NASA Science Mission Directorate
Oral History Project
Edited Oral History Transcript
Donald E. Jennings
Interviewed by Sandra Johnson
Greenbelt, Maryland – 9 June 2017
Johnson:
Today is June 9th, 2017. This interview with Dr. Donald Jennings is
being conducted for the NASA Headquarters Science Mission Directorate
Oral History Project at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt,
Maryland. The interviewer is Sandra Johnson. I thank you again for
joining me today.
Jennings:
Thank you for inviting me.
Johnson:
Let’s start out by talking about your background and your early
education, and where your interest in spaceflight first came from.
Jennings:
I have this early memory of having a book about a trip to the Moon
that showed a rocket sitting on the surface of the Moon. This rocket
was shaped like a bullet, and the spacemen were standing on this ridge
overlooking this complex, this Moon base. And the book was explaining
that this would probably eventually happen, but not at least for another
hundred years. That was the early ‘50s, so things happened a
little bit quicker than I think anybody realized at the time.
I have another aspect of my early life. My grandfather on my mother’s
side was a very successful astrologer. Now, that might sound like
it would lead to an astronomy career or not, or make somebody skeptical
or not, but all I remembered was that this was a very smart man who
was very lively and had lots of good ideas, and I admired him a lot.
But, I also knew that there was something a little odd about astrology,
because what I was interested in was how things worked, how things
really worked, and I thought that I couldn’t make the connection
in astrology. That’s a lesson I learned at an early age, and
it probably was good to have the example.
As time went on, when I got to about nine years old, my father took
me out one night and showed me Sputnik [Russian satellite] going over,
and I saw this light going over. I couldn’t hear any beeping,
but people were saying it was beeping. He explained to me how important
that was, because some other country had put that up, and it was flying
over our country. I thought, “Well, that does sound important.”
But I didn’t have an interest in astronomy per se in those days.
I was very aware of it. One time, I thought I had discovered a comet.
I keep mentioning my father, but he was always keeping me involved
in this stuff. He would always tell me if there was a comet coming,
and we’d go out and try to find it. One time when it was after
dark and we were going back to the house where we lived, I looked
up and there was this comet. I said, “Wow, a comet!” And
he said, “Where?” So I figured if my father didn’t
know about that comet, I must have discovered it. I don’t remember
what comet it was. I was probably about 10 years old at that point.
After that, things started happening pretty quickly. We had Yuri [A.]
Gagarin and Alan [B.] Shepard [Jr.] and John [H.] Glenn [Jr.], and
all the Mercury and Gemini and Apollo [spaceflights]. I kept track
of all those, again maybe because my father kept telling me about
them. He taught school, and he noticed that people had stopped paying
attention after the first couple of flights in any series, and he
made sure I knew what was going on.
Even in college, when they were walking on the Moon, I would still
go out of my way to watch every mission. Sometimes things snuck up
on me a little bit, like Apollo 13. I knew they were going there,
but I wasn’t paying attention, and all of a sudden I hear on
the radio they are having a problem. But I was always kind of tuned
in.
On the other hand, I didn’t really think about working for NASA
until graduate school, because in school I had always been interested
in physics. The stuff that I was interested in was always making things
work, how the universe works, all the time I was growing up. My father
asked me if I could figure out how to make a perpetual motion machine,
and I tried very hard for a long time. I think I gained a lot of skills
designing things, and thinking in three dimensions. That was my early
childhood, and it took me several years to find out that what I was
trying to do was impossible. At least, we think it’s impossible.
I was kind of interested in physics when I went into graduate school.
I got an undergraduate degree in physics. I still wasn’t really
tuned into astronomy all that much because I would rather do something
with my hands in front of me, and I thought all that stuff was out
there somewhere and you couldn’t reach it. But then, of course,
I found out that that wasn’t true.
In graduate school, I worked in the lab [laboratory] studying molecules
that were in planetary atmospheres, and at the end of graduate school,
it was natural for me to apply for a post-doc [doctoral fellowship]
at Goddard here because they were doing planetary work, and they were
using that kind of information. So, I came here in 1976 to do lab
work again. They were doing a very unique kind of lab work using diode
lasers, which were new at the time. I used diode lasers for several
years, but I also did other things, and I kept tuned into the people
who were doing flight work. Eventually, over time, that developed
into actual involvement in flight programs.
By the late ‘80s, I was involved in Cassini [-Huygens]. We built
that instrument in the early to mid ‘90s, and it launched in
1997. During that time, I also flew a couple of experiments on the
Space Shuttle with a group that was studying the Space Shuttle glow,
and we also looked at the Earth with that. This is all in the infrared—most
of my work is in the infrared part of the spectrum.
When I was working on Cassini, in about 1993, an opportunity came
along to work on the Pluto mission, at the time called Pluto Fast
Flyby, and eventually evolved into New Horizons. That was another
thing that I pursued for a long time. It took a long time before that
was actually given the go-ahead, and then we built that and flew it.
Between Cassini and New Horizons, those are my two main big missions.
I did get to touch stuff that went somewhere, so the things that I
thought about astronomy when I was a youngster turned out not really
to be true. You can do stuff with that stuff out there, and I have
always enjoyed it.
Coming to Goddard gave me an opportunity to do that because it’s
a great place. People here are very, very good at what they do, and
they work well together, and the opportunities that come along are
huge challenges and very interesting, exciting. I came here in 1996
as a post-doc, switched over to civil service in 1997, and I’ve
never really considered leaving since then.
Johnson:
You mentioned in the email that you sent me that you did the laboratory
research, but you did ground-based observatories also?
Jennings:
Yes. I still do that. It hasn’t been in the mainstream of what
I do, but the ground-based work, what this is is we build instruments
to take to telescopes on the ground. We look at the same kind of things
we look at in space, but from the ground you can do it a little differently.
You have a bigger telescope. You can’t get as up close, but
you can still collect a lot of light. You can work at maybe a higher
spectral resolution, or with more sensitive detectors than you can
fly, just because the technology on the ground is different than it
is in flight. So it’s complementary to the flight work, and
I also gained a lot of hands-on experience with that that I end up
using to help build flight instruments, a lot of practical experience
building things.
The ground-based stuff was very important, but it’s always been
kind of a sideline. Whenever there was a conflict between the flight
programs and the ground-based programs, the flight always had to take
precedence. But I managed to go to observatories in Hawaii and Arizona,
and several other places in my career, using instruments that we built
here at Goddard and put on the telescopes. That is its own type of
challenge, because you have to make it work at the observatory. It’s
not like space, where you don’t get to fix it, unless it’s
on the Space Shuttle or something. At an observatory you can fix it,
but you still have to make it work during the time that they have
allotted to you. And if you don’t make it work, then you have
to come back and try it again later. So, there is a certain type of
challenge there. I have always enjoyed that. It’s not so much
fun staying up all night, but the work is very interesting, and again,
the people are very good to work with. So ground-based has been an
important sideline to what I do. And I still do it.
Johnson:
Talk about some of the instrument development for the ground-based,
or even the flight instruments—the things that you develop for
these programs, or for the Shuttle glow. Talk about some of the process
of that development. I am assuming the study is proposed and a team
gets built to work on it, but if you can walk us through one or a
couple of those, and just examples of how that works?
Jennings:
It happened in different ways for me, and I think probably people
should understand that it’s not always the same procedure. The
formal procedure that you always think of is that you come up with
a scientific goal, you write a proposal, and develop an instrument
concept that will address that goal. Then you propose that, you get
funding, you build that instrument and fly it, and then you collect
your data and so forth. But it doesn’t always happen that way.
It kind of happened that way with Cassini. There was a proposal phase
for an instrument investigation which then we developed the instrument
over a few years, and then launched it, and waited until it got to
Jupiter or Saturn. Saturn was the ultimate goal. And then we collected
data and we published papers.
But something like this Space Shuttle mission, somebody came to us
one day and said, “We have this idea of looking at the glow
around the Space Shuttle, and we see that you have worked on some
instrument like this. Could you join with us?” So there was
no proposal involved. Somebody got the money some other way and wanted
to do this—we were working with the Air Force at the time—so
we didn’t have to propose for that one. We just had to join
a team. Sometimes that’s what happens, you join a team. We had
an instrument on the Earth Observing-1 [EO-1], a New Millennium [Program]
satellite. It’s still up there. It’s being decommissioned
now, I think, but it’s still up there, and we got on that one
because they were looking for an instrument that did something like
what we were doing.
For ground-based, you do write proposals, but usually you are using
facility instruments—ones that are available to you at the telescope
that they have already built and operate for you. We have always been
a special case there. We have always had our own instruments, so we
had to have instruments that could do something a little unique, a
little different, from what was available at the telescopes. Then
we would apply to use that.
The instruments themselves—working in the infrared, you have
to cool to at least liquid nitrogen-type temperatures. Like 77 degrees
Kelvin is liquid nitrogen, and we typically work at that or helium,
which is around a few degrees Kelvin, so extremely cold. You have
to use liquid nitrogen or liquid helium. Those are for the ground-based
instruments. That presents a challenge, just the cryogenic part of
that.
