Jump to content

MESSENGER – From Setbacks to Success


NASA

Recommended Posts

  • Publishers
20 Min Read

MESSENGER – From Setbacks to Success

This view of Mercury was produced by using images from the color base map imaging campaign during MESSENGER's primary mission.
This view of Mercury was produced by using images from the color base map imaging campaign during MESSENGER's primary mission.
Credits: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington

The excerpts below are taken from Discovery Program oral history interviews conducted in 2009 by Dr. Susan Niebur and tell the story of the hurdles the MESSENGER (MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging) mission team faced with the technical requirements of visiting Mercury, budget challenges, and schedule impacts —all while keeping their mission goals in mind on the way to launch.

The MESSENGER mission followed a long road from conception to launch with multiple detours and obstacles along the way. First conceived by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) after NASA’s 1996 Discovery Program Announcement of Opportunity, the mission to Mercury proposal, if accepted, would be the first spacecraft to visit the planet since Mariner 10’s flybys in 1974. A critical step for APL was finding the right principal investigator (PI) to lead the mission.

“These projects are so huge”

Andrew F. Cheng, MESSENGER Co-Investigator

“There’s not that many people out there, especially in the early days when the PI [principal investigator-led] mission paradigm itself was just getting set up. You didn’t want to screw up. You didn’t want to have a problem. …Scientific qualifications are necessary, but that’s not even the biggest part of it. It’s knowing something about missions and seeing how they work with engineers and also how they handle Headquarters and how they handle the program management. It’s a whole variety of things.

“Number one is the cachet to help you win the mission. And then there’s the consideration, ‘Okay, what if we win and we’re actually stuck with this guy? All right, he better be able to work with the engineers, better know how to listen, better realize that, yes, you’re in charge, but you’re not really.’ PIs don’t know everything and they have to know how to delegate. These projects are so huge…they can’t get their fingers into everything.”

“This sounded like fun”

Sean Solomon, MESSENGER Principal Investigator

“APL decided that they thought they could do a Mercury orbiter mission.  They were doing NEAR [Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous] at the time.  They had ambitions to do more things in solar system exploration. 

“I got a call from John Appleby, who was the head of development for the APL space department at the time.  He said, ‘We are looking to put together a team of scientists for a Discovery proposal, a Mercury orbiter.  Would you be interested?’ 

“I said sure.  …This sounded like fun.  I hadn’t given a great deal of thought to Mercury for almost 20 years, then.  This is spring of 1996.  But it was something I had wanted to do for 20 years.  It was a chance.  …The next thing I knew I got a call from Tom Krimigis, …and he said, “Can you come out to APL?”  I had never been to APL.  So I drove out there and I was late because I didn’t know how bad the beltway traffic would be.  I came into this room with 10 people waiting for me, and the gist of it was, they asked me, ‘Would you like to be PI?  You already said you would be on the science team for the mission, how about being PI?’…

“I was naïve in a lot of ways.  I didn’t appreciate all of the aspects of the things I would have to know.  For instance, when we wrote that first proposal.  The first time we wrote it, it got accepted [and moved] to the second round [of competition].  I put a lot of effort into the science rationale, which was the first 25 pages of the proposal.  But I had to accept that the engineering team really knew what they were doing.  I wasn’t in a position to critically evaluate the confidence with which they had solutions to particular technical challenges.  I didn’t know that much then about risk management.  I didn’t know how to ask all of the questions that I learned how to ask about.  Nor did I know how to evaluate project managers, the first time around.

“At the time of our site visit [a requirement during the second round], we had a development path for the solar arrays, which was worked out, but in the questions and answers it was clear we didn’t have a sufficient contingency plan.  If any of the testing proved that our assumptions were not appropriate…we didn’t have a deep plan for what to do next.  And so we were really sharply dinged on the solar arrays, which have to face the Sun.  We hadn’t done enough testing to be absolutely confident to the level of being able to persuade a legitimately skeptical review panel that we had the right solution. 

“The other place we got hammered was that the budget did not come together.  This was the project manager’s fault.  It didn’t come together in a way that could be shared with the team, including the PI, before the site visit.  The budget was so late that he didn’t put all the numbers together until the night before the presentation, and some of that information that had gone out to the site review team didn’t add up.  …And there was nobody there who could help him because nobody had seen it.  It had been put together so last minute….I wasn’t sufficiently skeptical in the areas where I was ignorant.  So I certainly bear a lot of responsibility [for not being chosen].”

Workers put a solar panel onto NASA's MESSENGER spacecraft
These two large solar panels gave the MESSENGER spacecraft its power.
NASA

After that first disappointment, the MESSENGER team regrouped and proposed again in 1998 after some changes to the team and after addressing significant problems that were identified in the first proposal. The second proposal was accepted for development on July 7, 1999.

