NASA Johnson Space Center
Orion Oral History Project
Edited Oral History Transcript
Scott B.
Wilson
Interviewed by Jennifer Ross-Nazzal
Kennedy Space Center, Florida – 8 July 2016
Ross-Nazzal: Today is July 8th, 2016. This interview with Scott Wilson
is being conducted for the NASA Johnson Space Center Orion Oral History
Project. Mr. Wilson is speaking with us today by telephone from the
NASA Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The interviewer is Jennifer
Ross-Nazzal.
Thanks again for taking some time out of your very busy schedule to
talk with us. Certainly appreciate it. I read through your transcript,
and last time you talked about the launch of EFT-1 [Exploration Flight
Test 1] and your feelings on seeing the culmination of all those years
of hard work. I wonder if you’d talk about the landing and the
problems with the uprighting system.
Wilson:
Yes, good question. When you launch something like that and you build
something for the first time you’re really worried. You know
you’ve done everything you can to try to do it right, but you’re
not sure. You’re always worried about the thing you might have
forgot or something that you might have thought you designed well
that didn’t work.
I think I mentioned before I don’t think it’s possible
to hold your breath for four hours, but I think a lot of us felt like
we did until we saw the big parachutes come out and begin to settle
down over the water. It was a great feeling to see that. Of course
when we settled into the water and landed, we had some of the uprighting
bags that didn’t fully inflate or a couple that did inflate
and then deflated. We’d had some problems with the systems that
pressurize those early in the production flow, and we’d worked
through those changes, so we were pretty confident we got it right,
but I wasn’t sure when we saw that.
Two things went through my mind probably. One was thinking back to
the earlier problems we had and trying to figure out did we not do
something right. As it turned out, the problems we ended up seeing
there during landing were a different cause than the earlier problems
we saw. I think we did do our fix right, but we clearly had some more
design things to work on to improve it for EM-1 [Exploration Mission
1].
The second thing that went through my mind is holy cow, if we just
got through throwing something 3,000 miles into space and around the
planet and sending it back through the fires of reentry and landed,
and all we had a problem with was a couple uprighting bags not fully
inflating, that’s pretty amazing for a first flight too. While
it was an issue and one we’ve corrected since for EM-1, to me
the fact that that was the only problem we really had in that mission
was outstanding for the first time we’ve built a human-rated
spacecraft in half a century basically.
Ross-Nazzal:
Were there any other lessons learned though from EFT-1 that will be
applied to EM-1?
Wilson:
Yes. I think there’s quite a few. That was the whole purpose
for trying to do that test flight. We’ve spent a lot of time
talking about whether doing a test flight ahead of the SLS [Space
Launch System] rocket made sense or not. Of course we decided that
it did. Getting that early data from EFT-1 has really helped us with
EM-1 planning. Not even sure where to start, there’s so many.
A lot of the things we learned from the instrumentation on the vehicle,
from the stresses and loads that it saw during flight, helped us to
reduce quite a bit of weight. For instance we’ve got 400, 500
pounds out of just some of the metallic components of the pressure
vessel alone since EFT based on some of that data.
The heat shield was something we learned about. It’s an ablative
heat shield. In EFT we had what we called a monolithic heat shield.
It was a five-meter-diameter heat shield that had a piece of honeycomb
over the top of it with individual cells all filled with Avcoat, which
is the ablator that we use. During some of our early testing what
we saw was because it’s one big giant piece, five meters in
diameter, as things heat and cool in the structure we were seeing
some cracking of the Avcoat that we had to do repairs on prior to
the mission.
We did those repairs, we flew the mission, and we were happy to see
that the repairs worked successfully, but it really led us into thinking
about whether we want to change the design for EM-1. Of course what
we have now, rather than that big monolithic five-meter-diameter block
of Avcoat, are smaller blocks of Avcoat that we bond to the heat shield
for EM-1. We do that very similar to the way you do tiles on backshells,
or the way [Space] Shuttle did tiles. These blocks will help us really
address that cracking and stress issues we had with temperatures.
That was a big thing we learned.
Of course the CMUS [Crew Module Uprighting] System we redesigned.
We found where there’s some chafing as those bags deploy and
have redesigned that system as well. Those are some of the things
I can think of off the top of my head. Big mass reductions based on
the data, and heat shield was probably a big one.