In flight, for flight work, you usually can’t cool that much,
although it’s getting so you can now. But our instruments haven’t
been cooled that much, so we have to find other kinds of detectors
that will still do the job, probably with less sensitivity. With flight
missions, because you are getting up close and you maybe spend a lot
of time—like in the case of Cassini, you can work with detectors
that are less sensitive and still get the data that you want. So it’s
a matter of taking the science goals and matching them to what the
technology can provide. Sometimes you don’t really know if you
are going to be able to do that when you start.
I don’t know if that completely answers your question on that.
Johnson:
Yes, it gives a good idea that not every one of them, of course, is
exactly alike.
Jennings:
And one thing I forgot to mention is what I do is mostly spectroscopy.
It’s not always. Spectroscopy, so we’re building spectrometers.
They look at the individual wavelengths of the light coming in and
see how they are absorbed. By looking at that signature, we can tell
what molecules there are in an atmosphere, how much, what temperature
they are at, whether they are moving like winds—there is a lot
of information in a spectrum. Both ground-based and in flightwork,
that’s been spectroscopy. And in the lab, too.
Johnson:
And the Shuttle glow, was that on STS-39?
Jennings:
[STS-]39 and [STS-]62, yes. Those were called SKIRT, Spacecraft Kinetic
Infrared Test. What we did was we took what was called a circular
variable filter—it was an infrared filter that you could vary
the wavelengths just by spinning a disk. We put that inside what was
called a Getaway Special Can [canister], a GAS Can, at the time. This
allowed us to have the housing already space qualified, and we could
drop whatever we wanted into the middle of it.
So we adapted an instrument that had been used in sounding rocket
experiments—not by us, but had been developed at Space Dynamics
Lab, and Space Systems Engineering, out in [North] Logan, Utah. Anyway,
we worked with them. We developed this spectrometer with a circular
variable filter that a lid would open in space, and it would look
out. There had been reports of a glow, a surface glow, around the
Shuttle when it’s going through—the Shuttle is in space,
but there is still an atmosphere where it is. It’s a billion
times less atmosphere than it is here in this room, but it’s
still a billion times more than it is in deep space. So there is some
oxygen and nitrogen there that’s impinging on the surface—on
any surface—and it can cause a fluorescence and a glow as the
material comes off and then relaxes, and releases energy. We wanted
to study that in the infrared, and we were able to see it very clearly.
We also saw thruster firings, and we looked at the Earth so we could
get spectra of the Earth.
One interesting thing we did with it was we looked directly up out
of the [payload] bay of the Shuttle. We could aim the Shuttle so that
we were going directly into the direction of travel. In that direction
the glow is very bright. What we would do then is rotate the Shuttle
so that it would go to the anti-direction, anti- what we call “ram
direction.” And we could watch the glow actually decrease. It
decreased from a maximum in the direction of travel to a minimum in
the anti-direction. You could study the geometric pattern, you could
tell people what to expect. If you are flying an instrument in the
Shuttle, you don’t want this glow around it necessarily. It
might interfere with what you are looking at. We could tell people
what to expect, and we could study the chemistry. That was very interesting.
The second mission, STS-62, we decided we wanted to see if we could
enhance the glow. One of the investigators thought we could enhance
the glow by blowing extra nitrogen up out into the bay, and that extra
nitrogen—just like the nitrogen in the atmosphere—would
cause an increased glow. So we tried this in flight, and what we found
out was it turned off the glow. Absolute opposite. And of course as
soon as it happened, like a lot of things in science, as soon as you
see the evidence you realize what’s going on even though you
weren’t thinking about it before. What was going on was we were
putting slow-moving gas out into the bay. It was gas moving along
with the Shuttle. We were hitting gas that was coming in at 8 kilometers
per second, but the slow-moving gas was now keeping the fast gas from
reaching the surface. So the gas we were putting out was actually
buffering the glow.
I don’t know if anyone ever made use of that, but that would
be a technique people could use if they wanted to reduce the spacecraft
glow. We published that, but I don’t know if anyone ever made
practical use of that. It was fun to see something you weren’t
expecting. I always think it’s fun.
Johnson:
I would think so. With science generally, that’s kind of what
you are looking for.
Jennings:
Yes. Science in general, it’s basically curiosity. But organized
science, you try to predict what you are going to see, then you go
see if you see it. Some people would be disappointed if they don’t
see what they were looking for, because maybe they had predicted this
based on their own theory. Other people, like me, if you see something
unexpected I think, “Wow! That’s what we’re here
for.”
Johnson:
That’s right, new discoveries.
Jennings:
Yes, we just learned something.
Johnson:
That’s exciting. Talk about how that early experience working
on those different things—you said you moved into the Cassini
program, and it’s the CIRS?
Jennings:
CIRS, yes. CIRS is Composite Infrared Spectrometer. The “IR”
in the middle is for “infrared.” It’s a Composite
Infrared Spectrometer, and it’s the thermal part of the spectrum
that we look at. There is no other instrument on Cassini that does
that. We look at it from wavelengths of about 20 times the wavelength
you see with your eye in the infrared. It’s long wavelengths,
out to about 2,000 times what you see what your eye, so very long
wavelengths. It’s still not radio, but it’s what we call
“far infrared.” A micron is a millionth of a meter, so
in microns, it goes from 7 microns to 1,000 microns.
It was a follow-on experiment following up on what a similar instrument
did on Voyager, and that instrument was called IRIS, Infrared Interferometer
Spectrometer, on Voyager. We tried to be about 10 times better in
a lot of ways than that instrument, because we wanted to improve.
We were going again to Saturn; we were going to spend a lot of time
at Saturn, and Titan in particular, its moon, was very interesting.
Probably the main reason we were going to Saturn was to drop a probe
into Titan, so we wanted to do a lot better than we did on Voyager,
and we did.
In the ‘80s, when Cassini was being developed, we had our instrument
on the strawman payload—you have to work with these missions.
At least in the old days, when they had missions that everybody could
be involved in, you want to work along with the mission so when the
time came to actually propose the mission, you are one of the players.
Nowadays, it’s a little different. You have PI [principal investigator]-led
missions, and a PI puts together a team. You still want to try to
get on one of those teams, but that team then proposes their mission
against other teams proposing different missions. With Cassini, it
was either we were going to get it or we weren’t, and we had
to just show we could, which was not an easy thing.
We started developing it in the ‘80s, and about 1990 or ’91
we had a concept that was well-enough developed to propose, then they
asked for proposals at that point. In ’91, I think, we were
selected and we started building. And for a couple of years we wondered
if it was actually going to be possible, because we had proposed something
very complex. Yet, after a couple of years they also had a de-scope
in the program. The overall Cassini Program, there was a de-scope.
They went to instruments and said, “Can you de-scope?”
We actually used this as an opportunity to solve many of our problems.
We made things simple enough to build at that point. We reduced the
complexity of the instrument, and made it much, much lighter, and
easier to build. It was kind of fortunate for us. Some of the scientists
didn’t like the fact that we had to give up a little capability
here and there, but the alternative probably was that we wouldn’t
have been able to have been successful.
In 1996 that instrument was complete, we delivered it, and it was
launched in October of ’97. And October of ’97, that’s
20 years ago. Cassini is still up there, and it’s going to be
flown into Saturn in September of this year. So it’s been 20
years.
Johnson:
And that instrument, it’s still working?
Jennings:
Still working, still doing just as well, yes.
Johnson:
Still gathering data?
Jennings:
Yes. At Saturn, it was taking data all the time, and every time it
goes past Titan it takes some data. We have probably finished our
most useful Titan orbits because we are not going to get as close
as we have in the past, but we’ll still be able to take some.
We have mixed feelings about the end of this mission. Some of us have
half our careers been involved in this one. On top of that and parallel
to that, I was working on New Horizons, and that’s gone its
full cycle during this whole Cassini development. I started Cassini
before New Horizons, and New Horizons went past Pluto a couple of
years ago, so that all happened during the time of Cassini.
New Horizons itself was hugely successful, and is going on to study
a Kuiper Belt object, which it will in about a year and a half. So
New Horizons is still going, and New Horizons will continue out in
the outer solar system. It’ll be around a lot longer after Cassini
has met its demise.
Johnson:
Like Voyager. They just keep going.
Jennings:
Yes, Voyager. You get slower and slower bit rates, because the telemetry
is weaker and weaker, but they can still talk to it, and they still
are learning about the far reaches of the solar system. I did some
work with this team that I am working on with Cassini. I originally
started working with them when they were working on Voyager. In the
lab, I studied molecules that were in spectra that were used to identify
molecules in Titan. Some of the molecules that we found in Titan were
identified, or at least in part, because of the laboratory work. So
I started working with those guys a long time before Cassini, and
Voyager at that point was just going past Saturn when I did that work.
