One Small Step for a Man

(This was originally posted on boilercamp.us on 7/20/10)

On this day 41 years ago, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the moon, an engineering feat that has yet to be topped. A giant leap for mankind at the time, indeed, but I'm really disappointed we haven't gone back.

However, it really upsets me that a large portion of this planet truly believes that mankind has never been to the moon. As an aerospace engineer, frankly, this really pisses me off. I know the science behind it. Is it difficult? Of course it is. But we have definitely done it, in 1969 with the computing power of a modern microwave, if that.

I'd like to take this time to try and debunk the conspiracy theory, explain why space exploration is a good thing, and link the conspiracy theories to an interesting conclusion I made.

First, on debunking the conspiracy theory, I have three main arguments. First, the Russians' hubris is ridiculous, i.e., they strapped TWELVE engines to the main stage of a rocket fueled by inferior kerosene as compared to liquid hydrogen, and wonder why they couldn't get all that weight off the ground. This hubris SURELY led the Russians to be tracking the mission the ENTIRE time, and if there was any indication whatsoever that the mission was faked, the Russians would have come forward with that data.

Next, Armstrong and Aldrin placed a laser reflector on the moon in the Apollo 11 mission. Observatories all over the world (particularly American observatories in the mountains in California) frequently fire lasers at this reflector to measure the distance between the moon and the earth (speed of light x time taken for signal to return/2 gives this distance). Just go to one of those observatories, I'm sure they'd love to demonstrate for you.

Finally, with all the work that would have gone into faking the mission and making it look real, it would have been easier to send three men to the moon. And if you STILL don't believe it, well, then I triple-dog-dare you to walk up into Armstrong's or Aldrin's face (probably Aldrin, he's feisty, Armstrong is too calm to care) and tell them they didn't walk on the moon.

We haven't been back since the Apollo missions because the general public feels its a waste of money, so the government obliges and spends less money on the space program. Many great technologies were developed for space use, and then were given back to us on the surface. One such example: the ball point pen. There already were ball-point pens, but they were greatly improved after research for space missions so astronauts could write in zero-g. Ingenious, yes, but possibly unnecessary (the Russians used a pencil). Tons of fuel-saving measures on engines wind up coming back to automobiles. Rocket engines see temperatures of greater than 5000 K and all kinds of innovative technologies are implemented to keep them cool, and that technology comes back to the surface as well. The possibilities are limitless.

Alas, the government has all but quit funding NASA. Obama's new NASA budget was a huge slap in the face. However, the private space sector is booming, and I suspect we'll be back on the moon no later than 2030, and I doubt it will be government funded.

Finally, a lot of the reasons I get from people for not believing we went to the moon spark an interesting comparison in religion. People don't think we've been to the moon because there isn't enough proof or that there are tons of scenarios in which the moon landings could have been staged. I'll preface this by saying that I am NOT an atheist, but many atheists don't believe in God for exactly the same reasons. And the percentage of people on this planet who don't believe we've been to the moon is far greater than the percentage of people on this planet who are atheist (at least it seems that way to me. I don't have any exact stats). The comparison is staggering, and frankly, a little shocking.

The Future of Space Exploration, An Engineer's Perspective

(This was originally posted on boilercamp.us on 4/21/10)

This is certainly a departure from what I normally write about, but as a future aeronautics and astronautics engineer, this topic hits home for me. I also wrote this as a guest blog on Mike Brownstein's blog, Politics and Pucks.

The space industry has been a huge talking point lately. The space shuttle is at the end of its life cycle, and NASA is exploring new options to send satellites to low-Earth orbit and supplies to the International Space Station. The particular option that NASA has been exploring since day one is over-budget and behind schedule. This is mostly due to creating entirely new parts rather than salvaging parts from the space shuttles, as NASA engineers have been very keen to suggest.

So what's going to happen in the next decade? Long story short, NASA will be paying SpaceX, a private company, to send supplies to the Space Station and any satellites into low earth orbit that can be done so in an unmanned mission, and will be paying the Russians to send astronauts into orbit. NASA will continue to work on its manned space program, but based on the past five years, my guess is that it's doomed eternally. So, what should happen in the future? In my humble opinion, shut NASA down.

That's right. You heard me. Shut NASA down.

Well, maybe shut down isn't the right phrase. How about reorganize? Yeah. That's better. NASA can still be around, but they will have no part in actually conducting missions. I'd like to think of it more as NASATA - National Aeronautics and Space Advisory and Training Administration.

The current NASA yearly budget is nearly $19 BILLION. There is no way that the government needs to be spending this much money for as feeble a job they are doing. They should just keep a skeleton crew around. Every recognized private space corporation will have NASATA representatives working for them but paid for by the government, some scientists, some with mission control, some with training of crews, et cetera. My best estimate (which is entirely a guess) is around twenty current, functioning private space agencies. If each of these companies gets ten NASATA reps, that's only 200 employees. Throw each of these people $150k per year (which seems reasonable in my book), that's $30 million for payroll.

Simultaneously, there'll be a committee composed of five experts in the aerospace industry as "higher ups." These people will be in charge of biennial competitions. These competitions will offer a prize of $5 billion for whatever the current competition is. Send a crew to the moon for a week and return them safely, send a crew to orbit Mars and return safely, send a capsule to the moon in and back with a total trip time of X hours, et cetera. Give these five bigwigs $300k per year, and add another $1.5 million to the payroll.

This gives the new NASATA a BIENNIAL budget of $5.063 billion, a whopping 87% drop compared to the current NASA budget. Not only will this reduce government spending, but I feel that it will boost the technology level rapidly in terms of space exploration, and it will reduce the cost of space travel. The jobs that are cut by NASA will most certainly be picked up by the private space sector.

We may even have even broken light speed by 2050.