Ross-Nazzal:
You said something that I thought was interesting. You decided that
it was a good idea to move forward with the test flight before the
SLS was ready. Can you talk about some of the pros and cons that were
being tossed out for both sides?
Wilson:
Yes. I think any time you decide to fly something and build a vehicle
there’s costs associated with it. Of course there’s resource
demands too. Some of the negatives were the cost of inserting that
flight in there before SLS took away from some of the budget we might
have had available to do development on the EM-1 vehicle itself. Of
course when you have resources and people working designs for EFT
they’re not necessarily working all the follow-on vehicle stuff.
Those were the downsides.
What we decided is if we could make EFT as close to what we thought
EM-1 was going to be at the time, with the exception being those systems
that you need for a crewed vehicle or unique to SLS, then we could
still learn a lot, and we could also use that data to help us with
EM-1 design going forward. If we could balance that, then it would
be a good idea.
Of course you do the test flights to learn things. We knew we’d
learn stuff. We weren’t exactly sure what you’d learn,
but that’s the nature of test flight. So, for all those reasons
we felt it was important to do that and get the early data and then
feed that into the design so that we had a better vehicle and a more
mature vehicle when we did put it on SLS. Of course that was the approach
we took, and in hindsight it turned out to be a good approach. I think
some of the things I previously mentioned were big lessons learned
that we got from it. It’s really helped us to mature the vehicle
that we’re building today.
Ross-Nazzal:
How did you guys capture those lessons learned and then disseminate
those throughout the program?
Wilson:
Another good question. I can talk specifically in the production area,
which is my area. We actually started a lessons learned capture while
we were still building EFT. We figured with the folks working on it,
it was the best time to understand things. We learned about what we
planned to do versus how reality really worked out was while we were
doing it and it was fresh in our mind.
In production we actually started that process about halfway through
the EFT-1 build. We had a person we assigned here to go basically
work with everybody from the technicians to the CPEs [Certified Project
Engineers] to the engineering team and really capture the things as
they occurred or shortly afterwards. We continued that process all
the way up through the mission and through recovery and then of course
getting the vehicle back here and doing disassembly work.
We actually went and captured that in a document. We did several hundred
interviews with technicians and engineers and manufacturing engineers,
captured the themes out of that, and then put them into a lessons
learned document. We were very adamant about making sure that document
wasn’t just some volume of data that goes on a shelf somewhere
that doesn’t get looked at. We actually used that when we went
back through the Orion CDR [Critical Design Review]. We used those
things we learned as criteria to evaluate the design that we had matured
for EM-1 and EM-2 as we looked through CDR. We really made sure a
lot of those lessons learned were actually captured, and designs were
updated, or processes were updated to take advantage of those.
I’m really happy to say—I don’t remember the exact
number—but nearly all of those have been captured. Probably
a simple example to understand this is the heat shield installation,
for instance. We had several hundred fasteners with very tight tolerances
to be able to put a heat shield on the vehicle in the original EFT
design. It was extremely challenging for the team to try to figure
out how to take this very eloquent design solution but actually manufacture
it and build the vehicle that way.
As a result, in EM-1 now we only have a handful, I think it’s
20 to 30 fasteners with much less tight tolerances on it. It’s
a very easy way to assemble that now. That’s one simple example
to get your arms around about how we’ve improved, how those
lessons learned fed in.
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s quite an effort. How many people were working on capturing
those lessons learned?
Wilson:
Like most things in Orion, we don’t have a lot of folks to do
that. We really had one lead for it. Then of course lots of folks
provided fractions of their time to provide the data that went into
that study. Really just one person leading it. Again this is the production
part of it. There were other efforts in the other CAMs, but just one
lead and a lot of slices of technicians’ time and engineers’
time to go feed that process.
Ross-Nazzal:
Did everyone sit down and do an interview or were they just asked
maybe to type up a memo and share their lessons learned?
Wilson:
No. I think not everybody in the program went and did it, but what
we did is we tried to make sure we interviewed all the key folks who
had a role in the build. There was a very specific effort to go down,
talk to the technicians on the floor, and solicit those inputs. Then
almost everybody who had a comment or had some thoughts for lessons
learned was interviewed in it. Again I can’t remember the exact
number of folks but there were many. They ranged from technicians
working on something like the heat shield installation or those fasteners,
all the way to manufacturing engineers who were trying to put the
processes together, to the design engineers who were designing the
heat shield for instance.
