From John Kavanaugh:
“…capable of lifting at least 75 metric tons — should be largely derived from shuttle systems and likely would use solid rocket boosters…”
Space launch design by committee.
I can’t imagine the Pentagon’s reaction if the Senate Armed Services Committee specified that the Joint Strike Fighter must be derived from F-16 heritage hardware, must use a low bypass turbofan that requires JP-6 jet fuel and must have a minimum pounds-specific weapons capacity – and don’t even think about dividing that minimum amount of armaments across more than one aircraft!
Just another example that NASA’s enablers in Congress could care less about results-driven spaceflight. This is just a jobs program.
The committee should stop pretending that we’re all fools and just legislate honestly: NASA funding must deliver a minimum jobs quota in Texas, Alabama and Florida – or else.
That’s what this Congressional rocket design is all about anyway.
That’s the way it will be as long as it’s a government-funded program in a democracy.
I should add that while this congressional “compromise” is going to waste a good bit of money, it’s not “restoring the Program of Record.” All that remains of Constellation is Orion, and that existed before Constellation, except it was called the Crew Exploration Vehicle.
I can honestly say that I believe–strongly–that if those who have power (be that power political in source or comes from the ability to use the means of media) were told today that a new space age could be had, and with little effort, but that they themselves would not benefit personally from it (or even worse–that they would be either hurt, or would have a new competitor for power)—well , I believe they would stop that new age if they could; especially if they viewed the creators of that new age as potential political rivals or threats to their power.
The British profited from the Industrial Revolution because they did not protect the economic losers. The laws as written allowed the winners to advance, and so did Britain–because it held true to its system (despite pressure to not do so).
And what’s with this “75 metric tons” stuff. If your going there why not 100 good old American tons! And if we really need a large booster why not just bring back the Saturn V. It had a great safety record and to start making it again, even with rebuilding the supply base, would have to cost far less than engineering something new.
No kidding. This is totally stupid. But the “must be based on whatever” political rigmarole is actually sort of common.
Remember the F/A-18 Super Hornet? It is mostly a new plane, different from the F/A-18 Hornet. An F-14 replacement. But calling it by the same number designation as the older and smaller F/A-18 made it pass through the politicians better. It even looks like a scaled up F/A-18. If you do not compare them side by side, it seems like a minor design change.
The military has also wanted to replace the M16 rifle for a long time, for something less maintenance heavy. Try looking at the HK416 assault rifle. It looks like an M16 rifle from the outside, but the actual firing mechanism is the same as in the German G36. The reason why it doesn’t look like a G36? If the politicians see an assault rifle which looks even somewhat different from an M16 the project is usually canned.
The USMC wants to replace their M16 rifles so badly, they have upped the ante even more. They are trying to pass the HK M27 rifle as a M249 SAW replacement. Which is silly, if you look at the actual hardware the M27 is not designed for the same sustained sustained rate of fire as an M249.
Other interesting names are:
– the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser” which is actually an aircraft carrier. The class designation is like that because according to some treaty carriers cannot pass the Bosphorus strait. So the Russians just named their carriers cruisers.
– the Japanese Hyuga class “helicopter destroyer” which is actually an helicopter carrier (convertible to a light aircraft carrier). The reason for naming it destroyer? Carriers are considered offensive weapons according to the Japanese Constitution, so the JMSDF cannot have any.
“why not just bring back the Saturn V”
Cause we can do better today.. unfortunately it looks like Congress won’t let them do so.
Hint: Methane.
That’s the way it will be as long as it’s a government-funded program in a democracy.
Yep, exactly.
As I have been saying for years, New Space needs revenue streams that do not first pass through Uncle Sugar’s digestive system.
Godzilla, that’s been going on for a long time. The F84F was originally to be the F95 and it has little in common with any other F84 variant(the swept wings for one). The Brits had aircraft carriers after they got rid of aircraft carriers. They called them “through deck cruisers” and used them to good effect in the Falklands.
