SMAP 2019 — an interview with Mikkel Haaheim, one of the participants

“A single step cannot get you to your destination, and a single person can not change the world. But, a single step begins the journey, and a single person leads the way.” — Mikkel Haaheim

Through Space Decentral, citizens from around the globe will be able to propose, vote on and participate in the R&D of space projects, making space exploration a feat of humanity rather than that of one or two government agencies. The Space Mission Activation Process (SMAP) is our trial run for this grand vision. We are inviting space enthusiasts like you and me to propose ideas for space missions, and with the help of the community, we will choose the first few projects to develop and launch.

Today I would like to introduce one of our SMAP participants, Mikkel Haaheim. Mikkel, a regular on the Space Decentral Forum, our Facebook and Riot chat, has been actively participating in the discussions from the very beginning. With an unconventional story, Mikkel has proposed no less than three ideas for the SMAP 2019, all equally interesting and challenging.

To get started, tell us a little bit about you. Where are you from, what do you do, and how did your life bring you to where you are today?

Mikkel: I am a born and bred Minnesotan, living in Bordeaux, France. Long story. I am currently a “house husband” (taking care of my wife, my dog, eight cockatiels, and a turtledove), having obtained my PhD in Cognitive Sciences (and a Master in Linguistics, and a Bachelor in English Composition and Literature… following 13 years of undergrad studies in a variety of fields, ranging from Music Composition to Political Sciences). Previously, I had an 18-year career in security operations and management. More long stories.

I was born with Apollo… days after the Apollo 1 fire. My first memories are of watching the lunar landings… particularly the launches of the Lunar Ascent Modules (COOL!!). When I was very young, I had a model of the Apollo CM/SM. I figured it was defective because the thruster did not ignite. I tried to fix it with a box of matches. I always wanted to be an astronaut. Cutting yet another long story short, I had health issues that precluded my ever being an astronaut (under old rules, at least), so I ended up going into music… yes, another long story. Eventually, I strayed back to my first love, thanks to online groups.

I can relate to that — I myself went into architecture because “being an astronaut” or even doing anything space-related was not a feasible option. But that’s another story.

How did you find Space Decentral? What were your first impressions?

Mikkel: I ran across Space Decentral while I was interacting with another site on FaceBook, and SD’s FaceBook group page came up as a suggestion; so I decided to check it out. Of course, the FB page led me to all the other platforms SD operates on, little by little. I really liked what SD was trying to accomplish. I also liked the approach, which seems to me in line with my own personal philosophies. Finally, I like the quality of background of the founders of SD, which gives me a bit more optimism for its success as a “grass-roots” space program.

You are a regular in our forum and facebook page — where do all of these ideas come from?

Mikkel: Wow. Okay. Yeah. Everywhere.

Star Trek. Space 1999. Space, Above and Beyond. Battlestar Galactica. Lost In Space. Babylon 5. 2001. 2010. Hard SF stories and discussions. Hard science papers, articles, and textbooks. Apollo. STS (the Space Shuttle). X-planes. Submarines. Aircraft carriers. Battleships. SSTs. The Air Force. The Navy. Civil shipping and air travel. Major, large-scale projects (SLS, SpaceX and the ex-BFR Starship, AdAstra’s VASIMR, etc). Small science news items (aerogels, new solar cells, bio-solar cells, etc). Old research papers. New research papers. It all comes together from everything around me. What I read (and I read a LOT). What I experience. What I hear about from others. Often, it is outside the typical domain: healthcare, emergency response, disease control, auto racing, oceanography, tunnel boring, light rail, computers, legos, office cubicles, etc.

My Heavy Lift Wet Workshop project came largely from research into old Skylab proposals, Saturn V upgrade proposals, proposals for repurposing the STS main tanks in orbit, the STS launch profiles, Iowa class battleships, etc.

My modular craft was inspired largely by the Eagle Transporter from Space 1999, but also from the CH-54 Tarhe “SkyCrane”, and Erector sets.

My modular manoeuvering unit comes largely from drones, but also “plug&play” technology, and (again) Erector sets.

I keep on saying “largely”. This is because it all actually comes together from everywhere. Literally. Everywhere.

These are not his only ideas, by the way. I think he proposes something new almost every month — either that or a new iteration of a previous idea. Also, he constantly engages with other members of Space Decentral trying to come up with better solutions, schemes and systems.

What piqued your interest to participate in the SMAP and what excites you most about it?

Mikkel’s alter ego, MHPanda — the one we interact with on Riot

Mikkel: SMAP provided me with an opportunity that I have always wanted: the opportunity to participate in something that I love (space), and making it real. How could I not be interested in participating?!

What do you think of the Space Mission Activation Process so far?

Mikkel: So far, so good. It is still a bit early in the process, I think.