Ross-Nazzal:
How many total people work in production?
Wilson:
On the NASA side of it, on the nonprime side, we have between 24 and
30, depending on the time phasing. On the contractor side between
Lockheed and ASRC [(Arctic Slope Regional Corporation) Federal], who’s
Lockheed’s support for technician labor, there’s about
250 or so.
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s not a very big labor force, when you think about it.
Wilson:
No, it’s not, but we’ve learned a lot I think as we’ve
gone forward. One of the things we looked at early on when we set
up the factory and decided how to staff was the Shuttle workforce
and what little data we had on the Apollo workforce. Shuttle was fresh
in everybody’s mind. It was good and bad. Shuttle employed a
lot more people, but as it ramped down a lot of those people were
looking for future work, and so we were able to pick up a lot of the
best of the best from Shuttle.
What we did in Orion is we tried to design—we learned a lot
since Shuttle—we tried to design a vehicle that took less people
to assemble. For good or bad, we’ve got a much smaller team,
but it’s a much more efficient team with an easier vehicle I
think to assemble now. It has different capabilities than Shuttle,
but we’ve tried to design it smartly to take less people to
process and build.
Ross-Nazzal:
Along those same lines I’ve read that the capsule is supposed
to be reusable. That was how Shuttle was sold. Reusability was going
to cut cost and we would be able to fly into space much more cheaply.
Can you talk about that reusability and the vehicle itself here and
some of those challenges it poses and if that’s been able to
help you cut cost in any way?
Wilson:
It’s a great question, one we get a lot. We started off with
this—I think at the time we didn’t know it, but it was
a relatively simple question. Should it be reusable or should it be
disposable? What made more sense?
As we looked into it, it’s not really as simple as we thought
it was. It’s really an incremental approach we took to it. We
looked at it from a cost perspective. Some things make a lot of sense
to reuse, and some things make a lot of sense to just buy a new piece
or build a new piece for it. We ended up actually coming up with a
mixed mode for reusability where some things may take you so much
effort to disassemble the vehicle, get the part out, recertify it
that it costs you too much, where the new part might be half the cost.
Or there’s other places where the equipment is such high value,
like avionics for instance, that it makes more sense to reuse it because
the labor cost to take it out and recertify it is much lower than
to rebuild.
The model we actually have right now where we don’t use for
instance the primary structure currently because the labor we believe
is going to take more labor cost to recertify that, but we do use
all the avionics boxes for instance. Now we are trying to use the
data from both EFT and EM-1 and EM-2 to be able to also certify the
structure for reuse ultimately too.
I think in the end what you’ll see is it won’t be completely
reusable, it won’t be completely disposable, it’ll be
the right mix for the cost.
Ross-Nazzal:
I thought it was fascinating how there have been so many studies done
talking about Shuttle, and how it was sold this way, but it ended
up of course not being as efficient as people said it was going to
be. I just thought that was curious. I wondered what the thinking
was behind that.
Wilson:
That was exactly what we went into. I think coming out of Apollo,
which was mostly disposable, after a mission we’d send it to
museums. I think people at the time said, “Hey, we got to figure
out how not to do that. Let’s make it reusable.”
The preliminary look at Shuttle said, “Yes, that makes a lot
of sense, it’ll be more like an aircraft.” But of course
as you get into the space environment, things are a lot less forgiving,
and it ended up driving a lot more inspection and disassembly. Those
labor costs quickly grew also.
We were fortunate in our timing of having data on the Apollo method
and on the reusable method from Shuttle and being able to try to find
the right balance to thread the needle between the two.
Ross-Nazzal:
I wonder if you could talk about NASA’s international partners
and the agreement that led to that partnership for the Service Module.
Wilson:
Another great question. In the original plans we had back in Constellation
and even in early MPCV [Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle] we were building
a fully U.S. vehicle. Then over time as we looked at the [International]
Space Station [ISS] model and the benefits that international partners
brought to the table in Space Station, we began to think about whether
that made some sense for us on Orion as well.
We got into some discussions with ESA, the European Space Agency,
on it. I think most people recall—or maybe they don’t—back
in Station the way we trade services between countries is in terms
of barter. We don’t actually exchange money between the countries,
we exchange services. Those services have a value. We keep a balance
sheet for how much value each partner is bringing to the table and
which country owes which country services in return.