Unfortunately, saying that the lifter should be largely derived from shuttle systems (particularly if solids) means largely shuttle derived added costs as well. Instead we could get the 70T lifter from using Delta 4 tooling sizes with Atlas V -type, kerosene propulsion for a whole lot less cost in development and operations.
The only thing that counts is pork. This is like the government requiring in 1950 that computers be derived from Eniac systems, since after all they’re proven, right?
As I have been saying for years, New Space needs revenue streams that do not first pass through Uncle Sugar’s digestive system.
Yes, you’ve long pretended to be concerned about the well-being of New Space while advocating the revenue streams continue to flow as they have for the past thirty years.
Instead we could get the 70T lifter from using Delta 4 tooling sizes with Atlas V -type, kerosene propulsion for a whole lot less cost in development and operations.
Absolutely true, but that still would do little to get us closer to CATS. Of course, once you get NASA out of the launch business cooler heads could prevail and decide cheap lift was more important than heavy lift.
Godzilla,
You dont’ know what you are talking about. The F/A-18 has a longer fuselage (a plug insert) and larger area wing, and trapezoidal intakes, but thats about it.
However, what you say is nothing new. The F-106 was originally called the F-102B. Both F-102A and F-106 aircraft are very similar except for length and the F-106 fuselage is area ruled to enable Mach 2 flight.
Secondly, the US Military has not used the M16 in many years. The primary assault weapon of the American solder is an M4A1, which looks like an M-16 but has a lot of differences.
Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is considered moribund and headed for the scrap yard. Virtually all of its ships are considered to be unsailable by 2015, and there are as of 2010 zero new ships scheduled to be delivered any time in the next decade. The Russian ship building industry is quite incapable of rebuilding this fleet, despite Russia just inking a deal to extend the lease on the Sevastopol base until 2042 by giving Ukraine a 30% discount on gas prices.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/varyag.asp
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/02/news/mn-64633
Your claim about the Kuznetsov is also false. The Turks wouldn’t let the *unpowered* hull (the ship was only 70% complete) through the Bosporus because it had no propulsion and was a hazard to shipping.
The Chinese had to pay Turkey a million dollars “bond” to get permission to let it through, when they bought it from Urkaine.
The Kuznetsov class is called an aircraft carrier.
The Bosporus has dedicated aircraft carrier anchorages at either end. The USS Enterprise has passed through the Bosporus in the past, and nobody has ever tried to claim that it is a cruiser.
The real situation is that the 1938 Montreux Convention governs passage of ships through the Bosporus. Under that Convention, Russia is entitled to pass its entire Black Sea Fleet (including aircraft carriers) through the Bosporus into the Mediterranean *DURING PEACETIME* but not during wartime. Nations outside the Black Sea are permitted a maximum of 45,000 gross tonnage of warships (total, not per ship) into the Black Sea except during wartime. If Turkey is at war they are permitted to close it to all warships of all other nations.
So there is no reason for the Kuznetsov to be named an “aircraft carrying cruiser”, as the Montreux Convention doesn’t recognise that as anything special and has no prejudice against different classes of naval warships, it is purely based on gross tonnage.
[if] they themselves would not benefit personally from it
Very cynical… and very likely correct. They all seem to have just one principle… themselves. Our responsibility as citizens is to correct that when we can. They’re job is to do all they can to talk about the will of the people while doing all they can to stop it.
If people had a clue how they’ve held back progress… tar and feather would be the most humane route. Taking the microcosm that is NASA, fuel depots are such a no brainer they should have become a priority July 21, 1969. Imagine, Saturn V with refueling? It might have spurred progress in the private sector long before SpaceX.
Mike,
Not to get off on a tangent here, but the military has used the M16 (and its A1 and A2 variants) almost continuously since the 1960s, and continues to do so today. Yes, the M4A1 (which uses the save receiver, bolt, etc.) is also used, but the M16/A1/A2 (and more importantly the 5.56 mm round and associated unreliable action same as the M4A1) is still being used. As for the F/A-18E/F, Zilla is much closer to the mark than you are. From electronics, to fuselage (if you look at the tail assemblies closely, you will see what I mean), and engines (not to mention fuel storage) it is almost an entirely different plane than the C/D models, but shares the same designation to get it by congress (and primarily the ‘crats auditing the programs) and get a replacement to its short-legged predecessor.