“Somebody who knew about risk”

Sean Solomon, MESSENGER Principal Investigator

“We had a meeting and agreed that we would re-propose.  I said I want a new project manager…we had to have a rapport, someone who could work well with his own engineers.  Somebody whose budgets I believed.  Somebody who knew about risk.  Somebody who had had some experience.  They said, ‘We think we have somebody for you.  We would like you to meet Max Peterson.’  Max and I hit it off.  So he became the proposal manager and the project manager for the second proposal. 

“We had to solve the solar array problem.  And APL did that by doing the testing.  They developed a testing protocol.  They put the resources in.  They figured out how to do the test at NASA Glenn [Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio].  So by the time we wrote our second proposal, and particularly by the time of the second site study, we could say, ‘Not only do we have a solution for the solar arrays, here are all the tests that validate our models.’

“So, the first time we proposed we were low risk in round one and high risk after the site visit, high risk being the solar arrays and not having a good project manager.  But we were low risk both times the second time through.”

Two separate Mars missions lost their spacecraft to failures in 1999 — the Mars Climate Orbiter in September and the Mars Polar Lander in December.  As a result, NASA set up the NASA Integrated Action Team [NIAT] to study these failures and make recommendations going forward for all small missions, including the Discovery missions.  For the newly selected MESSENGER mission, this imposed a significant effect on the planned budget and timeline because of the added mandates for risk avoidance.

“Reviews upon reviews upon reviews”

Tom Krimigis, APL Space Department head

“Well, needless to say, we felt sort of punished, even though we were innocent.  Some of that also was very disappointing because we did have several of these reviews, and they pointed out certain things that needed to be done.  But they were imposed on the system, and at the same time not paid for, and also not relaxing the schedule in any way, because we had a specific deadline to launch and so on.  So, these were mandates.  And that’s part of the problem with the reviews upon reviews upon reviews, that there is no incentive for the review teams to somehow be mindful of the schedule and the cost.

“I complained to Headquarters at one time that we had a third of the staff acting on the recommendations from the previous review; another third preparing for the next review; and the final third was actually doing work.  I mean, it was really horrendous.”

KSC-04pd0434~large.jpg?w=1920&h=1276&fit
In the high bay clean room at the Astrotech Space Operations processing facilities near Kennedy Space Center, workers prepared to attach an overhead crane to NASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft. The spacecraft was moved to a work stand where employees of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, builders of the spacecraft, performed an initial state-of-health check.
NASA

“Keep marching forward”

Ralph McNutt, MESSENGER Project Scientist

“I think what did happen was then the NIAT report came out, and it was like we were told, ‘Well, things are going to happen differently.’

“And of course, we were in the middle of trying to get this thing pulled together when all of this was going on.  Quite frankly, I think looking back on it, it’s not that we didn’t take it seriously, it’s just that if you’re going to keep your budget down, you’ve got a certain number of people.  And unfortunately there are only 24 hours in the day and occasionally it’s probably good to sleep during some of those.

“So we had [asked for] an original amount of money, which we got, which was, looking back on it, way too small considering what was going to be coming down the pike at us.  And as all of this started coming together about what the implications really were. ‘Wait a minute.  We’re not going to make it.’  And we got into a bit more hardball with some of the powers that be at that point.

“We didn’t get nearly all of what we’d asked for.  And we said, ‘Well, we’re not going to give up.  We’re going to keep marching forward.’  And we did have to go back and ask for more money.  Sean ended up giving presentations to four of the different NASA advisory subcommittees down at NASA Headquarters.

“All the committees agreed that it should go forward.  There were some other people down at NASA Headquarters that weren’t very happy with that assessment.  …I think everybody was frustrated.  It wasn’t like we felt like we were coming up roses.  …I don’t know that it was so much a feeling of vindication as the feeling that we had managed to evade the executioner’s blade.” 

Artist impression of NASA MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging MESSENGER spacecraft in orbit at Mercury.
Artist impression of NASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft in orbit at Mercury.

As the mission development continued, delivery delays from subcontractors presented another schedule and cost impact.  And the cost reviews at NASA Headquarters were causing more worry for the team.

“Not a standard review”

David Grant, MESSENGER Project Manager

“My first meeting was called a Risk Retirement Review.  It was covered by an independent assessment team that had been following the program for some time.  I went to the review and I began to sense that there were some serious problems going on in the program.  The review was not a standard review.  It was requested by Colleen Hartman, and I believe her title at the time was Director for the Division of Planetary Science. 

“And so we get into the details and it was clear from the start that there was a very big struggle to try to keep the program cost under the [budget] cap.  It was a very big concern about that. 

“There were problems.  We had problems with the IMU [Inertial Measurement Unit].  It was very late and Northrup Grumman was having a heck of a time with it.  Also, just as I came in the door, they had announced that one of the solar array substrates had cracked in testing.  What were they going to do about that $100,000 rebuild?  We had an autonomy system to protect the spacecraft that was stuck.  It was a very comprehensive system, trying to do everything. Everywhere I looked there were cost and schedule problems. 

