Mark Holderman, Monday, 5-16-11 May 16, 2011
Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.trackback
Mark Holderman, Monday, 5-16-11
Guest: Mark Holderman. Topics: Nautilus X exploration spacecraft, NASA, ISS centrifuge, space policy & space workforce issues. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog,
http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com
. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. We welcomed Mark Holderman to the program to discuss Nautilus X and workforce issues. His Power Point & a video on Nautilus X will be posted under this archived write up on the blog so be sure to check them both out. As Mr. Holderman worked for the CIA, I started the interview by asking him about his “spook” days with the Agency as related to space. After his brief summary as, in his own words, a “spook enabler,” he told us about the Nautilus X project, his design team, how and why he designed it. He also talked about the eventual lack of interest in the project from NASA. For most of the hour long first segment, we talked about Nautilus, its mass and volume, how to launch it, and was heavy lift needed or not, plus the centrifuge that he designed to be part of Nautilus or even part of the ISS. We spent a considerable amount of time discussing the importance of the centrifuge if we ever expect to go beyond LEO. I asked about the reasons for NASA management not making the centrifuge or a variable gravity research station a NASA priority project. Our discussion about Nautilus was comprehensive as Mark was the designer of the project and he shared with us how he came up with the design and the fact that he based it on what he said was the most successful spacecraft ever made and flown, the LEM. Don’t miss this discussion. Our guest fielded many listener questions about Nautilus and specifically about the centrifuge and artificial gravity. It appears that favorite questions of listeners to ask guests talking about this subject deal with showers and toilets in an artificial gravity environment. Today was no exception so we learned that in the structure Mark designed, toilets would work normally but the shower would only be partially normal. In our second segment, we focused on the space workforce issues of the day and Mark talked about the problems facing the aerospace engineering community today and the uncertain continuation of this community with ongoing college students. He suggested enrollments were going to drop off because of the lack of career opportunities in the field for students upon graduating. We talked about commercial space providing new jobs and opportunities and Mark talked about timelines for some of these changes to take place and get rooted in the industry. I asked him about his job search experience since he was required to take early retirement from NASA JSC. As you will hear him say, the opportunities in the aerospace industry today are few and far between. If you have questions for Mark Holderman, especially after reviewing his Nautilus X Power Point and video, please post them on the blog URL above. You can also email Mark at captnemo55@gmail.com.
Note: The videos mentioned above are in the WMV format and cannot be uploaded to this blog. Below is Mr. Holderman’s Nautilus X Power Point slide presentation.
Hi Mark,
You are on the mark. I totally respect and appreciate your comments on the show. We think alike.
Here are the typical attacks to the idea of improving the health of astronauts that seek to live in space for 6 months or more and very useful responses for our space leaders promoting long duration space exploration that accept the fact that protecting the crew’s health is the number one issue to address, and reject the need to specify up front how many jobs we can sustain from election to election. If you or anyone reading this want to lead the way, this is what you do for the very highest level of authority before funding starts flowing to your astronaut health improvement plan. You invite the attackers. You give great respect to them. Come one, come all. You need them to make your case stick in the hearts and minds of the simple majority of decision makers.
Attack #1 “We’ve been successful, why change?!” Leader’s response: “True. But surely we have all seen that those who fail to adapt eventually become extinct.”
Attack #2 “The only problem is not enough money.” Leader’s response: “Extra money is rarely what builds truly great ventures or organizations.”
Attack #3 “You exaggerate the problem.” Leader’s response: “To the good people who suffer because of this problem, it certainly doesn’t look small.”
Attack #4 “You’re saying we’ve failed to protect the crew’s health in the past??!!” Leader’s response: “No, we’re suggesting that you are doing a remarkably good job without the needed tools (systems, methods, laws, etc) which, in our proposal, you will have.”
Attack #5 “What’s the hidden agenda?” Leader’s response: “Not fair! Just look at the track record of the good folks behind this proposal! (And why would you even suggest such a thing?)”
Attack #6 “What about this, and that, and that (etc.)?” Leader’s response: “All good ideas, if they are new, raise dozens of questions that cannot be answered with certainty.”
Attack #7 “No good! It doesn’t go far enough” (or, “It goes too far”) Leader’s response: “Maybe, but our idea will get us started moving in the right direction, and do so without further delay.”
Attack #8 “You have a chicken and egg problem.” Leader’s response: “Well actually, you can do a little bit of A which allows a little bit of B which allows more A which allows more of B, and so on.”
Attack #9 “Sounds like ‘killing puppies’ to me!” Leader’s response: “Look, you know it isn’t like that. A realistic comparison might be…”
Attack #10 “You’re abandoning our values.” Leader’s response: “This plan is essential to uphold our traditional values.”
Attack #11 “It’s too simplistic to work.” Leader’s response: “No – it’s the combination of your good work and some new things that, together, can make a great advance.”
Attack #12 “No one else does this!” Leader’s response: “There really is a first time for everything and we do have a unique opportunity.”
Attack #13 “You can’t have it both ways!” Leader’s response: “Actually, we didn’t say X or Y—although, I grant you, it may have sounded that way. We said A and B, which are not incompatible.”
Attack #14 “Aha! You can’t deny this!” Leader’s response: “No one can deny the significance of the issue you have raised, and, yes, we haven’t explored it. But every potential problem we have found so far has been readily solved. So in light of what has happened again and again and again, I am today confident that this new issue can also be handled, just like all the rest.”
Attack #15 “To generate all these questions and concerns, the idea has to be flawed.” Leader’s response: “Actually, many of the questions mean we are engaged, and an engaged group both makes better decisions and implements them more successfully.”
Attack #16 “Tried it before – didn’t work.” Leader’s response: “That was then. Conditions inevitably change [and what we propose probably isn't exactly what was tried before]”
Attack #17 “It’s too difficult to understand.” Leader’s response: “Not a problem. We will make the required effort to convince them. It’s worth the effort to do so.”
Attack #18 “This is not the right time.” Leader’s response: “The best time is almost always when you have people excited and committed to make something happen. And that’s now.”
Attack #19 “It’s too much work.” Leader’s response: “Hard can be good. A genuinely good new idea, facing time consuming obstacles, can both raise our energy level and motivate us to eliminate wasted time.”
Attack #20 “Won’t work here, we’re different!” Leader’s response: “Yes it’s true, we’re different, but we are also very much the same.”
Attack #21 “It puts us on a slippery slope.” Leader’s response: “Good groups of people—all the time– use common sense as a guard rail to keep them from sliding into disaster.”
Attack #22 “We can’t afford this.” Leader’s response: “Actually, most important changes are achieved without new sources of money.”
Attack #23 “You’ll never convince enough people.” Leader’s response: “You are absolutely right. That’s almost never possible, and that’s OK.”
Attack #24 “We’re not equipped to do this.” Leader’s response: “We have much of what we need and we can and will get the rest.”