovely bird. And the Raptor rules the skies -- today. But all the same, I know an incipient dinosaur when I see it. Two technologies are coming to maturity that spell doom for the manned tactical fighter. One is the airborne laser, the other is the unmanned combat aircraft. Within fifteen years, we'll see a laser-armed unmanned fighter that is smaller, cheaper, and far more maneuverable than any fighter in the world today. Its main weapon fires line-straight at the speed of light, and cannot be jammed or evaded. If the gunner lays cross-hairs on you, you're done for. I'd rather we started making the down payments on this next turn of the technological wheel than putting another coat of polish on last year's model.
4) In the current budget climate, it really comes down to a matter of priorities. One way of setting priorities amongst services and programs is this: if you can only fully fund one, which one should it be? If you put that question to me, I'd look you straight in the eye and say without flinching -- it's the Navy. Understand that it's a former Air Force man saying that. My father was a career USAF NCO, and I was an AFROTC cadet myself, but I've read enough military history to know what's important. We are safe from invasion not because we have a powerful Army, nor because we have the world's best-equipped Air Force. Those are nice things to have, but they're not defensive arms for us. Those are the things we use to strut our funky stuff on someone else's real estate. No, the service that keeps them from returning the favor is the Navy. We sleep soundly without worry that rude foreigners will interrupt our rest mainly because the United States Navy is bigger than the next seventeen put together. The USN may not rule the waves, but no one else swings the heavy iron to seriously contest the matter. I'll trade Raptors for more Littoral Combat Ships every day and twice on Sundays. I'm a flyboy born and bred, but still, that's a thief's bargain. As long as we have a nice, strong Navy, I will sleep soundly and contentedly.
5) One last thing about force structure: back before WWII, the general arrangement was that the President did what he wanted with the Navy, but the Congress owned the Army. I'd kind of like to get back to something like that. If I had my way, I'd draw down the regular Army somewhat, and transfer assets to the National Guard in the various States. Then, I'd change the law such that the National Guard could only be mobilized by the President pursuant to a Declaration of War passed by Congress. Not an "authorization of force." Not a "state of emergency." An honest-to-God Declaration of War. Congress needs to step up and do its damn job. The last President ran amok, true enough, but he was aided and abetted by a supine, servile Congress. If we force them to "own" the Army again, maybe that'll change.
In summary: there are both winners and losers in the 2010 DoD budget. But on the whole, things look pretty good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