“Now you have to understand, MESSENGER is a very tough mission.  You have to keep your eye on the spacecraft weight, on the propulsion, and on the thermal.  An awful lot of technology.  The guys that were working the job were very good people, but it was a very tough job.  So, I really wasn’t surprised to see that there were problems.  I mean this is a program with an awful lot of technology development. An awful lot.  And we were having problems.  So, we had the review and came out of it with some recommendations.  But it was clear to me, very clear, that we had blown the cost cap.  This was something that my own management did not want to hear, but there was no way that we could complete the work and stay under the program cap.”

The delays and cost mounted, but the team still worked toward their March 2004 launch date.  The stress of the situation affected work schedules and team morale, and the mission leadership had to find ways to keep people motivated and moving forward.

“We wanted to get to Mercury sooner”

Sean Solomon, MESSENGER Principal Investigator

“We were projecting delays at that point in key subsystem deliveries that came to pass.  One of the most painful was the spacecraft structure.  That was subcontracted to an outfit called Composite Optics in California, because APL had never done a structure made out of composites.  But we did it to keep the dry mass of the spacecraft down.  Composite Optics is a fine company, but they’re a small company, and the mission that they had to finish before us was MER [Mars Exploration Rover].  MER was four months late on the delivery of their spacecraft, the bus that flew the MER to Mars.  And there was nothing we could do.

“So that set our integration and test schedule four months in arrears from the beginning.  Because the spacecraft structure had to go to the propulsion system guys, who integrated it.  And then those guys delivered an integrated propulsion system and structure to APL.  So that put us deeper in the hole. 

“But there were other things going on at the time.  We were really sweating the inertial measurement unit.  There was a company that built these things outside of Santa Barbara in Goleta, California.  They were bought by Northrup Grumman.  And Northrup Grumman decided to close the Goleta plant, and they tried to get people who knew how to do this to move down to Woodland Hills.  Well, nobody who lives in Santa Barbara wants to live in LA.  So none of them moved.  So they had to reproduce the expertise to build these very complicated gyros.  All new people. 

“They missed every deadline…. But there were other technical issues, and they were all eating away at our schedule. Still, we were working toward a schedule that would have had us go in our first launch window, which was March of 2004.  There was another window in May of 2004.  There was a third, less desirable window in August of 2004.  So we had three windows, by good fortune, in 2004. 

“We particularly didn’t want to have the August launch, because that was the energetically least favorable launch.  The March and May launches involved cruise times of 5 years.  The August launch, which is the one we eventually used, was a 6 ½-year cruise.  And so not only would we get to the planet much later, but there would be a big Phase E cost increase.  So we didn’t want to go there.  We wanted to get to Mercury sooner.  So, in the winter of 2003 we were still aiming for the March 2004 launch.  ”

KSC-04pd0441~large.jpg?w=1276&h=1920&fit
At the Astrotech Space Operations processing facilities, an overhead crane lowered NASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft onto a work stand. There employees of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, builders of the spacecraft, performed an initial state-of-health check. Then processing for launch began, including checkout of the power systems, communications systems and control systems.
NASA

“Things kept coming up”

David Grant, MESSENGER Project Manager

“You need to have the subsystems delivered in a certain order.  Well, first of all, many were being delivered late.  We were shooting for a March launch.  So, we made the subsystems move their delivery dates in.  That took more money to get that done. 

“For electrical integration and test, I had an 18-person team working double shifts, sometimes triple shift, sometimes seven days a week.  There’s an impact.  The thing you have to be careful about is burn out…. But we get through that summer.  Now we were on schedule for launch in March of 2004. 

“Well, things kept coming up. …So, around that time I met with Tom Krimigis and department management and I just told them that in my view we were not going to make the March launch date.  I thought that the schedule reserve that we had was insufficient for where we were in the program.  Still had nine months to go, more or less, and we didn’t have enough schedule reserve.  It was diminishing, and, in my view, I thought we should notify our sponsor that we were going to recommend a schedule slip. 

“So, we said, move the launch out to May of ’04.  Well, there was a cost associated with that.  It’s a couple more months of development time.  It’ll also impact down at the Cape [Canaveral, Florida].  They were getting ready for the March launch.  Now it’s May.  Okay, the launch day was going to be different but they have to keep the team together and that affects everything.

“We got into the final stages of development.  We completed integration and test and then the environmental tests over at Goddard and we had our pre-ship review here and everybody in creation was at it.  We went through the pre-ship review and we go by the numbers.  I present, the system engineer presents, the subsystem people present, autonomy people got up and spoke and said we’ve completed testing.  We’re very confident of where we are, we’re good to go, and ready to launch in May 2004.

Now you could have cut the tension with a knife in the room — very high tension

David G. Grant

David G. Grant

MESSENGER Project Manager

“Now you could have cut the tension with a knife in the room – very high tension.  So, the reviewers had a private room they all went into and voted.  They came out and they say, ‘Okay, Dave, we’re going to ship.’ So we got the team going and they packed the whole thing up, and we shipped it all to the Cape.