Johnson:
You mentioned when we were talking earlier that a lot of proposals
are created, but not many get chosen, and that it helps once you have
gotten something picked to get to the next one, too. And you talked
about in Cassini, you had to work on it a long time and you took that
opportunity to even make it simpler. Talk about proposing something,
and maybe more of that process, how big the teams are, and maybe how
you work on that.
Jennings:
I would encourage people coming into the field, if they want to be
involved in flightwork—I mean, some people come in and they
have this pet idea that they want to promote that. And that’s
okay, they can do that. It may or may not get selected. But if you
want to do flightwork, what you do is you look around for programs
that need help with things that you could do and you try to attach
yourself to them. You get to know the people, you offer your help.
“Can I help?” is a very, very useful, productive thing.
People understand that, and they quite often will say yes. So if you
can attach yourself to it, then you have got some experience after
the first mission, and people will then want you to help them on the
future missions. It’s much easier.
When I first started working on flightwork, I noticed that all of
the people were—to me, they were all old people. A lot of them
are still around. They are still old people, but they are a lot older,
and I am one of them. But there were all these older guys who seemed
to always be involved in these missions. When I started looking into
it, I realized that they had all been involved in the first mission,
like the first Venus mission, or something like that. They had been
working on it since the very beginning, so now that meant that every
time a new mission came along, why would you pick someone who hadn’t
done it before when you had people, maybe two or three groups, who
had experience? You would want one of them to do it. And that’s
what happens.
So the problem is breaking into it, I think. It took me 15 years to
break into flightwork really, where I could build instruments. I could
do laboratory work, support ground-based work supporting flights,
but if I wanted to build a flight instrument and put my hands on a
flight instrument, they weren’t going to let me do that until
they were pretty sure I knew what I was doing. That took a while,
and I think that’s not always understood by people coming in.
The process is supposed to be that you come up with an idea, a scientific
idea, and then you promote that. You figure out how to build an instrument
that will do that, and then you propose it and so forth. The rigor
in being selected nowadays is much harder than it was. I am not sure
that they are getting any better product out of it, but the rigor
that you go through in the proposal selection is much harder than
it used to be. The proposals are much more involved, the review process
is much more involved and detailed. There are Technical Readiness
Levels, TRL levels, now that we have to adhere to, which didn’t
even exist when we were doing Cassini and the first part of New Horizons.
We still get good missions, and all of these things help ensure that
it works. But it does make it harder and harder to get into, I think.
On my side of that fence, since I am already in the game, it’s
hard for me to even appreciate how difficult it is for someone who
comes in and wants to do something, because I see people writing proposals
all the time. It’s like they are spending all of their time
writing proposals, and I think if you ask them they will say they
feel like they are. That takes a lot of time, and someone’s
paying their time while they are writing those proposals.
But you need that pool of people doing that to get the few missions
that are actually going to produce something. And if those people
do it right, even if they don’t get their own proposals selected,
they might be able to get on a team that does get one selected. It’s
not as formal a process as we are led to believe sometimes, and I
think that’s good. I think it needs to be flexible. You want
to be able to listen to ideas that maybe came down the wrong pike
but are still good ideas.
Johnson:
The scientists that work here and that are working on proposals—like
you said, some people feel like they are doing that all the time—is
there a lot of sharing of ideas, and sharing of work? Or is it very
competitive?
Jennings:
It’s not competitive within Goddard. I think we are always helping
each other here. People are interested in the work, and so by and
large if you can help somebody out, you do. I don’t see that
there is a lot of compartmentalization within Goddard. There may be
some that I don’t see, where someone doesn’t want to talk
about his idea until it’s ready to go, but if you are going
to propose it you have to get everybody involved. It’s basically
a Center-wide thing. Even the smallest flight mission involves a group
of people from different disciplines, different [organization] codes
on Center all working together.
Where you see the secrecy is with respect to the outside. Now, it
used to be that we just figured we are working for the government,
so whatever we do has to be general knowledge because the taxpayer
is paying for it. But it’s not really that way, at least anymore,
because competition is so high. Instead of a big project where everybody
is sort of working on it, you have all of these teams competing with
each other. There is a sense that you don’t want to let them
know what you are doing until you are far enough along that you either
have a leg up, or they at least can’t copy you or something.
I don’t think anybody copies anybody else, but it does help
to know what other people that you are competing with are doing. And
so there is some tendency to keep that from happening, yes.
Johnson:
What about working with other Centers? Have you worked a lot with
teams from other Centers?
Jennings:
Well, the [NASA] JPL [Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California]
ran the Cassini project, and our experience with them was excellent.
There has always been a competition between Goddard and JPL. JPL,
of course, is a national treasure. We wouldn’t be doing what
we are doing if they hadn’t been there at the beginning when—you
know that picture with [Wernher] von Braun and [James A.] Van Allen,
and—who is the other guy? Well, the other guy is the head of
JPL [William H. Pickering]. JPL was right there at the beginning,
and they have always known how to play this game.
Goddard came in a few years later and had to learn how to play the
game. We are very good, we are at least equal in our abilities. But
one of us is a government agency, and the other can be a government
agency or not, depending on what they need. I think JPL is great,
and my experience with them has always been great, but there is sort
of this friendly competition all the time. We do work with them. We
work sometimes with Ames [Research Center, Moffett Field, California],
or if you are flying on the Shuttle you have to be working with Kennedy
[Space Center, Florida] and Johnson [Space Center, Houston, Texas],and
so forth. I used to go to meetings there, too.
So there is definitely exchange among the Centers, but to a lesser
degree than within the Center. We are kind of Goddard-centric. Again,
I don’t think there is any alternative to that. We have to be
promoting ourselves all the time. We have to be looking for work here
all the time; we want to keep the missions here, we want to make them
our missions. But I don’t think that that is unhealthy at all.
But, there is cooperation when there needs to be. I worked a little
bit on the [Space Shuttle] Columbia [STS-107 disaster] recovery, where
we were figuring out how to look for defects in the leading edges
of the wings. We had meetings in Houston on that topic, with the astronauts
in the room. We were proposing our infrared cameras. Our particular
version didn’t fly, but we worked with the people who did eventually
put one up there. But in that case they came to us and asked for ideas,
because they knew that they’d need infrared imagery and they
wanted as many people working on that as possible.
Johnson:
And that was after the accident for the next flight?
Jennings:
Yes. We actually had a piece of the leading edge here at Goddard,
and developed techniques for looking for the cracks in that, in a
real piece that had been to—I mean, it’s a little bit
sad, but that’s what we were doing. We were picking up pieces
of Columbia and taking them in the lab to see what had happened, and
see if we could figure out how to avoid it the next time.
Johnson:
Talk, if you will, a little bit more about the New Horizons mission
to Pluto, and the LEISA.
Jennings:
The Linear Etalon Imaging Spectral Array, and that name [LEISA] was
actually chosen to be pronounceable. I wrote the original proposal
for LEISA back in 1993, and many of the people who eventually worked
on it were on that original proposal. Dennis [C.] Reuter actually
took the wedge filter much further than I ever expected it to go,
and has flown it in other instruments now, on other flight missions.
But the Linear Etalon Imaging Spectral Array, the first incarnation
of it was to be a very lightweight, small, compact spectrometer to
work in the infrared on the Pluto Fast Flyby. Pluto Fast Flyby was
originally going to be a 100-kilogram spacecraft—very, very
small—that you put on top of the biggest rocket you could find
and fire it as fast as you could to Pluto. So everything on that had
to be small.
I always thought about how you would make the ideal spectrometer,
and it had gotten to the point where you have imaging arrays, like
CCDs [charge-coupled devices]—only in my case they worked in
the infrared—and if you could just lay a filter over the top
of that, that varied in wavelength along one direction, then you’d
have a spectrometer. Because you could take that and put it in a camera,
and just scan it across a scene. Eventually every point in the scene
would see every wavelength, and you could reconstruct the spectrum
of every point. That’s an extremely compact thing. That’s
just like a camera with a little filter over it, not much more complex
than any camera.
So we eventually proposed that. We started developing that ourselves
separately here at Goddard, and at some point we combined with [S.]
Alan Stern and his instrument that was being proposed for the same
program. It was called the Advanced Technology Insertion program for
Pluto. We had this infrared camera spectrometer concept, he had an
infrared spectrometer on his which was more conventional. He liked
our idea and adapted that, and so we started working with him. Eventually,
that developed into an instrument package called PERSI [Pluto Exploration
Remote Sensing Investigation], which was proposed for a JPL version
of the Pluto mission. And at that point the Pluto mission was canceled
because it was just getting too expensive. But someone at [Johns Hopkins
University] APL [Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland]—I
think it was Tom [Stamatios M.] Krimigis, with Alan Stern—suggested
to NASA—we had some support from Congress at the time, you know,
[Senator] Barbara [A.] Mikulski, and we had letter-writing campaigns
going on—he suggested that we put the Pluto mission out for
bid and see if anyone else could do it.
APL, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, had the idea they could do
this mission, so we went through that whole process. Well now the
PI on our instrument, Alan Stern, was now the PI for the whole mission.