Coming out of Station and the Shuttle flights we were providing, there
was some services essentially on the debit sheet that the Europeans
owed the U.S., and so we started talking about ways that maybe that
made sense to bring on an international partner. We of course did
partner with ESA, and ESA brought in their prime contractor, Airbus,
to support it. Today we have them as a full partner to provide a major
chunk of the Service Module, a piece that we call the ESM, or European
Service Module. It’s primarily based on their experience with
in-space propulsion, so it has the main part of the Service Module
which includes all the tanks and propulsion systems and solar arrays.
EM-1 will be our first vehicle where we actually use the European
Service Module. We’re already working with that team at Plum
Brook Station [Sandusky, Ohio] now to do testing of their structural
test article. They have basically a mockup of that Service Module
that we’re putting through environmental tests. It’s been
a good model not only for the technical side of the vehicle testing
we do but also for how we have this international team work together,
and the processes that we put in place, and the way the people work
together.
Very shortly in the early 2017 timeframe, we’ll have the European
Service Module arrive here at Kennedy, and we’ll begin to integrate
that with the rest of the vehicle. It’s an exciting time to
go from the stand-alone Constellation model, as we’ve matured
into a different U.S. model, and then now an international team. It’s
exciting and I think it’s got a lot of opportunity for all of
us.
Ross-Nazzal:
Were there any changes that needed to be made to the Orion vehicle
as a result of choosing a different provider for that Service Module?
Wilson:
There were some. I think probably the biggest changes were when you
try to define the interfaces between something, when it’s completely
U.S.-built all by the same manufacturer you can be more integrated
between the pieces if that makes sense. When I talk about the pieces,
the Service Module itself has this central piece that we now call
the European Service Module. It has an upper piece that integrates
with the Crew Module called the CMA or Crew Module Adapter, and it
has fairings and a spacecraft adapter that integrates to the rocket.
What we ended up having to do as we tried to carve out this European
piece of it, we tried to simplify those interfaces and put them in
the right places so we could do a little more stand-alone work in
the U.S., a little more stand-alone work in Europe. The simpler that
interface was, the easier that partnership would be from a technical
perspective. In doing that, we made some changes to the CMA and to
the spacecraft adapter at the lower end to be able to integrate the
two together. I think that’s probably the main things we did
with it.
Ross-Nazzal:
Have you seen any challenges or issues working with ESA?
Wilson:
I think any time you bring in a new partner there’s challenges
in how you work together. I think that’s the biggest part of
it. I think EFT was a great pathfinder, I think I mentioned earlier,
for us in terms of how you build a vehicle. We had a lot of things
we had to learn just in terms of how you receive parts, how you put
things together. Things we learned like I mentioned with the heat
shield and how you produce those.
We had a lot of time to use EFT as not just a pathfinder for the spacecraft
itself but for the processes and the teams and the people. We got
through that. Now with the Europeans that’s one new aspect to
the team that we’re bringing in. I think there’ll always
be challenges when you bring in a new team. They’re not unique
to international partners, I don’t think. I think it’s
just as you bring in a new group of people, a new supplier for such
a large part of the spacecraft, there’s challenges in just how
do we work together and how do we plan all that stuff.
But just like EFT, I think by the time we get through the early parts
of EM-1 we’ll have figured that out. I think it’ll be
very smooth for us. There are the obvious challenges when you’re
working with a partner who’s in a different country or that
far away, working remotely: how you share data back and forth, how
the teams work together; the different approaches that different countries
or different contractors in different countries, the way they approach
problems and their processes trying to integrate between the two.
Then of course there’s the export control law in International
Traffic in Arms [Regulations] or ITAR law that we have here in the
U.S. that limits what we can and can’t export or talk about
with foreign nationals too. We’ve had to do a lot of work with
the [U.S.] State Department and export control to be able to work
through the right things and transfer information in the right way.
That tends to slow us down some, but of course those laws are there
for a reason, to protect U.S. interests as well. Those are probably
the biggest challenges.
Ross-Nazzal:
ISS has a number of partners. Do you see Orion expanding and including
more international partners since this is an effort really to explore
deep space and we might bring on say the Russians or the Chinese at
some point, if we’re allowed to work with them? Do you see that
being a possibility?