“But something was wrong.  Management was not at ease.  We were not at ease…. Not everybody was comfortable and I could sense that. 

“We shipped it and then the first weekend it was there and I got a call Sunday night from Mike Griffin [the new head of the APL Space Department] and he says that NASA was concerned about autonomy.  ‘Well, there’s concern that we haven’t done enough testing of the autonomy system.  They want you to do more testing in several areas.’ 

“I said, ‘Well if NASA wants us to do the testing, we’ll do the testing.  But they have to understand the consequences.’  If we go from May to August there’s a development cost…. We have an Earth flyby, two Venus flybys and three Mercury flybys before we get into orbit.  Also, five major propulsive burns.  That’s a lot more difficult trajectory than the May launch was.  It’s a much higher risk trajectory.  Also, the cost impact could be as much as $30 million.

“In addition, the margins on the spacecraft, the power margin, the thermal margin, were much tighter with this new mission.  So, I said, ‘NASA has to recognize that the risk is from launch to orbit.  And you have to take everything into account. So you can keep that spacecraft here and do another few weeks of testing and go with Flight 2, or you can go with Flight 1 as approved at the pre-ship review.  NASA’s got to decide if the additional testing is worth it.  It’s a much higher risk mission at a much higher cost.  But if NASA wants to do it, we’ll salute and we’ll do it.’  So Mike said, ‘It’s non-negotiable.’ “

The launch window in August 2004 finally arrived, but the Florida weather made the long road a little more perilous. On the second launch attempt, August 3, 2004, MESSENGER began it’s long journey to Mercury.

“Everything was go”

Sean Solomon, MESSENGER Principal Investigator

“We launched on the second day of an almost 3-week window.  Vestiges of a tropical storm had stopped us the day before.  The day didn’t satisfy the constraints on clouds, but we came very close.  We came within a few minutes of liftoff.  We were out there at night, watching.  And then the next night everything was go.  Which was good, because another storm came through a day or two later that turned into a hurricane.”

201411200004HQ~large.jpg?w=1920&h=1433&f
President Barack Obama congratulates MESSENGER Principal Investigator, director of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Sean Solomon, after awarding him the National Medal of Science, the nation’s top scientific honor, Thursday, Nov. 20, 2014 during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington.
NASA/Bill Ingalls

After a successful launch, the team had to do come catching up on mission and science planning because of the delays in launch and the effect of those delays on the mission itself.

“An excellent spacecraft”

David Grant, MESSENGER Project Manager

“So right after we launched, we had to do the whole mission planning all over again, analysis that we had done before launch.  Ordinarily you’d have it all packaged up good to go.  All the science planning had to be done again.  All the mission design had to be done again.  And. in the meantime, we had to learn how to fly the spacecraft, which involves a level of trial and error.

“Initially, the spacecraft was difficult to operate.  We didn’t know where the center of the gravity was.  So when we did little thruster burns, for trajectory correction, there were errors, and they were significant enough that they had to be corrected.  We had to learn how to deal with that.  We had plume impingement—that wasn’t anticipated prior to launch.  We had to deal with that.  And in the meantime, there are literally thousands of different parameters onboard.  Were they all right?  No, there were a few that needed adjustment.  Some were approximations. 

“The first time we tried something, it didn’t work exactly the way we had hoped it would, so we had to go back and correct it.  Each of these events were characterized as anomalies; they had to be corrected.  And we spent a lot of time doing that.  The shakedown cruise for MESSENGER was much more difficult than I thought it was going to be.

“Well, a lot of new technology, and the first time out flying.  It’s like anything complex and new.  But the engineering team stayed with it.  They ran every problem to ground.  They understood the reasons for the anomaly and fixed it.  They were very thorough and diligent.  And finally, one day, we all realized all the problems were pretty much fixed and that MESSENGER was an excellent spacecraft.”

KSC-04pd1628~large.jpg?w=1398&h=1920&fit
The MESSENGER spacecraft atop a Boeing Delta II rocket lifts off on time at 2:15:56 a.m. EDT, from Launch Pad 17-B, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. MESSENGER (Mercury Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry and Ranging) was on its way for a 7-year, 4.9-billion-mile journey to the planet Mercury.
NASA