But we had been working with him all the way along, so here we were
positioned to be on that mission. We went through the whole proposal
phase with him, and we did compete with other people, against other
teams, and we were selected.
So that’s the instrument we built. It looked very much like
the very first thing that we proposed. Since then, that idea of a
variable filter over an array—that compact spectrometer idea—has
been used on an OVIRS [OSIRIS-REx Visible and Infrared Spectrometer]
instrument in OSIRIS-REx [Origins-Spectral Interpretation-Resource
Identification-Security-Regolith Explorer], and is now being built
for the Lucy mission to the Trojan objects around Jupiter’s
orbit, which will fly in a few years.
We have flown it also on the EO-1 instrument I told you about, looking
at Earth. That was a variable filter over an array. So this has had
much larger life than I ever thought it was. I was only interested
in proposing for Pluto. I thought this was a compact, simple spectrometer
just for the Pluto mission, but it’s turned out that a lot of
people like this idea. It’s taken a life of its own.
Johnson:
Yes. I was reading about it, and it said there were a lot of design
challenges for weight, power, operational temperature, but there are
no moving parts. It was described as an “elegant design.”
Jennings:
Who said that? Did I say that?
Johnson:
No, actually, you didn’t. I keep trying to remember who it was.
It’s in this paper, and I’ll let you read this when it
gets through. But I thought that’s pretty nice that it was described
that way.
Jennings:
I’m glad someone said it and it wasn’t me.
Johnson:
Also what I read was in ’89, at a talk that Alan Stern was giving,
you said you thought it was a wild idea, this New Horizons.
Jennings:
Yes, I don’t know. I said that, and I think that’s probably
the right word, “wild.” Some people might think wild means
“crazy,” but I didn’t mean crazy. I meant that it
was out there somewhere, that it was something that I hadn’t
heard of before. I thought it was very exciting. I didn’t pay
attention a lot at the time because I wasn’t thinking in terms
of being involved in it, but I went to the talk and I thought that
it was pretty wild.
It turned out to be very wild but doable. There was nothing impossible
about it. That was part of the wild part of it. If you hear of the
idea for the first time and you think it’s impossible, then
you just ignore it. This one was not impossible. He had it all figured
out, and I could see that. A few years later, when the opportunity
came along, it sounded realistic to me. I still had no idea I was
really going to be sending anything to Pluto.
Here is a little aside. One of the things about working on instrumentation
is you actually touch stuff that goes a billion miles away, or 3 billion,
or 50 AU [astronomical units] or something. You are actually building
something—you are touching something—that’s going
to go out there. You might say, “Well, you are wearing gloves.”
Yes, well, you are wearing gloves. But at some point, you weren’t
wearing gloves. It was something that you were working on before it
was flight. But gloves or not, you are touching it, and that means
a lot to me.
Johnson:
And the idea was conceived in your brain, too, so I think that would
mean a lot to you, I would think that would be a big deal.
Jennings:
I guess that part, too. Yes, that’s right. As far as going to
Pluto, that actually was conceived in someone else’s brain.
But the idea for the spectrometer and seeing it all through, how it
works.
Johnson:
The instrument itself.
Jennings:
See, this is the challenge. You come up with something like that,
which is very simple, and then you have to figure out how to make
it work because it hadn’t been used before. There were a lot
of things about that spectrometer that people just doubted that you
could make them work. They did turn out to be hard, usually, partly
because it was the first time we had done it. The spacecraft is building
up the spectrum by scanning. You have to figure out how to coordinate
with the spacecraft, and how to handle the data afterwards. You have
flaws in the filter you have to work around. It turns out to be complex,
but you know that you have the basic information, and some smart person,
even if it isn’t me, will be willing to go in there and extract
it.
And that’s what happened. We got to Pluto, and because the information
was so important and so interesting, there were people—young
people, I should say, who would know how to work computers better
than me—enthusiastically figuring out how to make that data
work. They did a great job. We have had several discoveries out of
that.
Johnson:
And as it goes on to its further mission to the—
Jennings:
[2014] MU69 [Kuiper Belt object], they call it. It’s probably
going to have a name at some point. I think we are going to have a
naming contest, but right now it’s called MU69.
Johnson:
Is the instrument still working, or is it shut down until you get
to the next location?
Jennings:
One thing—and this is kind of a “lessons learned,”
I guess—when you are proposing a mission, you want to keep the
costs down, so you propose not to do anything during cruise. This
is very common. But cruise is a very valuable time. It gives you a
chance to check things out. Sometimes you learn that things aren’t
working the way you expected.
Jupiter, on the Cassini mission, wasn’t even originally planned
for science. We were just going to use it for gravity assist. If we
had talked about doing science they were going to say, “Dollars.”
It wasn’t until it actually was off the ground that we started
talking about doing Jupiter. Did we think about doing Jupiter? Yes,
we always thought about doing Jupiter, but we couldn’t officially
say anything about it.
So during cruise we have always been very busy, even though we probably
propose not to be. We put New Horizons into some kind of hibernation
mode for long periods of time, but we would always bring it back out
and do some stuff with it to make sure it was okay. We are doing that
now. To prepare for flying past the Kuiper Belt object we are looking
at other things, like maybe trying to see if we can see that object
itself, and making sure the instrument is doing what it supposed to,
all the instruments are doing what they are supposed to do. Everything
is very stable on that spacecraft, just like it is on Cassini. We
really know how to do it now. And what we learned at Pluto is going
to help us a lot when we go past this object.
I can’t think of anything we did wrong in Pluto, though. I was
involved in the planning, but the people who put their hearts into
the planning did such a good job on that mission. You think about
only getting one chance to do something that probably may never be
done again, or at least not in your lifetime. You get one chance to
do it, and you have to understand everything about what you are doing.
One of the things we found out when the mission first started was
that we were not going to be able to tell where Pluto is along track.
You can tell where Pluto is on the sky left, right, up, and down looking
from the ground, but you can’t tell how far away it is exactly.
It’s hard because there is no parallax for that direction. So
there is an uncertainty, it turns out, of about 100 seconds in the
flyby time. That’s a long time. Somewhere in that 100 seconds
is Pluto, so that means you have to take data for 100 seconds in order
to pick up Pluto, which is in the middle of that somewhere—a
lot fewer seconds, whatever it is. That means you are spending a lot
of time taking data of deep space.
You have to understand all that stuff ahead of time, and you have
to try to bring that 100 seconds down as small as possible, because
the less time you spend looking at deep space the more time you can
spend looking at Pluto. But when you look at the results from the
mission, you realize that they did an excellent job of optimizing
all of that. We just looked at everything we could.
The same thing in Cassini. Cassini’s a little different, because
we were there at Saturn for 13 years. If we had things happen, we
could go back and do them differently next time, or repeat it. We
could plan ahead. There was a very different environment from something
like a flyby, which is what we were used to from Voyager. It was a
fire hose of data just pouring out at you all the time. But it also
meant that if there was some glitch in one of the Titan flybys that
you would just plan in the future to try to do it again, and usually
there was some opportunity to do it again. It didn’t happen
very often, but we had some glitches and we always recovered.
One of the amazing things about doing this deep space work is that
there always seems to be a recovery. Very rarely do you lose it completely.
The people who design the spacecraft and the navigation systems and
the communication systems, they think through all that. They figure
what happens if there is a glitch. You put this spacecraft in safe
mode, what do you do to recover it? Actually, we just don’t
lose them very often anymore.
Johnson:
You listed some other missions in that email that you sent me. You
mentioned EO-1 and some of the other ones, but speaking of losses,
there was Lewis [satellite] that was part of the Mission to Planet
Earth Program. Do you want to talk about that one, and what you were
planning to do with it?
Jennings:
Yes, right. That was the first opportunity we had to fly one of these
wedge-filter spectrometers. We worked with TRW [Inc.], it was TRW
at the time. They were building a spacecraft with several instruments
on it. It was being funded at a fairly low level from [NASA] Headquarters
[Washington, DC]. It was supposed to be a demonstration of how you
could do things smaller, faster, [better,] cheaper. I don’t
think any of that contributed to the problems.
As far as I could tell, everything was done very well in developing
that mission. Our spectrometer had a little moveable mirror on the
front. It was going to demonstrate that technology. It was demonstrating
our spectrometer, it was demonstrating a cooler that TRW built, and
they still build. We were going to look at the Earth. So we were on
the spacecraft, and I think we had to wait a year to get launched.
I forget if there was a change in launch vehicle or something like
that. When it finally got launched, after a few days the spacecraft
went into a tumble and was lost. It went in the ocean about a month
later. We never got any data from that one. That’s just one
of those things. You just be glad it doesn’t happen more often.
The guys who worked in the early days, they would build two instruments.
Maybe one of them would go in the ocean, because the launches weren’t
that dependable, so you lose one but the other gets there.
Johnson:
I was reading this, and they were talking about that it was during
that time of “faster, better, cheaper,” and that may have
led to some of the problems with it.
Jennings:
Maybe. The actual error that I think happened had to do with the attitude
control system, a thruster got stuck open or something. But as far
as I know, from what I saw, everybody did everything very carefully.