Wilson:
It’s a great question. I think you have to think about Orion
in the bigger context of exploration. Exploration is going to take
a lot of assets both in space and on the ground to be able to really
explore places we want to go and for the missions we eventually—when
I say we now, we humans—want to go to. I’m not sure more
partners specifically for Orion, but I certainly see opportunities
as we go forward to do exploration. There’s other aspects of
things we’ll need. We’ll need landers. We’ll need
in-space propulsion systems. We’ll need habitats and relay systems.
I think all those provide places for the international community to
participate as well in the larger mission.
If I could use my crystal ball to look forward, I’d be very
surprised if 50 years from now we didn’t have much more of an
international presence there, working together and sharing resources.
When you do these things it’s a big challenge for one country
to do it alone. Doing it together I think we accomplish quite a bit
more as humans than we could trying to do it individually.
Ross-Nazzal:
If you could, looking back over your time with Orion. What do you
think was your most significant challenge during your years there?
Wilson:
I got to pick just one, huh?
Ross-Nazzal:
You can identify several if there are several.
Wilson:
I’m just joking. I think for me personally, well, any time you
design something new there’s a huge host of challenges of how
you design things and your trades and how you balance cost, schedule,
and budgets from a programmatic perspective. There’s all those
things at a big global program level. Specific to the production area
that I’ve led up here, I think the biggest challenge was also
our biggest plus also.
We had a clean sheet of paper to design the factory and the processes
and to figure out how you build spacecraft. It’s both a blessing
and a curse. We didn’t really have a blueprint to just pick
up and start following. We had to create it, which was hard, but by
us getting to create it, we were able to make it as efficient as we
could make it for ourselves. I think that was the biggest challenge.
The way that manifested itself, early on it was how do you build the
factories, what do the factories look like, where are they. Of course
we gravitated our primary big manufacturing in New Orleans [Louisiana]
at MAF [Michoud Assembly Facility] and assembly operations and test
at Kennedy. Then of course where do we do large-scale environmental
tests? We’ve gravitated to Plum Brook Station for that. But,
all those things originally weren’t really defined for us, and
so we had to figure that out and try to make the best balance for
what made sense technically but of course what fit cost and schedule
constraints as well.
Early on, once we picked the locations, it was a lot of building work,
facility type work to build those factories and build the test capabilities.
The O&C [Operations and Checkout Building] was a building built
in the ’60s for Apollo, hadn’t really had significant
mods [modifications] done to it since then. It did support Space Station
and Shuttle, but from a large-scale perspective it needed a significant
amount of work to bring it back up to where you could process today’s
type of spacecraft.
We put quite a bit of time and many years into building that and making
it the right facility, doing a lot of benchmarking with other companies
and other factories around the world to see what kind of features
we should build in.
Of course similar type things happened at the portions of MAF that
we use for Orion. At Plum Brook we had to go figure out how to build
test facilities all in a single place to be able to test large-scale
spacecraft like Orion, but also we sized that for lunar landers, or
at the time in Constellation what were landers of any kind, which
was really our driving case for how big things are.
When you look at a place like Plum Brook, we had to do things that
nobody’s really done in the world before. We had to build a
vibration table that was large enough to shake a lunar lander at the
huge size and mass that that takes. We had to build an acoustic test
facility there that, when you looked at size and volume of sound,
was about eight times greater than anybody in the world had ever produced.
Any time you’re doing things that are first time biggest in
the world kind of things, there’s tremendous challenges to do
it, and to do it in a way that made sense from programmatic, cost,
schedule, and risk-benefit too. Those were our early challenges.
When we got through all that, I think we thought we were all set,
probably a little naively. Then we started building our first vehicles.
Of course we had lots of challenges there of how do you do that. What
kind of processes do you need? Where do we get our workforce? How
do we train them? All those kind of things that went into it.
I think EFT as I mentioned earlier was a big driver in helping us
wring that out. I think that brings us to today where we’re
building EM-1. I think we’ve wrung out a lot of the facility
things that we had early on. We’ve wrung out how do you build
the vehicles. I think now what we’re trying to bring into is
how do you build full-scale Service Modules, and do that in partnership
with our European partners.
Then of course how do we begin to move from the test flight regime
of EFT, EM-1 into our crewed phase in EM-2? I think our big challenges
beyond there will be okay, now we’ve learned, we’ve gone
through the development, we’ve fielded a system that we know
works. How do we move into more of a steady-state production phase
to produce those vehicles and to produce them at a cost that’s
feasible for the Agency? That’s a really really long-winded
answer.