I was a little disappointed that my wet workshop heavy launch proposal is likely to be rejected for lack of infrastructure. I submitted this for the category 3 (30-year timeline) slot. If we can’t develop the infrastructure for an HLLV in 30 years, we are not going to be able to compete as a space programme. Even with as little as 10 years of development time we risk being horrendously outpaced.

We need to be realists. But we also need to push ourselves to our limits. We are not going to inspire people by saying “this is too much of a challenge for us”.

Mikkel is referencing the review of his abstract, which offered a few pointers and insights to those who submitted a Notice Of Intent back in September. Although it was considered a bit “larger” than our current capabilities, we think with a few basic changes it could still be a good fit.

You have submitted 3 ideas for the SMAP, can you tell us a little bit about them? How did they occur to you, and what is your vision for them?

Mikkel: Well, first, all three proposals actually come from a single project that I’ve been working on seriously for the past six years (before that, I was developing the project for a series of sci-fi books), working with Build The Enterprise (BTE, which I will talk a little about later on).

I call the project “SMST”, for Standardised Modular Systems Technologies. The inspiration for SMST emerged largely from Erector sets and “Plug&Play” computer peripherals, as well as the CH-54 Tarhe “SkyCrane” (which I am certain must have inspired the Eagle Transporter from Space 1999).

However, my immediate interest at the time was in response to the “Universal Shuttle” suggested by the BTE site. Anything “Universal” is typically shorthand for “compromised to the least useful set of functions”, so I suggested that we (the site) try a “universally adaptable” system, instead.

Rather than attempting to force a single configuration to adapt to all the various mission profiles, the “shuttle” would be composed of modules that could be “plugged” into one another. The configuration would be variable, and the modules would be selected according to the needs of the mission. On the other hand, instead of a separate craft for each individual function on a mission, which would seriously detract from the available payload, many of the actual modules would serve a number of different functions. For example, the same command module would be used to control each configuration; the same basic starter frame would “ground” all the other modular components; etc.

Erector sets have been inspiring kids for generations. Source: https://www.magazine-advertisements.com

The three proposals I outlined reflect three different starter configurations. They also reflect three different scales, which do not easily use the same components. The manoeuvering unit is the most basic application, intended strictly for moving an asset from place to place. From there, the asset (which might or might not be a plugged-in component) would be able to conduct its mission. This is essentially a modular drone, but it could be used to move people (sort of like a motorised skateboard), or satellites.

The craft is the real workhorse. This is very much like the CH-54 Tarhe, except you could swap out rocket thrusters for ducted fan “screws” (if you needed to explore the oceans of Europa), or large ducted fans (to travel through the atmosphere of Mars), or treaded chassis (for land travel), etc. You could also swap out cargo “flatbeds” for pressurised research or transport modules. You could add propellant tanks of various sizes, as needed. You could swap out solar panels for RTGs or nuclear reactors (with the appropriate power conditioners).

With the “wet workshop” HLLV, you have pressurised tanks that can easily be converted to habitat modules. You could launch a single core stack (or compound stacks) as a Single Stage To Orbit craft, converting the modules to space station facilities once in orbit. Alternatively, you could still use the staging principle by strapping on compound cores that would return to Earth for reuse, allowing the central core to carry a greater payload… but, again, the central core would be converted into habitation units… and perhaps reconverted to propellant tanks for interplanetary missions, reconverting them again to habitation as each tank “runs dry” (allowing for increased living space as the mission progresses).

One of the considerations here: I always felt that it was a waste that Apollo had to waste fuel by lifting the mass of heavy thrusters that it would not use until much later in flight (the shuttle did better, in that its main engines were used throughout the launch, “staging” the SRBs; but it did not repurpose the main tank as it could have).

My vision is to have an integrated infrastructure, capable of adapting to any mission needs, with a minimum of sub-infrastructure required to support it. We should be able to assemble an asset for a mission in weeks, not years; assemble a delivery system for that asset in days; be able to reconfigure and/or replace components on the fly; eventually recover that asset and repurpose it for another mission. We should also allow new tech to be incorporated with a minimal effort. Unfortunately, this is assembly, not manufacture. The actual manufacture of components will still take just as much time… but these will be standardised components that can be taken “right off the shelf” when they are needed, available immediately on demand.

Mikkel is actually looking for people to join him in developing the proposals, if you would like to help, reach out to him!

What are your expectations regarding the process?

Mikkel: I am still somewhat in the process of a learning curve. In such situations, I find it useful to keep an open mind, and avoid creating expectations. On paper, the process seems sound, to me, and I prefer to just see how far I can go with it. In a very real way, since this is the first SMAP cycle, I see myself as a kind of explorer/ pioneer/ trailblazer. As I move through the process now, in the company of my fellow SMAP proposers, I will learn what appears to work and not work, which will help me form emergent expectations later on. Hopefully, I will help to set an example that other potential / prospective proposers will be able to follow later on.