Sometimes, stuff just happens. I have worked on failure review boards
for instruments that you just feel like there would have been no way
to avoid this. People have been doing it this way for a long time.
For some reason, on this particular mission, something different happened.
It’s still a risky business.
Johnson:
Space definitely is a risky business.
Jennings:
Yes, and that’s part of the fun. When it comes right down to
it, that’s part of the fun.
Johnson:
Because it’s hard.
Jennings:
It’s hard, it’s a challenge. You don’t always know
if you understand things. That’s why we do so much testing.
Sometimes, you can’t do testing the way you want. You have to
think through everything. It’s hard, but like you say, it’s
a challenge and it makes it enjoyable, especially if you get something
out of it at the end, right?
Johnson:
Yes, right. We were talking about New Horizons, and I wanted to bring
it up before we get off of that subject of Pluto, I was reading, “Thanks
to the New Horizons scientist Don Jennings, we have our first clear
glimpse of the entire backside of Pluto.”
Jennings:
Well, you have really been doing your work!
Johnson:
Yes, I thought that was kind of interesting.
Jennings:
Is that what the website said?
Johnson:
Yes.
Jennings:
Okay, I don’t know who wrote that. It doesn’t sound like
anybody on New Horizons to me. I was on a trip on another mission
when data was still coming in from Pluto, but I realized we had views
of Pluto from almost every direction. So I made this figure up where
I showed all those directions, as if Pluto was rotating. I put a little
arrow on there to show how it was rotating—because sometimes
it was rotated more than other times—but basically you could
see all the sides. A version of this eventually came out where this
was all prettied up. They didn’t like the arrows, so they took
the arrows off, but this was one I made from real images.
Johnson:
Yes. I just thought it was interesting.
Jennings:
Yes. Where did this one come from [referring to photo in article]?
That’s not one of my pictures, is it?
Johnson:
Yes, maybe so. Just blown up?
Jennings:
Yes. Somewhere on here was a dog’s face [Disney cartoon character,
Pluto].
Johnson:
On Pluto, I know. It looks like Pluto’s on Pluto. I just thought
that was amazing.
Jennings:
Yes. You can imagine when we were getting the first pictures, and
they were pretty fuzzy to start with, and we were imagining all kinds
of things. But one of the things we were looking for was “We
have got to see a dog’s face on here.”
Johnson:
No kidding.
Jennings:
Of course, then there was the heart, and we forgot about dogs after
the heart.
Johnson:
The surprises you find when you are looking out into space.
Jennings:
You were asking about other missions, and you asked about collaborators
from other Centers, but I have worked with other countries a lot.
Johnson:
I was going to ask you about international cooperation.
Jennings:
Well, Cassini is a collaboration with Europe [European Space Agency],
and the Cassini instrument is a collaboration among many institutions—[University
of] Oxford [England], and [the Paris Observatory in] Meudon [France]
and [National Centre for Space Studies] Paris [France]. So the space
agency in France, and [UK] Space Agency in England. Then the detectors
were made in Germany. It’s an international collaboration. There
is a paper that I just finished, it just got through the galley proofs,
and so it’s going to be online in a few days, I think, that
you might look for that describes this instrument, and it lists all
those different collaborators [Composite Infrared Spectrometer (CIRS)
on Cassini, June 20, 2017, NASA Technical Reports Server, http://ntrs.nasa.gov].
[Applied Optics, 56, 5274 (2017).]
Partly because of that collaboration with all those people, because
I kind of knew everybody, I ended up having a small role in Herschel
[Space Observatory] SPIRE [Spectral and Photometric Imaging Receiver].
I suggested a design for a mirror carriage for them, which they ended
up adopting and building. We built a prototype here at Goddard for
that. Then with the Canadian [Space Agency], there is an ACE [Atmospheric
Chemistry Experiment] mission, which is flying a Fourier Transform
Spectrometer similar in concept to the CIRS instrument. I had some
involvement in that. I suggested a design for that, and was involved
in some of the early reviews. I was somewhat involved in ASTRO-F [AKARI
satellite]. It was a Japanese [Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
JAXA)] mission. They built a spectrometer similar to CIRS.
So other countries would come and ask us for some kind of collaboration
just because they knew we were experts in FTS. FTS—Fourier Transform
Spectroscopy, or Fourier Transform Spectrometer, which is what the
Cassini instrument is. This is a whole class of instruments, and in
the infrared they are quite often used. They fly in space quite often.
Goddard has become known to be experts in that, because we have flown
them all the way back to Voyager, and before that Mariner, and Nimbus,
which was an Earth observing [satellite], they all flew these spectrometers.
Nowadays, a lot of other institutions build Fourier Transform Spectrometers.
I think ASU [Arizona State University, Tempe] builds them now for
Mars. So there is a lot of international collaboration.
Johnson:
You mentioned OSIRIS-REx. Is that the asteroid study?
Jennings:
Yes, they are going to bring a sample back from an asteroid. So part
of my history is that about five or six years ago I switched from
science to engineering. Because of the kind of work I was doing, I
was working a lot with the engineers, and it just made sense at some
point that I go over there and work with them. I have to write fewer
proposals over there because I can get involved in flight instruments
as an engineer after the mission has already been selected, because
the people at Goddard build the instrument, and now I am an engineer.
When I went over there, I started working on a calibrator for OVIRS,
which is the OSIRIS-REx Visible Infrared Spectrometer. I built this
little filament calibrator for it. The purpose of OVIRS, like many
instruments on OSIRIS-REx, is to characterize the asteroid before
they collect the sample. You learn as much about the asteroid as possible,
and then you can go collect the most interesting—or at least
a place where you are most likely to get a sample. That’s what
it is. They can fly it back to Earth. I don’t remember the exact
timescale, but it’s going to maybe make it back to Earth in
2023 or something like that?
Johnson:
Yes, I think that’s what I saw.
Jennings:
That was a lot of fun, because I got to actually come up with a design
for this filament calibrator, and pretty much, with a small group
of people, see it all the way through to completion, and now it’s
in flight, working. I always wanted to be able to do that. As a scientist,
I was always working with other people who were doing that. I had
some hands-on, but it was never something of my own that I had to
see all the way through. So it was an opportunity to do that.
Johnson:
It goes back to that perpetual motion machine that your father wanted
you to build.
Jennings:
Right. Except I hope I didn’t design something that couldn’t
possibly work.
Johnson:
But it’s that hands-on.
Jennings:
Yes.
Johnson:
I thought that was interesting that you said you switched over to
the engineering side. I know through a lot of the interviews we have
done with people—scientists, engineers—when they talk
about each other, sometimes there is a different way of approaching
things. Scientists approach things as a certain way, engineers do
it another way. If you want to talk about that, since you are seeing
it now from both sides, maybe the way a NASA scientist might approach
something as opposed to a NASA engineer?
Jennings:
One of the reasons I could switch to engineering was because I kind
of always thought about things from an engineering standpoint—and
the engineers always accused me of that. They liked it, because I
would try to solve their problems with them, and not just be complaining
about it.
Johnson:
“Make it work?”
Jennings:
Yes. “You are telling me it won’t work, you always tell
me it won’t work.” Well, no. An engineer has to make it
work based on what can actually be done, and I always understood that.
Whenever we were solving a problem, even when I was a scientist, I
have to be very practical about it.
So I may be the wrong person to ask. From my perspective, I never
had this problem of a difference in outlook between science and engineering
myself, but I did see it happen. The engineers do look at things differently.
Scientists are very flexible in their thinking. Quite often, if they
can get things within a factor of two, that’s very good. They
think of uncertainty in terms of things that can’t be controlled.
If you talk to an engineer, he uses a different language. He doesn’t
talk about “uncertainty” or “error bars,”
he talks about “tolerances” and “margins.”
To him, those are things that can be managed. So you understand what
the limitations are, and then you build the instrument so that it
encompasses all the possibilities so that it will work, so that you
don’t have any surprises outside the box. The engineers think
about it fundamentally differently, and they have to. You can’t
work at the one-sigma level usually in a design. You have to work
at the two- or three-sigma level to make sure it works. If you have
something that’s got a thousand parts and each of them has a
one percent chance of failure, then something’s definitely going
to fail, so you can’t even think about it that way. Everything
has to be completely controlled to better than one percent. Part of
that is redundancy and things like that.
There is definitely a difference, and yet, the missions I have been
on that have been successful—and I have fortunately been on
a lot of them—are where the scientists and the engineers do
somehow work together and complement each other. It’s very important
to have communications, and not just among the engineers, but also
between the engineering and the science side.
Sometimes, there will be some requirement, for instance, that was
written by a scientist where he didn’t really care within a
factor of two. But the engineer sees that requirement as hard and
fast. If he can’t achieve it to within 10 percent, in an environment
where he doesn’t feel like he can go back and question that—he
doesn’t feel like he can go back and ask the scientist, “Where
did this come from?” or bring up the fact that there is a problem.