Ross-Nazzal:
It’s very detailed, we appreciate those kind of details. Conversely,
what do you think is your most significant contribution to EFT-1?
Wilson:
I got to think it’s very similar to what I probably just described.
I was in a really unique place I think when we first started talking
about exploration. I think I mentioned earlier in the interviews previously
I was at [NASA] Headquarters [Washington, DC] when we started to figure
out the early requirements for it. I think the work we did there and
the early trade studies we did that set the requirement set for what
Orion needs to do was a big part of it.
We may not have realized it at the time, but what we set was requirements
for a vehicle that’s really got a lot of capability. As missions
have changed and evolved over time, as the program has changed through
early exploration to Constellation to where we are today, the capabilities
of the vehicle that we defined in those early requirements still provide
the vehicle that can meet all those mission parameters. I think that
was one thing to me that was very important. I think that was probably
the contribution that I think helped us get to where we are today.
Of course the other one is from a production standpoint. Starting
with a clean sheet of paper and trying to make all the decisions we
have, to try to put in place all the infrastructure and the ability
to build and manufacture vehicles has been a big part. I’m pretty
proud of both of those. When I say proud, as you know, it’s
a team of folks. We’ve got an outstanding team of people that’s
really pulled through to do all that work. It’s really rewarding
to see it where it is today, going back to when we were looking at
pieces of paper and trying to write shall statements for what the
thing should do.
Ross-Nazzal:
Could you identify some of those folks who’ve made significant
contributions that you haven’t talked about or maybe who you’d
like to mention?
Wilson:
Yes. I think there was a requirements team we had at Headquarters.
I’ll probably have to dust off, because I don’t want to
forget folks. But we started early under Admiral [Craig E.] Steidle
and there was a team from across the country in different Centers
participating in that. I know we had folks like Scott [D.] Altman
and Brent [W.] Jett out of the Flight Crew Office. We had Mike [Michael
F.] Lembeck was assigned at Headquarters at the time helping oversee
some of those requirements efforts as our direct supervisor under
Admiral Steidle.
I’m trying to remember. Bret [G.] Drake, Jim Gefery, and Terry
[O.] Tri were up there out of JSC. Ed [Edward J.] Stanton was out
of [NASA] Ames [Research Center, Moffett Field, California] at the
time. Warren [I.] Wiley was out of KSC. Wayne [L.] Peterson from JSC.
Those are some of the folks off the top of my head. Don [Donald E.]
Shick was out of Langley I believe it was. It was a relatively small
team working requirements early on.
Then of course when we started up production here, I started as the
JSC person to lead production, but we formed the team out of Kennedy
early on to help us with a lot of those facility activities. Glenn
[C.] Chin was brought on as my Deputy at the time and Glenn still
remains here in that position, has done a great job. I’m trying
to think. Mike [Michael J.] See out of Johnson was in the original
T&V group, the Test and Verification group, but eventually came
into production as well and helped us quite a bit with our test capabilities.
And Rafael Garcia as well.
Ed Stanton, who I mentioned from Headquarters, actually ended up moving
from Ames. I think he went to JSC and then to Kennedy, and we brought
him in on the team here as well. So it’s quite a few people.
Ross-Nazzal:
You’ve got quite a lot of people who made significant contributions.
Wilson:
I forget if I said it before too, but I’ve talked about the
team that we’ve got that have helped support it. I think early
on Skip [Caris A.] Hatfield I think did a nice job forming up the
program for us really and getting us going, and then played a very
significant role in the startup of all that and was actually who had
hired me in at the time.
Eventually Mark [S.] Geyer took over and I think Mark as the NASA
Orion Program Manager and Cleon Lacefield, who was the Lockheed Program
Manager at the time, they served a very critical role—they were
at the helm when we went through the transition from Constellation
to where we are now. I think the fact that Orion came through that
in the way that we did was a huge testament to Mark and Cleon’s
leadership in that timeframe. It was a time of extreme turmoil I think
for all of us in the program as we talked about before. They did a
couple things that I think were really significant that allowed us
to move forward.
One of the things Mark was adamant about was we are still required
by law to spend money wisely and to do the best we can in this program
even while we’re being canceled. He drove that hard with the
team to do the best we could and really set a steady path for us so
that we could put our heads down and concentrate on getting there
and doing good work. I think that helped the team tremendously. It
also helped us produce some very valuable things like the pad abort
test and of course the early parts of EFT.