What I hope for is an interactive, adaptable process. My proposals might not get off the ground in this first round; or perhaps even in the second, third, or tenth. That is absolutely fine, and perfectly normal (well, maybe not so much for the tenth). However, I am hoping that I get continued feedback, even after selections are made, about how I might improve my approach for later submissions. What did I get right? What did I get wrong? What might I try differently? What was unclear? What can I learn to be a better leader in this effort?

And he is right — that is one of the main goals of the SMAP 2019. It is a pilot process, our first trial of the Space Decentral vision. We have already had a few pushbacks, and I am sure we will have some more in the future, and this first batch of proposers is being extremely patient and helpful. Feedback from the participants is essential to finding our way, and we depend on them more than they can imagine!

What do you think of having the chance to develop and launch your project by working with a team over a social platform?

Mikkel: Incredible. People here are quickly becoming colleagues, and perhaps even friends. Together, I hope we continue to push our boundaries and to do things we might never have thought possible.

I am certain that there are, at the very least, millions of people who share our dreams. Social platforms are a means to bring each other closer together and to better organise our efforts.

We can not do this alone. It is for this reason that such projects have previously required the participation and leadership of government entities. However, now, we have the means to extend ourselves beyond the limitations of such governments.

Is there anything that worries you about this collaborative aspect?

Mikkel: Greed. Apathy. Uncertainty. Insecurity. Lack of confidence… All the normal things that can get in the way of “great endeavours”. I don’t see them here yet, but I have seen enough of them in the past. We are all pioneers, here. We are stepping into the unknown. On the one hand, unless we have a number of billionaires amongst us, collaboration is the only chance we have to succeed. On the other hand, it might not be enough if we do not reach enough people, get them motivated, and get them involved. More importantly, we have to keep them involved.

The problem is, lots of people will want to go in lots of directions. Decentralisation is a powerful tool that helps people feel involved and implicated in the work they do; however, it is not always so good at organising the things that need to get done (it is already rather difficult keeping up with all the various platforms SD uses). DAO appears to be a promising component that could help ensure that we all keep moving forward, but we are walking atop a narrow wall in heavy winds… we have to be very careful in maintaining our balance.

Most of what worries me is my previous experience. SD is not the first collaborative social media effort toward building a space programme, although it incorporates a new approach. A few years ago, I joined BTE (BuildTheEnterpise.org). The creator of the project was an engineer who went through all the numbers, and determined that the construction of a massive (strictly interplanetary, not interstellar) spaceship, inspired by the fictional starship Enterprise, was possible using currently existing technologies.

There was a lot of lively discussion about exactly how it might be accomplished. The problem for BTE was that there was no one to hold us to task. People started dropping out because nothing tangible was ever being done. “BTE-Dan”, himself, very seldom added input, guidance, or any other form of participation.

Mikkel’s CAD drawings for the BTE, a project that envisioned the construction of the fictional starship Enterprise.

In the end, I appear to be the only one of the original staff still hanging on. One of my other projects is an effort to rejuvenate the project, with a new site. I mention all this because, one thing that I have noticed in my experience here is an apparent lack of willingness / interest in participating in (other people’s) projects. Perhaps others are having more luck, but my project “teams” are currently limited pretty much to myself. To have a “collaborative aspect”, we need collaboration.

To be very clear: I think we can DO this. I think we can make this collaborative effort work. But perhaps not everyone is as certain, and perhaps people do not see a clear direction to follow. We NEED to offer people such direction and certainty (while still providing SDs exceptional flexibility), and to keep them involved and feeling involved.

Growing an active community is hard, and I share Mikkel’s concern about the apparent lack of interest. Perhaps we have not publicized it enough though, and that is one of the reasons we are currently running a SMAP marketing campaign. Hopefully, future SMAPs will be sought after, and people will line up to join the proposal teams, but for that, we still need to get this first one right.

How would you convince someone to participate as well?

Mikkel: Short answer: I do my best to set the best example I can. Then, I encourage people to do the best that they can. Perhaps more importantly, I ask for their help. Participation is never a guarantee of success, but lack of participation is a guarantee of failure. I do this because I am working toward the future that I want. There is no reason others can not do the same, and every reason they should try.

I have a motto that I developed for another site I am working on (not yet published), and I think it might be a good one to import here:

Create The Future | Build The Future | Own The Future | Together.

I tie this to another, simpler, motto: strive.

A single step can not get you to your destination, and a single person can not change the world. But, a single step begins the journey, and a single person leads the way. Nothing is accomplished without that step, or that person. Each of us can choose to take that step. Each of us can try to be that person.

*Space Decentral is a decentralized autonomous space agency that leverages blockchain technology to reinvigorate the push for space exploration with global citizens in control. Space Decentral promotes collaborative design of space missions, sharing research for peer review, crowdsourcing science, and crowdfunding worthy projects that accelerate human progress.*