If he feels like he just has to solve it, it could cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars. And yet, if he goes back and asks the guy, he
says, “Oh, well no, that doesn’t matter.” So, that’s
what you can actually do sometimes. “Well yes, that’s
good enough.”
We cut through a lot of complexity by having those kind of conversations
both early in the development and also maybe even later when things
start happening. Being able to talk to each other, and not feel like
you are just being given instructions and you have to go away and
do them. Sometimes, there is an idea that that’s the way things
work, that everything is written down, formalized. You take your part,
you go build it, and you bring it back. You have got to be willing
to think across the boundaries.
The teams that I have been on, like Cassini was highly successful
because the engineers would try to solve each other’s problems.
You would have optical people looking at mechanical problems and vice-versa.
Everybody just wants to make it work, whatever it takes, and they
will use their creativity across boundaries. And the scientists were
right there in the trenches with them all that time. You would be
there when they were testing a piece of equipment and seeing what
the limitations were. You have to have that, I think. I think any
manager of a successful project would tell you that communication
was a cornerstone of the success.
Johnson:
I think communication sometimes is overlooked, unfortunately.
Jennings:
Yes, or taken for granted.
Johnson:
Or taken for granted, yes, that people understand each other. And
some people communicate better than others.
Jennings:
Yes. It’s part of the atmosphere, too. You want to have an atmosphere
where people feel free to speak up. I haven’t been in one where
that wasn’t the case, but I can imagine that if there was a
case where people didn’t feel like they could say what they
are thinking without being afraid of being wrong, or being shouted
down, that some things wouldn’t be addressed. That could be
disastrous, yes.
Johnson:
And talking about communicating, what about communicating with the
public? Education has always been a big part of NASA, depending on
[presidential] administrations and NASA administrations. The funding
has been there sometimes for educating the public, sometimes not—especially
teachers. Talk about your feelings about educating the public, and
if you have ever had any involvement in helping to educate teachers
or students. I know here at Goddard especially, of course, we have
had a lot of graduate students working. Talk about the importance
of disseminating the information that NASA has, and the opportunities
that NASA has, to the general public.
Jennings:
Well, the taxpayer pays for what we do. We are working for the American
people, and they seem to be happy with what we are doing most of the
time. It’s important to give back to them. We think, “We
are not just taking pretty pictures,” but those pretty pictures
carry a lot of weight. You can see an iconic picture like the Earth
rising over the Moon, you don’t have to have any science in
that picture. But you can’t just go there to take that picture,
and you have to make people realize that, that you are doing more
than that.
You go back to [explorers Meriwether] Lewis and [William] Clark. [President]
Thomas Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark west. Why? He wanted to establish
a presence, but he had to also make it look like it was completely
peaceful. So what did he do? He did science, he told them to do science.
That’s why we do science. Science is a peaceful, international
thing in principle. It’s always been that way. First of all,
it’s based on fundamental human curiosity, and everybody can
understand that. It produces very interesting things that people aren’t
usually insulted by, or have a problem with. They can just have fun
with it. And so it’s important to keep that going.
Now, as far as my own involvement in public outreach, I used to do
all the science fair projects when my kids were little, or give lectures
at schools. I have given lectures to private astronomy clubs, and
over the years, it’s a lot that I have forgotten that I’ve
done, but I have done a lot of talking to the public, and they deserve
to have us spend part of our time doing that. They are paying for
it, and sometimes they don’t know what they are paying for,
and they usually enjoy hearing about it.
As far as bringing people in, yes, I have had lots of summer students
and visiting faculty from universities, or sometimes even high school.
They come and spend a summer working—hopefully I will give them
something actually useful and interesting to work on, not just sitting
in front of a computer. Most of the time they really like it, and
they go off and do something similar, or take the information back
to their schools or whatever.
I had one girl who came in. She thought she wanted to do something
in astronomy and she got a summer job with us. By the end of the summer,
she decided she was going to be a lawyer. Well, that’s good
too. That’s good too. She got to come in and experience it.
She was very, very smart; I would have been happy to have her work
with us. But she decided it wasn’t for her. Too much number
crunching, I guess, in her case. And I hope she is doing well today.
So it’s very, very important. Sometimes we get awards, our teams
get awards, and I have a really funny, mixed feeling about that, because
I don’t think that we do what we do to get awards. But it’s
important because it is a way of advertising what we are doing. It’s
an excuse to tell people what’s important here. And I hope that
everybody eventually gets an award.
Johnson:
Everybody gets an award, that’s a good idea.
The presidential administrations come and go. Everyone has their own
ideas, and they want to put their own stamp on things. Along with
everything else, they want to put their stamp on NASA. So the funding
gets changed, and the budgets. Nothing set yet, but from what we are
hearing, there may be less funding for education and Earth science
and those kind of things. You have been here long enough to see these
presidential administrations come and go. What are your feeling on
the effects of these changes on science at NASA?
Jennings:
Well, the NASA Administrator answers to the president, so he can direct
us to go look at doing things, if not actually doing them. He can’t
tell us to do something that’s impossible, but he can ask us
to look into it. And this happened recently. I guess someone at NASA
was asked to look at whether we could put men on the first demonstration
of the SLS [Space Launch System] launch vehicle. That would probably
not be possible because the reason we had a test flight was to make
sure it worked, and we had to do everything in order. I think that’s
what they decided with it, that they wouldn’t be able to do
it. But in the past we have had other presidents say study going to
Mars or returning to the Moon.
When I first got here I had a strange experience. I had a NASA [Federal]
Credit Union credit card, and I was buying something at a store. It
was in the mid-‘70s. The clerk looked at my credit card and
said, “I didn’t know NASA existed anymore.” It was
between Apollo-Soyuz [Test Project] and the Shuttle. There were a
few years when NASA wasn’t making any news at all. I think it’s
good whenever we get in the news, for whatever reason. I feel that
way about Pluto, too. Pluto was kicked around and demoted and all
this, but Pluto is more popular than ever. It’s because it’s
in the news all the time. So I think it’s okay to do that.
Now, as far as what we work on, to some extent we are directed. It’s
really hard to tell a scientist who has been doing something his whole
life that he can’t do it anymore. He will do something similar,
probably. I am not one of them, I am pretty diversified. Most of what
I’ve talked about is space science. Of course, I have done some
Earth observing, too. I am involved in Earth-observing missions. I
know that we study the Earth, and we are always going to study the
Earth. There are a lot of missions going on right now that maybe don’t
look as much like they are studying climate change or something, but
they are going on just fine. There’s other missions I’m
on that aren’t, that may be having problems. We will have to
see.
But that’s the prerogative of whoever is in charge. We are being
paid to do something, and I personally think that we should be studying
as much about the Earth as we possibly can. The population growth
on the Earth, and the connectivity with technology, and everybody
knows what everybody else is doing—it’s going to be a
hard thing to manage if we don’t keep track of everything about
the Earth.
I myself am marginally affected by this. I don’t like to see
things that we have been doing for decades just all of a sudden end
because someone’s opinion changed, but we do get paid by the
public. I don’t really know how to walk that line, except to
say that most of what I do is astrophysics, which nobody seems to
have a problem with at the moment.
The one thing, though, is the education part. We have to keep telling
people what we do. It’s easy for people to think about things
in their own way. They are welcome to do that, but they at least should
have the information available. So even if we are not giving them
the same kind of data, we at least need to tell them what it is we
do and what we can do, so that they can make the decisions for themselves.
I think that’s a fairly diplomatic answer, don’t you?
Johnson:
I think so. It’s an interesting conversation right now. You
mentioned technology, and technology has definitely changed over your
career, especially at NASA. Sometimes when designing these instruments,
you are working on it and then it may not launch for 15 years. So
the technology changes, and you still have to get the data back. Talk
about that evolution of technology and how it’s helped, but
maybe problems because it’s evolved quicker than you can necessarily
get instruments on.
Jennings:
Yes. What’s going to fly is cast in stone. Before you start
building it, you have had to propose stuff that you know is going
to work. That means it’s not today’s technology, usually.
It’s something that’s been proven previously that people
trust. So already, when you are selected to build an instrument, it’s
obsolete. The technology is obsolete, but you have to keep that going
all the way through.
You can imagine a mission like—well, New Horizons, we at least
were designing a new type of spectrometer. It was still pretty new
when we got to Pluto, but in the meantime we had flown on other things.
But something like Cassini, by the time you get halfway through the
mission, it’s 15 years later and certainly everything has changed.
I have heard of CIRS being called a dinosaur. It’s up there
doing all this fantastic work, but it’s ancient history.
But what does change is what you can do on the ground. In fact, there
is a lesson to be learned there. In the very early missions, they
would base the way they took data on whether they’d be able
to store the data on the ground, whether they had storage. But the
storage was growing exponentially, so they sometimes should not have
limited themselves to how much data they were able to handle. Plan
on being able to grow into it, because what we found on Cassini was
that we were limited in data rates and data volumes at the beginning,
but we just kept expanding our storage capacity through the mission.