I think Mark and Cleon both also helped a lot in trying to show our
stakeholders the versatility of the Orion design, of what we were
building, and how it applied to this new thing called MPCV. I think
they both did that in the way that they could from both the government
and contractor perspective that really helped us come through the
other side and helped our stakeholders understand the value in what
we were doing. I think those are two folks I’d give a tremendous
amount of credit to for where we are today.
Ross-Nazzal:
Along those same lines Mark Geyer has said that the Orion Program
has learned to persevere. Would you agree with that statement?
Wilson:
Yes, I absolutely would. Trying to think of how to put it. There’s
so many ways that that’s true. On the surface you could say
we’ve learned to persevere going through Constellation and then
eventually the turmoil that brought us to MPCV and where we are today.
That’s the top story. But I think the way we did that is through
many many changes at the lower levels.
When Constellation was canceled it really forced us to evaluate how
we do things and all of our processes. We’ve learned to be very
adaptive and really question the processes we have. Are we doing this
process blindly because we’ve always done it? Or are we doing
it because it really provides value to what we’re doing? By
thinking of things that way we’ve really become much much more
efficient than I think we were in the early days. That’s part
of this “trying to persevere.” When you have tough times
you can either fold up your hands and walk away and say, “We
can’t do it,” or you can try to adapt and do the best
you can to do great things with what you’ve got. It’s
something Mark really set the tone for, and it’s something that
I think has become part of the culture of Orion.
Ross-Nazzal:
Can you give an example of one of those processes that you looked
at and thought well, yes, we’ve always done things this way,
but if this is too costly or it’s not going to work with the
schedule, and how you applied some of those lessons learned and made
a change and it’s worked out to become much more efficient and
just as effective as in the past?
Wilson:
I’ll give a little bit of a global answer to it and see if this
helps. A lot of times, maybe early on, we relied a lot on Shuttle
processes for instance. Shuttle had a board and then they had a preboard
that would help make decisions and they had these other working groups
underneath. Sometimes there’s some decisions you need to go
through that kind of process for. We were probably using that early
on for many of our decisions.
Then later on as we began to question that, what we tried to do is
change from the model where all the decisions go through this very
rigorous board structure to what things should go through it, and
what levels should other decisions be made at. There was a big effort
where we tried to push decision making to the lowest level that made
sense but also to make sure we had checks and balances on that and
to make sure that we had what we called reclama paths if somebody
disagrees there.
That’s a very simple process example, but when you go through
the amount of decisions that are made just on a daily basis within
a program that saves quite a bit of people’s time and it still
allows a decision to be made. You could argue a lot of cases it’s
made better because it’s made by the smart technical folks where
it made sense and where it doesn’t make sense those things would
be rolled up. Really pushing that decision making to the lowest level
with checks and balances and a reclama path has allowed us to do a
lot more with a lot less people and resources. That’s one example.
Ross-Nazzal:
Well, I think we’ve exhausted our questions. We’ve actually
come in a little under time. I wondered if there was anything else
that perhaps Sandra [Johnson] didn’t cover last time or you
wanted to talk about today.
Wilson:
No, I can’t think of anything other than just I know I told
Sandra this, but I just very very much appreciate that your office
is doing this and taking the interest to do it. As somebody who ever
since I was a little kid loved space, and reading the things from
the early days of space and wishing there had been more of this kind
of stuff written down then that I could have learned from, I think
this is going to be great.
Hopefully as you pull all this together from the whole program this
will be a wealth of knowledge for people in the future. Learning how
we thought, the decisions we made, and some of the decisions we’re
making today hopefully will be good things people capitalize on. Some
of them may be things people look back on and question, “Why
did you do that?” Because maybe it doesn’t pan out. This
will really give that perspective I think to folks and help make people
doing what we’re doing in the future better at it. Long-winded
way of saying thank you.
Ross-Nazzal:
It’s our pleasure. I certainly thank you for taking time today,
and I know you guys are busy and don’t want to eat up all of
your day. Thank you very much for sitting down with us and sharing
your experiences, anecdotes, and lessons learned. We sure appreciate
it.
Wilson:
Great, well, thanks again, and have a great weekend.
[End
of interview]