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Topics

    • By NASA
      Curiosity Navigation Curiosity Home Mission Overview Where is Curiosity? Mission Updates Science Overview Instruments Highlights Exploration Goals News and Features Multimedia Curiosity Raw Images Images Videos Audio Mosaics More Resources Mars Missions Mars Sample Return Mars Perseverance Rover Mars Curiosity Rover MAVEN Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mars Odyssey More Mars Missions The Solar System The Sun Mercury Venus Earth The Moon Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Pluto & Dwarf Planets Asteroids, Comets & Meteors The Kuiper Belt The Oort Cloud 3 min read
      Sols 4355-4356: Weekend Success Brings Monday Best
      NASA’s Mars rover Curiosity acquired this image of the contact science target “Black Bear Lake” from about 7 centimeters away (about 3 inches), using its Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI). The MAHLI, located on the turret at the end of the rover’s robotic arm, used an onboard focusing process to merge multiple images of the same target into a composite image, on Nov. 3, 2024 – sol 4353, or Martian day 4,353 of the Mars Science Laboratory Mission – at 21:36:01 UTC. NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS Earth planning date: Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
      After a spooky week last week, it’s great to see all our weekend plans succeed as planned! We don’t take success for granted as a rover going on 13 years. With all of the science at our fingertips and all the battery power we could need, the team took right advantage of this two-sol touch-and-go Monday plan. We have a bedrock DRT target for APXS and MAHLI named “Epidote Peak” and a MAHLI-only target of a crushed rock we drove over named “Milly’s Foot Path.”
      APXS data is better when it’s cold, so we’ve planned the DRT brushing and APXS to start our first sol about 11:14 local Gale time. MAHLI images are usually better in the afternoon lighting, so we’ll leave the arm unstowed and spend some remote science time beforehand, about 12:15 local time. ChemCam starts that off with a LIBS raster over a bedrock block with some interesting light and dark layering, named “Albanita Meadows” and seen here in the the upper-right-ish of this Navcam workspace frame. ChemCam will then take a long-distance RMI mosaic of a portion of the upper Gediz Vallis ridge to the north. Mastcam continues the remote science with an Albanita Meadows documentation image, a 21-frame stereo mosaic of some dark-toned upturned blocks about 5 meters away (about 16 feet), a four-frame stereo mosaic of some polygonal fracture patterns about 20 meters away (about 66 feet), and a mega 44-frame stereo mosaic of Wilkerson butte, upper Gediz Vallis ridge, “Fascination Turret,” and “Pinnacle Ridge” in the distance. That’s a total of 138 Mastcam images! With remote sensing complete, the RSM will stow itself about 14:00 local time to make time for MAHLI imaging. 
      Between about 14:15 and 14:30 local time, MAHLI will take approximately 64 images of Epidote Peak and Milly’s Foot Path. Most of the images are being acquired in full shadow, so there is uniform lighting and saturation in the images. We’ll stow the arm at about 14:50 and begin our drive! This time we have an approximately 34-meter drive to the northwest (about 112 feet), bringing us almost all the way to the next dark-toned band in the sulfate unit. But no matter what happens with the drive, we’ll still do some remote science on the second sol including a Mastcam tau observation, a ChemCam LIBS in-the-blind (a.k.a AEGIS: Autonomous Exploration for Gathering Increased Science), and some Navcam movies of the sky and terrain. 
      Written by Natalie Moore, Mission Operations Specialist at Malin Space Science Systems
      Share








      Details
      Last Updated Nov 06, 2024 Related Terms
      Blogs Explore More
      3 min read Sols 4352-4354: Halloween Fright Night on Mars


      Article


      1 day ago
      2 min read Sols 4350-4351: A Whole Team Effort


      Article


      5 days ago
      2 min read Sols 4348-4349: Smoke on the Water


      Article


      6 days ago
      Keep Exploring Discover More Topics From NASA
      Mars


      Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun, and the seventh largest. It’s the only planet we know of inhabited…


      All Mars Resources


      Explore this collection of Mars images, videos, resources, PDFs, and toolkits. Discover valuable content designed to inform, educate, and inspire,…


      Rover Basics


      Each robotic explorer sent to the Red Planet has its own unique capabilities driven by science. Many attributes of a…


      Mars Exploration: Science Goals


      The key to understanding the past, present or future potential for life on Mars can be found in NASA’s four…