Something like Cassini, you have to because you are getting so much
data. You never want to throw away your raw data, that’s my
rule. A lot of times people will say, “Well, I just want the
information,” but you want to keep your raw data.
Some missions in the early days wouldn’t keep their raw data.
They would process it and then not have any requirement to keep the
raw data. Sometimes there’s things in the raw data you didn’t
realize were there, and you’d like to be able to go back later.
We are in the process of recovering data from Voyager right now that
we found were on 9-track tapes in a basement in the previous building.
All the data was there, but we didn’t realize it. The archive,
the NASA archive, only had the processed data from Voyager. So we
were able to go back and take all those tapes and put them on DVDs,
and now they are available to go back in and reprocess if anybody
wants to. But they could have just been lost.
Johnson:
Very easily.
Jennings:
Yes. This wouldn’t be the first time.
So there are two aspects to it. There is what you are going to fly,
which has to be very stable in technology, and then there is what
you do on the ground, which doesn’t have to be. You can be very
flexible on the ground, sometimes get a lot more out of your instrument
than you ever planned, just because the capabilities are much better.
And you solve a lot of the problems on the ground.
Almost every flight, you get up there and there is some anomaly. There
is something about the instrument that wasn’t what you expected.
In the case of Cassini, our instrument was just quieter. It had a
quieter environment in space than it ever did during testing on the
ground, so there were these things that we never saw on the ground
buried in the noise. We get into flight, we could see them. With the
ground processing capability, we were able to extract those, or suppress
them, or cancel them out. So there is noise in the data that we could
correct for on the ground. If you had known about it beforehand, you
might have not let that happen on the instrument itself, but it does
happen so we developed ways on the ground to correct it.
So that’s the two things. You do have technology that has to
be stable in flight. You can’t do anything about it. Even up
to the point where you propose, it’s already old. Then you have
the stuff you are able to do on the ground, which can evolve. And
don’t sell yourself short. Whatever you think you can do today,
double it in two years.
Johnson:
Yes, that’s interesting about the Voyager data. That’s
always good to hear. We were talking to someone a few weeks ago about
a project and the data, the original, so much of it was gone.
Jennings:
Yes. Go back to the early ‘60s, there were Venus probes and
Mars probes and all that. How much of that data—they didn’t
take very much, but you sure hope it exists somewhere. The media changes.
Back then it might have been on punch cards, and then at some point
it’s on 9-track tape, and then it’s on tape cassettes,
and then it’s on DVDs or floppy disks. And it keeps changing.
Now everything has got to be on a memory stick [removable flash memory
card], and even that’s going away. It’s all going to be
on the cloud or something. As data goes through that process, it gets
lost. If someone doesn’t go to the trouble to convert, then
it’s just lost.
Johnson:
It is. It’s a big process, and it costs money, so we are dealing
with funding again.
Jennings:
We have home movies that my father took on 8-millimeter film, and
my brother transferred them to VHS tape. Now that’s obsolete,
and I, a couple of years ago, transferred it all to DVD. And now I
may end up with a computer that can’t read DVDs anymore. Nothing’s
permanent.
Johnson:
Nothing is permanent. And even the DVDs erode, so you go to the digital
files, but then that standard changes. It’s just constant.
Jennings:
And sometimes it requires a certain program to be able to read it,
and that program doesn’t exist anymore, or some operating system
doesn’t support it. A few years ago I read about a study. Some
group was recording sounds, songs or something, and they wanted to
find a medium that would last as long as possible. What medium can
you hope to be around in 2,000 years? They ended up with clay tablets.
They figured out how to make a record out of clay.
Johnson:
Oh my gosh. They go back to the original.
Jennings:
Yes.
Johnson:
Well, some of those things are still here. And we talk about paper,
too. It’s still here.
Jennings:
Paper is better than DVDs, for what you can put on it. Some things
you can’t put on paper.
Johnson:
Obviously, yes. That’s true.
Are there any other missions that you worked on that we haven’t
talked about, or anything that you wanted to mention?
Jennings:
Probably. So there were two SKIRT missions, which were the Shuttle
missions, and Cassini, EO-1 I mentioned. Lewis you brought up—and
by the way, Lewis at least flew. Clark was canceled. “Lewis”
and “Clark” were the names of these two missions. We had
a few missions along the way that didn’t go, of course. You
work on lots of things that don’t go anywhere. That’s
just the way it has to be. I think we transitioned into New Horizons
at some point around the end of the ‘90s. I worked with the
Canadians and the Europeans on the Herschel and ACE missions, but
I didn’t build any hardware for those. I am sure I am forgetting
some missions.
Johnson:
Well, something you mentioned, I wasn’t sure what it was—RRM
[Robotic Refueling Mission]-3 CTI [Compact Thermal Imager]?
Jennings:
Oh my gosh, yes of course. That’s my current mission. That’s
what I was working on this morning when I came in here. When I went
to engineering one of the guys over there, Murzy [D.] Jhabvala, has
been working on modern upgraded types of infrared cameras called QWIPS
[Quantum Well Infrared Photodetectors] or SLS [Strained Layer Superlattice],
or whatever you might hear about them. They are cameras that don’t
require as much cooling as some of the ones that have been used in
the past and are much more uniform, and there’s a lot of advantages.
We have been promoting those and using them for various things. We
are taking two of those cameras to the [solar] eclipse in August.
A couple of years ago we were asked if we could build a demonstration
unit based on one of those cameras to fly on the [International] Space
Station. That’s called CTI, which is Compact Thermal Imager.
And RRM-3 is the package that already exists, that’s being developed
already. It’s a robotic servicing mission, a robotic mission,
but we are just going to be attached to it to demonstrate this. So
after they do what they do, then we’ll be able to look down
and map small strips of the Earth. We are going to look at it in the
infrared, to a couple of wavelengths in the infrared. What was really
fun about that was that we were supposed to do it very quickly, like
within one year. We could have done it in one year, but things got
delayed. That often happens in the flight business. You don’t
worry about the schedule because it’s going to slip.
Anyway, we are just now putting it all together, but it’s been
fun. It’s been a small project. We didn’t have to propose,
people came to us. Hopefully, it’s going to be flying within
the next year. That’s what I was working on this morning.
Johnson:
You mentioned the eclipse, and that’s something that you are
involved in, right?
Jennings:
Yes, out of the ground-based astronomy has developed—we have
done a lot of work on the Sun. It turns out the infrared has not been
used on the Sun very much, at least the wavelengths we are working
at. There are a lot of phenomena on the Sun that you can study differently
in the long wavelength of red than you can in the short wave, where
people tend to work, or in the visible.
We have these same cameras, and it turned out that they would do a
really good job on solar flares, so a few years ago we built an instrument
that sits at the McMath-Pierce Solar Telescope at Kitt Peak [National
Observatory, Arizona]. It just sits there on one of the auxiliary
telescopes, and whenever there is any activity on the Sun somebody
can open it up remotely and look at that active region on the Sun
in case flares occur. We have captured a few that way. That’s
been really important. As a result, we had kind of got these cameras
involved in solar work. Some of my previous ground-based astronomy
before these cameras had also been looking at the Sun, so I knew some
solar physicists. I was actually on the first version of the panel
that helped develop the new solar telescope in Hawaii. There is a
telescope going up on Maui called DKIST, Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope,
a four-meter telescope in Hawaii. So I actually have been involved
in some solar work for a long time.
What we are doing now is we are working with a guy at Kitt Peak, Matt
[Matthew] Penn [National Solar Observatory, Tucson, Arizona], who
is involved in a campaign, has people looking all along the track.
Ours is a little bit different experiment than the one that most of
those people are doing. We are going to go to Weiser, Idaho and set
up our equipment, and on the 21st of August we are going to hopefully
have it all working and we are going to watch the eclipse.
We have done eclipses before. We had an experiment [in 1991] on the
Infrared Telescope Facility [IRTF] in Hawaii, on Mauna Kea, where,
at the last instant, we pull some plastic off the telescope and we
look at the spectrum in the edge of the Sun as the Moon clips across
it. Then a few years later [1994] we did the same thing with the annular
eclipse in New Mexico using a telescope there at Apache Point. So
we have done eclipses before. This is the second total eclipse I will
have seen, assuming the weather holds. And in all cases, we have a
rule, that you press “return” on the computer, and then
the observation runs itself and you get to watch the eclipse. You
don’t have to watch it on a monitor. You can actually stand
outside and look at the sky. So we have a rule that we get to see
the eclipse. If you want to see what we did in Hawaii on the first
eclipse, there is a program on Nova [science television series] called
“Eclipse of the Century.” It’s fun to watch, you
will see just what it’s like. We came very close to not having
our equipment work.
Johnson:
Really?
Jennings:
Yes. And that’s the way it is often in eclipses. With an eclipse
it has to be working at a particular time, and it was touch and go
for us. But a very happy memory for me because we managed to pull
it off.
Johnson:
That’s always a good memory, right, being able to pull it off.
Jennings:
There was one time that I saw that video on YouTube, so it might still
be there. It’s about an hour long.