This isn’t entirely irrelevant, as it is an example of ‘the exception that proves the rule’. Calls to replace the M16 (which in fairness, has been drastically improved, particularly in the A2 revision) have come primarily from the civilian sector, but the military bureacracy has steadfastly refused to seriously consider an alternative. The replacements that have gotten as far as they have are largely due to the efforts of some congressmen, often in the teeth of some of the ‘crats.
Hey, nobody can be wrong ALL the time…Hitler built the autobahns, after all, and it seems that Obama can at least point to his space policy…
Isn’t this the old “an elephant is a mouse, built to government specs” routine? Not in size obviously, but, yet again, in foolishness / accuracy / knowledge of the problem / ability to complete a project quickly and efficiently / time and money WASTED.
I could go on, but we all know the drill.
The committee should stop pretending that we’re all fools and just legislate honestly: NASA funding must deliver a minimum jobs quota in Texas, Alabama and Florida – or else.
That would actually be better, since they could do that without screwing up prospects for cheap lift.
This is pretty much what the most optimistic of us expected the end result could be:
– The bulk of the budget would go to some large paper program for a heavy lifter. In that case, I actually like that it is being designed by Congress – that makes it all the more likely never to lift off, and all the more certain to not be competitive when an actual market demand causes commercial companies to compete.
– There will be modest but real funding for commercial human space. It’s clear NASA can’t do it even to Congressrats, and the alternative is to continue to rely on Russians. At least one, and probably two, commercial manned capsules will be funded to completion until and unless the manned space program is cancelled altogether.
– Orion is the part I could not have predicted, and the part I expect to be on the most tenuous life support. Hopefully, if it is funded at all, it will be at minimal levels that make it just something of a continuing resolution until the contractor decides to turn it into an accounting project. Orion does more damage by competing with commercial human launch providers than it could ever do taking budget dollars away from them.
– I haven’t gone over them, but I don’t think the numbers will add up. It sounds like Shelby et al. managed to get even more of the commercial crew budget transferred to pork. I hope the technology program budget is what it was transferred to, but my gut feeling is that the numbers don’t add up for that. More likely, it goes to the usual suspects.
So, the opening salvo from Obama was better than expected, and this is the most we could really expect from actual policy.
Again, thats pork-rated space launch vehicle, if there ever was one.
Actually, that example is more sensible than the actual Joint Strike Fighter requirements.
Bureaucrats and politicians simply don’t think the same way as engineers, Karl. Then again, if they did think like engineers, they wouldn’t become bureaucrats or politicians in the first place…
Robber baron would be a fairly accurate description for these politicians.
The politicians that understand space are going to be part of the new congress (150 yrs. from now) that live there.
> S. Wallace Says: July 10th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
> I can honestly say that I believe–strongly–that if
> those who have power (be that power political in
> source or comes from the ability to use the means of
> media) were told today that a new space age could be
> had, and with little effort, but that they themselves
> would not benefit personally from it (or even worse–that
> they would be either hurt, or would have a new competitor
> for power)—well , I believe they would stop that new age
> if they could; ===
You just described NASA’s reaction to CATS and the DC-X.
Really though this is consistent with what the Senate has been sayig for years. They want NASA programs tied to definate major milestones, not just amorphous technology development projects, and they supported the VSE going to the moon idea – just wern’t happy with the waste and inflated budget. Killing Ares-I and delaying Altair saves tens of billions, and buys them some time.
Frankly I’m more interested in Nelsons frequently stated “at least” one more shuttle flight. 1 more they can do out of spares – more then that implies restarting suply chains for a long duration. That could be one way to close the gap – extend shuttle?