      View the full article
    • By NASA
      In the ever-evolving aerospace industry, collaboration and mentorship are vital for fostering innovation and growth. Recent achievements highlight the positive impact of Mentor-Protégé Agreements (MPA) facilitated by Jacobs Engineering Group, now known as Amentum Space Exploration Group. Two standout partnerships have demonstrated remarkable success and expansion, underscoring the value of such initiatives.
      CODEplus and Amentum Space Exploration Group
      The 24-Month MPA between CODEplus and Amentum Space Exploration Group has proven to be a game-changer. Recognized as the FY24 Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Mentor-Protégé Agreement of the Year, this collaboration has significantly boosted CODEplus’s operations. Since the agreement’s inception on March 1, 2023, CODEplus has expanded its workforce to ten full-time employees and currently has two active job requisitions. This growth exemplifies the transformative potential of mentorship in nurturing small businesses within the aerospace sector.
      KS Ware and Amentum Space Exploration Group / CH2M Hill
      Another exemplary partnership involves KS Ware, which has benefitted from a 36-Month MPA with Amentum Space Exploration Group and CH2M Hill. This agreement has garnered accolades as both the FY23 NASA Agency Mentor-Protégé Agreement of the Year and the FY23 MSFC Mentor-Protégé Agreement of the Year. Through targeted business and technical counseling, KS Ware successfully launched a new drilling division in 2022 and expanded its offerings to include surveying services in 2023. The impact of this mentorship is evident, with a remarkable 30% growth rate reported for KS Ware.
      These success stories highlight the critical role of Mentor-Protégé Agreements in empowering small businesses in the aerospace industry. By fostering collaboration and providing essential support, Amentum Space Exploration Group has not only strengthened its partnerships but also contributed to the broader growth and innovation landscape. As the aerospace sector continues to evolve, such initiatives will be essential in driving future success.
      Published by: Tracy L. Hudspeth
      View the full article
    • By NASA
      10 min read
      Preparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater)
      Editor’s note: This article was published May 23, 2003, in NASA Armstrong’s X-Press newsletter. NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, was redesignated Armstrong Flight Research Center on March 1, 2014. Ken Iliff was inducted into the National Hall of Fame for Persons with Disabilities in 1987. He died Jan. 4, 2016.
      Alphonso Stewart, from left, Ken Iliff, and Dale Reed study lifting body aircraft models at NASA’s Armstrong (then Dryden) Flight Research Center in Edwards, California.NASA As an Iowa State University engineering student in the early 1960s, Ken Iliff was hard at work on a glider flight simulation.
      Upon examining the final results – which, in those early days of the computer revolution, were viewed on a long paper printout – he noticed one glaring imperfection: the way he had programmed it, his doomed glider would determinedly accelerate as it headed for the ground.
      The culprit was a single keystroke. At the time, programming was based on data that had been painstakingly entered into the computer by hand, on punch cards and piece by piece. Somewhere, Iliff had entered a plus sign instead of a minus sign.
      The seemingly minor incident was to foreshadow great things to come in Iliff’s career.
      Not long after graduation, the West Union, Iowa, native found himself at what was then called simply the NASA Flight Research Center located on Edwards Air Force Base.
      “I just knew I didn’t want to be sitting somewhere in a big room full of engineers who were all doing the same thing,” Iliff said of choosing Dryden over other jobs and other NASA centers. “It was a small center doing important things, and it was in California. I knew I wanted to be there.”
      Once at Dryden, the issue of data tidbits was central to the new hire’s workday. Iliff’s post called for him and many of his colleagues to spend much of their time “reading up” data – a laborious process of measuring data from film using a single reference line and a ruler. Measurements were made every tenth of a second; for a ten-second maneuver, a total of one hundred “traces” were taken for every quantity being recorded.
      “I watched talented people spending entire days analyzing data,” he recalled. “And then, maybe two people would arrive at two entirely different conclusions” from the same data sets.
      As has happened so often at the birth of revolutionary ideas, then, one day Iliff had a single, simple thought about the time-intensive and maddeningly inexact data analysis process:
      “There just has to be a better way to do this.”
      The remedy he devised was to result in a sea change at Dryden, and would reverberate throughout the world of computer-based scientific research.
      Iliff’s work spanned the decades that encompassed some of Dryden’s greatest achievements, from the X-15 through the XB-70 and the tentative beginnings of the shuttle program. The solution he created to the problem of inaccuracy in data analysis focused on aerodynamic performance – how to formulate questions about an aircraft’s performance once answers about it are already known, how to determine the “why?” when the “what happens?” has already happened.
      The work is known as “parameter estimation,” and is used in aerospace applications to extract precise definitions of aerodynamic, structural and performance parameters from flight data.
      His methodology – cemented in computer coding Iliff developed using Fortran’s lumbering binary forerunner, machine code – allowed researchers to determine precisely the type of information previously derived only as best-estimate guesses through analysis of data collected in wind tunnels and other flight-condition simulators. In addition to aerospace science, parameter estimation is also used today in a wide array of research applications, including those involving submarines, economic models, and biomedicine.
      With characteristic deference, Iliff now brushes off any suggestion of his discovery’s significance. Instead, he credits other factors for his successes, such as a Midwestern work ethic and Iowa State University’s early commitment to giving its engineering students good access to the new and emerging computer technology.
      To hear him tell it, “all good engineers are a little bit lazy. We know how to innovate – how to find an easier way.