Johnson:
Yes, usually it’s not that hard to find those. In this day and
age, things are everywhere, even when you don’t want them to
be.
Jennings:
That was a funny experience, just talking about public outreach, because
there was a Nova team on the mountain, and there were teams from other
news media and other programs. Some of them even interviewed us afterwards.
But Nova was right there. They had a team doing the program right
there, and they would go around to all the people at the other telescopes
and they’d cycle around through us. Then everybody got to be
on that program. You will see that. But it’s funny, because
about the second day that they were filming, the director asked me
if I would wear the same sweater every day, because he wanted to be
able to edit the scenes in time, which he did.
Johnson:
You just wore the same clothes every day?
Jennings:
Yes. That was tough on some of my colleagues. They were starting to
think this was really surreal. But Nova did an excellent job, and
they really showed the excitement. If it had failed it wouldn’t
have been exciting, but the fact that it was successful made it very
exciting.
Johnson:
Always a good thing. Talking about successes and failures, over your
NASA career what do you consider your biggest challenge?
Jennings:
Wow. The biggest? Can I have a few biggest?
Johnson:
Oh, you can have a few.
Jennings:
Every flight program has been a big challenge. I have regarded every
one of them as equally challenging. Some of them were bigger projects
than others, so I would say that the most challenging that I was most
involved in was the Cassini instrument development, CIRS development.
That involved not only building an instrument, but all the stuff afterwards
to make sure it worked. It took a large group of people to do that,
so I don’t take credit for that necessarily, but to me it was
a big challenge.
New Horizons was like that, too. We went from people not really taking
us seriously to actually having to do it, and then a very successful
outcome. Any time that you say, “Okay, your money starts here,
and you have got to deliver here”—and on both of those
missions there was a hard date, because we had to use Jupiter as a
flyby assist. You had to launch on a certain date to have that advantage.
So you really had to be done by a certain date, and at the beginning
of it, it seems impossible. “How am I going to do all this?”
It was particularly hard to see how we were going to do it with CIRS,
the Cassini instrument. It just was so complex.
What can I say? It’s just good people. I think a lot of it was
that we were all young at the time and we didn’t realize how
impossible it was. We just kept doing it, kept solving the problems.
When it launched, it was so complex we figured some things weren’t
going to work, but it all worked. I think that probably had to be
Cassini CIRS, with New Horizons a close second.
The ground-based stuff, it was very challenging but it doesn’t
have that same aspect of you have to have it done by a certain date.
If a ground-based observation fails—and they do quite often—it’s
not a big deal. You just come back and do it again. Nobody is standing
around watching you, or figuring out whether you are on schedule or
whatever. Even though I enjoyed that a lot—I always enjoyed
doing ground-based astronomy, it was a big challenge—it was
not the type of challenge as holding your feet to the fire during
an instrument development for flight. That’s a very different
thing.
Johnson:
What would you consider your most important accomplishment, or your
achievements?
Jennings:
What am I proudest of?
Johnson:
Yes.
Jennings:
Achievement. I’d say I feel like I took the infrared instrument
on New Horizons from just a basic concept—and I can’t
take full credit for that because, of course, I worked with people
and we all contributed. But we really started from scratch on that.
Other people were developing similar types of instruments, but from
our standpoint we really invented that and figured out how to do it
here at Goddard. So I probably am proudest of that individual thing.
But overall, as far as legacy, I think a lot of people think of me
as a Fourier transform spectroscopist because of how successful CIRS
has been. And I have always been heavily involved in that. I was the
Instrument Scientist on that all the way along. So probably, as far
as what outside people see, it may be the CIRS thing. I also have
to say I am quite proud of the fact that I was able to not only build
the instrument, but go and do some science. I was able to do that
on Cassini. I had been working in that field beforehand in the lab,
identifying molecules in atmospheres like Titan. When I started working
on Cassini, it seemed like I was just going to be doing the instrument
side, but I got involved after launch in making sure the operation
went smoothly, and I also had access to the data so I started trying
to do some science. There were a lot more capable scientists on this
project than me, but I was able to find a couple of areas basically
because I knew how the instrument worked, and I knew what its limitations
were. So I have gotten to do some science out of that. I am quite
proud of that.
With New Horizons, I am on a lot of scientific papers because the
PI is very fair, and the team members are very fair, and they always
want to make sure that the people who developed the instrument get
as much credit as the people who did the science. That’s always
been a very good thing. But I didn’t actually do any of that
science. I was looking over people’s shoulders, because the
people who handle that data are way beyond me. I know we built the
instrument, and of course we have looked at all that data for troubleshooting,
but to actually get the science out, that takes somebody with real
dedication, and a computer capability, which I don’t have.
Johnson:
Well, is there anything before we close today that we haven’t
talked about that you wanted to mention?
Jennings:
You asked me what I am proudest of achievement-wise, but if I was
to look back over things that really impressed me the most that I
have seen—the things that stand out are like the Cassini launch,
where you have this huge rocket going up into the sky. You are watching
it arc away, and it’s carrying your stuff.
Johnson:
Did you see the launch itself?
Jennings:
I saw the Cassini launch, and it was dark so it was very spectacular.
The New Horizons launch I saw also, but it was during the day. It
was very spectacular, too. But Cassini for some reason stands out.
There are some other things. Working on the Shuttle projects, I was
able to go down to the Cape [Canaveral, Florida] and I was in the
clean rooms down there when we were working on our instrument. Our
instrument that flew on the Shuttle was filled with liquid nitrogen
to cool it, but they wouldn’t let us fly liquid, so just before
they closed the Shuttle bay we went in there and froze the nitrogen
to a solid by flowing liquid helium through it. Liquid helium is a
lot colder and you can freeze the nitrogen into a solid block. Then
that would stay solid for 60 hours, through the launch window, at
which time you could go in and do it again if you had to. So we were
doing something at the very last minute, and that in itself was a
challenge. Both missions, we were the last ones to leave before they
closed the bay.
On the second mission, we were going out to the clean room, and the
crew is coming in to close out the Shuttle, and they asked us if we
would like to help them. Well, the guy I was with had something to
do. The poor guy, he had family with him or something. He had something
he had to go do, so he didn’t do it. But I went back in with
them, and they had me stand at a particular place and watch the clearance
on the door as it closed. I saw them ratchet in the door, which then
becomes part of a structure of the Shuttle. That made a big impression
on me. I was standing in the Shuttle when they closed it out. And
that was Columbia.
Then there was one other thing about the Shuttle. One night, on a
previous mission—this was the first mission—they were
rolling the Shuttle out to the launchpad. This was Discovery, and
I got up early in the morning and watched them roll it out of the
Vehicle Assembly Building on this crawler [transporter]. It took them—I
forget, what was it—like six hours to get it out to the Launchpad.
So I went out and I watched them when they came out of the building,
and I watched them for a little while, then I went back and slept
a while, and then I came back and watched them set it up on the launchpad,
and then I went to the airport.
But when it was still dark and I was standing next to this thing crawling
along at two or three miles an hour—it must have been maybe
one mile an hour—and I was looking up, and I could see the Shuttle
just like the spire on a cathedral, pointing up, and right above it
was this star. I think it might have been Arcturus. I am not sure,
I would have to go back and look. But it was just the right place,
and it occurred to me—this is like a modern version of the cathedral.
We built this huge technology to go to the stars. Cathedrals were
built with these spires to point up to heaven, right? I am standing
next to this thing, and it looks a lot like that. So that has stayed
with me, too. That’s something you couldn’t get a picture
of, and I didn’t try to take a picture of it. I just try to
remember it.
Johnson:
It’s those moments where sometimes you just have to appreciate
the moment, and not worry about trying to capture the moment.
Jennings:
Yes. I am sure that if I thought about it, I could think of other
things like that. I could think of things where I did something smart
or did something dumb. But that’s the kind of thing that if
I think back over it later in my life, that’s probably what
I am going to remember, are those kind of things.
Johnson:
And the opportunity to have a moment like that, looking at that star
after going out with your father and looking at the Sputnik fly over
and realize that, like you said before, that’s another country,
that we should be there, too.
Jennings:
Yes. I mean, there was that political aspect with Sputnik. But that
never really affected my thinking about any of this. Politics are
something somebody else can figure out. And I hope they do a good
job.
Johnson:
Don’t we all.
Jennings:
Yes. It sounds a little selfish, but I’d like to just do what
I do. And other people, I am glad that they want to do what they do.
There’s a lot of it that I wouldn’t like to do, but I
am glad they are doing it.
Johnson:
We definitely all have our place.
Jennings:
Yes. All God’s children got a place in the choir.
Johnson:
That’s right. Well, if there is not anything else, we can close
for today.
Jennings:
Okay.
Johnson:
Unless you have something you wanted to mention?
Jennings:
I can’t think of anything. If you let me sit here for 15 minutes,
I might think of something. But if I think of something, I can tell
you offline.
Johnson:
And we can definitely add it later. All right, well thank you.
Jennings:
Thank you.
[End
of interview]
Return to JSC Oral History Website