Customer Reviews

The Last of the Great Observatories: Spitzer and the Era of Faster, Better, Cheaper at NASA

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As a former IR astronomer and author of several space mission proposals, I already knew some of the information in this book. But I still found it to be a fascinating window into the arcane and Byzantine process by which NASA produces complex scientific spacecraft. SIRTF/Spitzer took 20 years from announcement to launch, and it went through more fundamental changes in design and survived more NASA management fads than any spacecraft in history. Somehow Professor Rieke managed not to lose his sense of humor during this torture.

The impression one gets from reading this account is the whole system for selecting and funding NASA missions is fundamentally broken and needs to be totally overhauled. The amount of effort and money wasted on mission concepts that were abandoned is astonishing. Spitzer only worked because IR detector technology improved by a factor of 10,000 during its development cycle (mostly due to military-funded research).

I also was surprised at the number of dumb mistakes made by experienced engineers. The main contractor for the Spitzer instrument package was Ball Aerospace, who have a mixed reputation for competence. Clearly this mission was not one of their high points. Ball's pre-launch testing program seems to have caused more problems than it cured.

A lot of trouble was caused by defective components supplied by sub-contractors (which under the insane rules of the time could not be tested by the prime contractor or NASA). It seems incredible to me that after 40 years of building space probes, it is not possible to obtain basic parts like wiring harnesses and gas valves that aren't riddled with defects. There is no indication that the vendors of these defective parts were sued for damages, denied award fees, or placed on some NASA blacklist.

Everybody interested in space mission planning should read this book. You may laugh, you may cry, but you will learn a lot.

The Hubble is the most famous of the satellite observatories. But it was actually only one of four, the so called 'Great Observatories.' This excellent book tells the story of the last of the four, the Spitzer Space Telescope. The Spitzer operates in the infrared part of the spectrum (Hubble - Visible Light, Chandra - X-Ray, Compton - Gamma Ray).

The idea for the Spitzer began in 1983 with a proposal that NASA spend $2 billion for the project. The key to this book is the twenty years that it took to get it to fly in 2003. Here's the inside story of what it takes to get one project through the NASA system. It makes for excellent reading.

There isn't much in the book about the astronomy that the Spitzer does, and just a few color pictures would help. After all, it is the pictures that have kept the Hubble in the public's eye. But you can fix this by browsing to [...]

Dr. Rieke, a professor at the University of Arizona, was one of the people who worked on the original proposal in 1983 and is still with the project. He also knows how to spin a good tale.

When I was about 3, my parents took me to see "2001" and I was told that, by 2001, we could buy tickets to the Moon. Later on, I was just old enough to understand that the Moon landing was a "big thing". Close to 40 years on, I've watched 2 shuttles blow up, the Hubble near-disaster and loss of spacecraft due to software confusion between imperial and metric units. Most of all, I am appalled by the ongoing waste of money, including Canadian tax money, that is the International Space Station. NASA seems to have lost its touch, despite occasional successes. Why?

As a layman, this is as good a place as any to find out, though the book gives no easy answers and is rather dry reading. The author, a scientist, worked on the project for 20 years till it launched. He is clearly frustrated by project's duration, constant reviews, cost-cutting and changing agendas. Nevertheless, he also recognizes the need for both cost cutting and reviews. Spaceships are unique in that they are extremely complex machines that are produced only once, using essentially skilled artisan techniques rather than mass-production engineering. Worse, once launched, there is little that can be done to correct defects. A wonder they work at all. That gives you some sympathy for the amount of administration, reviews and documentation at NASA. Ideally, every possible contingency needs to be anticipated and accounted for. Unfortunately, that costs lots of money.

Despite suffering from its fads, Mr. Rieke does not dismiss "better, cheaper, faster". What he seems to say is that, up until a certain level of cost, complexity and novelty, a space mission can be carried out with streamlined management and control. Especially if the project is not put under undue time pressure. Past that level of complexity and cost, more formal and thorough management is needed to palliate mission risks. He also highlights interesting misconceptions about where the real mission risks are, statistically. Overall, you are left with the impression that managing spaceflights is not amenable to easy answers. Personally, I think more extra-agency competition would help in avoiding groupthink.

Reading this book, it seems that there are really 2 NASA. One, the unmanned scientific branch, is extremely competitive (in the old sense of the word), quite short of money and almost too careful in funding scientific missions. It fails, often, but also advances scientific knowledge. The other one, which is only glancingly mentioned, but not without veiled contempt, is "big NASA" (my nickname).

"Big NASA" badgers scientific missions into using their pretty shuttles, whether that makes sense or not. "Big NASA" spends $100 billion on the shuttles and the International Space Station, with dubious scientific returns, but takes 20 years to fund a $700 million satellite. "Big NASA" wants to put men on Mars and a station on the Moon, whether they are useful or not.

Quoting p.25 "The space station was starting to eat up a huge part of NASA's budget. An attempt to rally scientists and others to oppose the station in Congress led to a dramatic demonstration of the power of the professional aerospace lobby over the amateurish scientific one - the station was easily victorious." Not dated, but circa 1994 apparently. p.88 - "It appears the $14 million we got extra was really a way for headquarters to hide money they wanted to spend on the space station" (1998).

For those interested in management techniques, the author dissects how the project was managed. It certainly shows that _good_, respectful and technically savvy management is a huge help - something many of my fellow software programmers forget all too easily.

What is a bit left out in all this are the scientific aspects of the Spitzer telescope. That wasn't a big deal for me however, because I was more interested in understanding one view of NASA's problems.

I like space and I am sure that because of the big money involved and the political system that set up NASA and supplies the money that a great deal of politics is involved. For me, this is of little interest. For those of you that are interested, I think you will find much information on this. Clearly, it is very frustrating to the people involved.

The Last Of The Great Observatories: Spitzer And The Era Of Faster, Better, Cheaper At NASA is the story of the last of the four "Great Observatories" that tell modern scientists more about the stars, planets, and galaxies beyond our own; the other three are the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, and the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory. Developed over twenty years and nicknamed the "Infrared Hubble", Spitzer launched in 2003 to resounding scientific success. The Last Of The Great Observatories tells of the long history and creation of Spitzer, from its lengthy planning to its reflection of the desire to get it done "better, faster, cheaper" to complications plaguing its launch and more. An excellent, smartly written contribution to astronomy history shelves.

George Rieke gives a blow by blow account of the twenty frustrating years from project proposal in 1983 to successful launch in 2003 from the point of view of one of the scientific principal investigators. One of the many interesting points that he makes along the way is that because it took so long, he and others realized thay they were unlikely to get another similar chance within their professional lifetimes, thus magnifying the personal significance of the mission. The book winds up with an insightful discussion of the impact of NASA's "faster, better, cheaper" initiative on the Spitzer program and on NASA.

I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in how things really worked in an unmanned space program.