      “I’d been trained well, and given the right tools – I was just in the right place at the right time.”
      But however modestly he might choose to see it characterized, it’s fair to number Iliff’s among the longest and most distinguished careers to take root in the ranks of Dryden research engineers. Though his groundbreaking work will live forever in research science, when Iliff retired in December he brought to a close his official role in some of the most important chapters in Dryden history.
      Ken Iliff worked for four decades on revolutionary aircraft and spacecraft, including the X-29 forward swept wing aircraft behind him, at NASA’s Armstrong (then Dryden) Flight Research Center in Edwards, California.NASA His pioneering work with parameter estimation carried through years of aerodynamic assessment and data analysis involving lifting-body and wing-body aircraft, from the X-15 through the M2-F1, M2-F2 and M2-F3 projects, the HL-10, the X-24B and NASA’s entire fleet of space shuttles. His contributions aided in flight research on the forward-swept-wing X-29 and the F/A-18 High Angle of Attack program, on F-15 spin research vehicles, on thrust vectoring and supermaneuverability.
      Iliff began work on the space shuttle program when it was little more than a speculative “what’s next?” chapter in manned spaceflight, long before it reached officially sanctioned program status. Together with a group spearheaded by the late NASA research pilot and long-time Dryden Chief Engineer Milt Thompson – who Iliff describes unflinchingly as “my hero” – Iliff helped explore the vast range of possibilities for a new orbiting craft that would push NASA to its next frontier after landing on the moon.
      In an environment much more informal than today’s, when there were few designations of “program manager” or “task monitor” or “deputy director” among NASA engineers like Iliff and Thompson, a handful of creative, disciplined minds were at work dreaming up a reusable aircraft that would launch, orbit the Earth and return. Iliff’s role was to offer up the rigor of comparison in size, speed and performance among potential aircraft designs; Thompson and Iliff’s group was responsible, for example, for the decision to abandon the notion of jet engines on the orbiter, decreeing them too heavy, too risky and too inefficient.
      Month in and month out, Iliff and his colleagues painstakingly researched and developed the myriad design details that eventually materialized into the shuttle fleet. There was, in Iliff’s words, “a love affair between the shuttle and the engineers.”
      And in a display typifying the charged environment of creative collaboration that governed the effort – an effort many observe wryly that it would be difficult to replicate at NASA, today or anytime – the body of research was compiled into the now-legendary aero-data book, a living document that records in minute detail every scrap of design and performance data recorded about the shuttles’ flight activity.
      Usually with more than a touch of irony, the compiling of the aero-data book has been described with phrases like “a remarkably democratic process,” involving as it did the need for a hundred independent minds and strong personalities to agree on indisputable facts about heat, air flow, turbulence, drag, stability and a dozen other aerodynamic principles. But Iliff says the success of the mammoth project, last updated in 1996, was ultimately enabled by a shared commitment to a culture that was unique to Dryden, one that made the Center great.
      “Well, big, complicated things don’t always come out like you think they will,” Iliff said.
      “But we understood completely the idea of ‘informed risk.’ We had a thorough understanding of risks before taking them – nobody ever did anything on the shuttle that they thought was dangerous, or likely to fail.
      “The truly great thing (about that era at Dryden) was that they mentored us, and let us take those risks, and helped us get good right away. That was how we were able to do what we did.”
      It was an era that Iliff says he was thrilled to be a part of, and which he admits was difficult to leave. It was also, he adds with a note of uncharacteristic nostalgia, a time that would be hard to reinvent today after the intrusion of so many bureaucratic tentacles into the hot zone that spawned Dryden’s greatest achievements.
      A man not much given to dwelling on the past, however, Iliff has moved on to a retirement he is making the most of. Together with his wife, Mary Shafer, also retired from her career as a Dryden engineer, he plans to dedicate time to cataloging the couple’s extensive travel experiences with new video and graphics software, and adding to the travel library with footage from new trips. Iraq ranks high on the short list.
      During his 40-year tenure, Iliff held the post of senior staff scientist of Dryden’s research division from 1988 to 1994, when he became the Center’s chief scientist. Among numerous awards he received were the prestigious Kelly Johnson Award from the Society of Flight Test Engineers (1989), an award permanently housed in the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, and NASA’s highest scientific honor, the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Award (1976).
      He was inducted into the National Hall of Fame for Persons with Disabilities in 1987, and served on many national aeronautic and aerospace committees throughout his career. He is a Fellow in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and is the author of more than 100 technical papers and reports. He has given eleven invited lectures for NATO and AGARD (Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development), and served on four international panels as an expert in aircraft and spacecraft dynamics. Recently, he retired from his position as an adjunct professor of electrical engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles.
      Iliff holds dual bachelor of science degrees in mathematics and aerospace engineering from Iowa State University; a master of science in mechanical engineering from the University of Southern California; a master of engineering degree in engineering management and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, both from UCLA.
      Iliff’s is the kind of legacy shared by a select group of American engineers, and to read the papers these days, there’s the suggestion that his is a vanishing breed. NASA and other science-based organizations are often depicted as scrambling for new engineering talent – particularly of the sort personified by Iliff and his pioneering achievements.
      But, typical of the visionary approach he applies to life in general as well as to science, Iliff takes a wider view.
      “I remember, after the X-1 – people figured all the good things had been done,” he said, with a smile in his voice. “And of course, they had not.
      “If I was starting out now, I’d be starting in work with DNA, or biomedicine – improving lives with drug research. There are so many exciting things to be discovered there. They might not be as showy as lighting off a rocket, but they’re there.
      “I’ve seen cycles. We’re at a low spot right now – but military, or space, will eventually be at the center again.”
      And when that day comes, Iliff says he hopes officials in the flight research world will heed the example of Dryden’s early years, and give its engineers every opportunity to succeed unfettered – as he had been.
      “Beware the ‘Chicken Littles’ out there,” he said. “I hope the government will be strong enough to resist them.”
      Sarah Merlin
      Former X-Press newsletter assistant editor
      Former Dryden historian Curtis Peebles contributed to this article.
      Share
      Details
      Last Updated Oct 29, 2024 EditorDede DiniusContactJay Levinejay.levine-1@nasa.govLocationArmstrong Flight Research Center Related Terms
      Armstrong Flight Research Center People of Armstrong People of NASA Explore More
      5 min read Carissa Arillo: Testing Spacecraft, Penning the Owner’s Manuals
      Article 2 hours ago 4 min read NASA Group Amplifies Voices of Employees with Disabilities
      Article 6 hours ago 4 min read Destacado de la NASA: Felipe Valdez, un ingeniero inspirador
      Article 4 days ago Keep Exploring Discover More Topics From NASA
      Armstrong Flight Research Center
      Armstrong Research & Engineering
      Armstrong Technologies
      Armstrong People
      View the full article
    • By NASA
      3 min read
      Preparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater)
      NASA operations engineer Daniel Velasquez, left, is reviewing the Mobile Vertipad Sensor Package system as part of the Air Mobility Pathways test project at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, on Oct. 17, 2023.NASA/Steve Freeman Lee esta historia en Español aquí.
      Born and raised in Peru, Daniel Velasquez moved to the United States when was 10 years old.  While that decision was a big transition for his family, it also created many opportunities for him. Now Velasquez is an operations engineer for NASA’s Air Mobility Pathfinders project at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California.
      Velasquez develops flight test plans for electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, specifically testing how they perform during various phases of flight, such as taxi, takeoff, cruise, approach, and landing. He was drawn to NASA Armstrong because of the legacy in advancing flight research and the connection to the Space Shuttle program.
      “Being part of a center with such a rich history in supporting space missions and cutting-edge aeronautics was a major motivation for me,” Velasquez said. “One of the biggest highlights of my career has been the opportunity to meet (virtually) and collaborate with an astronaut on a possible future NASA project.”
      Daniel Velasquez stands next to the main entrance sign at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, in 2022.Daniel Velasquez Velasquez is incredibly proud of his Latino background because of its rich culture, strong sense of community and connection to his parents. “My parents are my biggest inspiration. They sacrificed so much to ensure my siblings and I could succeed, leaving behind the comfort of their home and family in Peru to give us better opportunities,” Velasquez said. “Their hard work and dedication motivate me every day. Everything I do is to honor their sacrifices and show them that their efforts weren’t wasted. I owe all my success to them.”
      Velasquez began his career at NASA in 2021 as an intern through the Pathways Internship Program while he was studying aerospace engineering at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Through that program, he learned about eVTOL modeling software called NASA Design and Analysis of Rotorcraft to create a help guide for other NASA engineers to reference when they worked with the software.
      At the same time, he is also a staff sergeant in the U.S Army Reserves and responsible for overseeing the training and development of junior soldiers during monthly assemblies. He plans, creates, and presents classes for soldiers to stay up-to-date and refine their skills while supervising practical exercises, after action reviews, and gathering lessons learned during trainings.
      Daniel Velasquez graduated in 2023 from Rutgers University in New Jersey while he was an intern at NASA. Behind him is the New York City skyline.Daniel Velasquez “This job is different than what I do day-to-day at NASA, but it has helped me become a more outspoken individual,” he said. “Being able to converse with a variety of people and be able to do it well is a skill that I acquired and refined while serving my country.”
      Velasquez said he never imagined working for NASA as it was something he had only seen in movies and on television, but he is so proud to be working for the agency after all the hard work and sacrifices he made that lead him to this point. “I am incredibly proud to work every day with some of the most motivated and dedicated individuals in the industry.”
      Share
      Details
      Last Updated Oct 16, 2024 Related Terms
      Armstrong Flight Research Center Air Mobility Pathfinders project General Hispanic Heritage Month People of Armstrong People of NASA Explore More
      4 min read Sacrificio y Éxito: Ingeniero de la NASA honra sus orígenes familiares
      Article 23 mins ago 6 min read Christine Knudson Uses Earthly Experience to Study Martian Geology
      Geologist Christine Knudson works with the Curiosity rover to explore Mars — from about 250…
      Article 7 hours ago 7 min read What is a Coral Reef?
      Article 21 hours ago Keep Exploring Discover More Topics From NASA
      Armstrong Flight Research Center
      Hispanic Heritage Month
      NASA en español
      Explora el universo y descubre tu planeta natal con nosotros, en tu idioma.
      Armstrong People
      View the full article
    • By Space Force
      U.S. Space Command celebrated its fifth anniversary Aug. 29 and commemorated the milestone with discussions of the 11th combatant command’s achievements and goals for the future.

      View the full article
  • Check out these Videos

×
×
  • Create New...