18 thoughts on “Congress Wants To Go To The Moon?”
If they want to go to the moon, then by all means let’s send them there.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
The last time Congress designed a launch vehicle, it was the Small ICBM. Congress directed the Air Force to develop a missile that could carry a single Mark 21 RV to a range of 6,000 nautical miles…and it couldn’t weigh any more than 30,000 pounds (but it also couldn’t use any new technology).
The requirements were incompatible, and everyone working on it knew that. Of course, the laws of physics are considered subordinate to the laws passed by Congress, so the protests were ignored…right up until the actual hardware proved incapable of meeting the spec. As a last ditch attempt to save the program, Congress relieved the weight limit, but refused to provide enough money to reoptimize the missile. Only able to change one stage, the Air Force put all the needed performance in the first stage.
The new missile weighed 37,000 pounds, and had a number of quirks. Perhaps the funniest was that it was the only missile in history whose range decreased with increasing temperature.
When the Berlin Wall fell, George H.W. Bush immediately canceled the program as a gesture of good will. Fortunately, the Russians didn’t realize at the time how empty a gesture it was…
>>Of course, the laws of physics are considered subordinate to the laws passed by Congress,
Bart Simpson for the Senate !
Bart Simpson for the Senate !
“From now on, America shall be known as . . . Bonerville.”
David,
Where’s Ralph Kramden when we need him?
The Politico article seemed to imply that NASA was getting an increase of $3b a year instead of having to redistribute their current budget.
Good article Rand
$3B/year increase is what the 09 Augustine committee report recommended with the alternative of just not doing anything worthwhile beyond Earth orbit, and in that case just stumbling on with the pointless Constellation program. Surprise, surprise, the Congress chose option 2. Just stick your fingers in your ears, make the humming noise and say “I can’t hear you”.
Of course, if Falcon Heavy had been an option back in 09 we probably would have had a very different result from the Augustine committee report for Congress to ignore.
Titus, I hate to tell you but IMHO Bart Simpson is already there. His nom de plume is Al Franken…LOL
Three billion to send Congress to the Moon? Cheap at twice the price. But I don’t support any money to bring them back.
“B” Ark.
WIth a single Falcon Heavy, you could launch all members of Congress as well as their staff into space. Now, that’s without life support or other creature comforts but the point is that SpaceX could do the job for a lot less than $3 billion.
David, George, Larry, Titus, me. Is this the start of the next big wave in political action?
That seems fair Larry. Since congress has never been able to choose a direction and stick with it why should we. Somewhere in the direction of the moon until the fuel and life support as such (how long can you guys hold your breath?) hold out should do nicely.
With as much as those companies in the Politico article spent on lobbying, they could have paid for CCDev1 themselves. Instead, they’ll get billion dollar contracts.
I have to revise my earlier post. A single Falcon Heavy will have approximately the throw weight to carry all 535 members of Congress (535 * 220 pounds each = 117,700 pounds) but not their staffs. That would require additional launches. Now, it’d get mighty crowded putting all of the Congress critters under the payload fairing of an FH. They may not all fit. Other than their heads, the density of your average Congress critter is likely too low to make them all fit under the fairing even if you employed an expert at packing theory to design the configuration. Stack them like cordwood and cram in as many as possible. You wouldn’t need to bother with life support or a capsule (most would likely suffocate before liftoff anyway) because of the fun of seeing them fly in all directions when you blow the fairing at high altitude.
Don’t think of it as the waste of a perfectly good rocket (maybe more than one). Think of it as a public service. We could fund the mission with pay-per-view….
It’s mostly water. Remove the water and you’d have plenty of room to include staff.
Larry J, I think you’re on to something there. Just send the heads, a much simpler task…
If they want to go to the moon, then by all means let’s send them there.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
The last time Congress designed a launch vehicle, it was the Small ICBM. Congress directed the Air Force to develop a missile that could carry a single Mark 21 RV to a range of 6,000 nautical miles…and it couldn’t weigh any more than 30,000 pounds (but it also couldn’t use any new technology).
The requirements were incompatible, and everyone working on it knew that. Of course, the laws of physics are considered subordinate to the laws passed by Congress, so the protests were ignored…right up until the actual hardware proved incapable of meeting the spec. As a last ditch attempt to save the program, Congress relieved the weight limit, but refused to provide enough money to reoptimize the missile. Only able to change one stage, the Air Force put all the needed performance in the first stage.
The new missile weighed 37,000 pounds, and had a number of quirks. Perhaps the funniest was that it was the only missile in history whose range decreased with increasing temperature.
When the Berlin Wall fell, George H.W. Bush immediately canceled the program as a gesture of good will. Fortunately, the Russians didn’t realize at the time how empty a gesture it was…
>>Of course, the laws of physics are considered subordinate to the laws passed by Congress,
Bart Simpson for the Senate !
“From now on, America shall be known as . . . Bonerville.”
David,
Where’s Ralph Kramden when we need him?
The Politico article seemed to imply that NASA was getting an increase of $3b a year instead of having to redistribute their current budget.
Good article Rand
$3B/year increase is what the 09 Augustine committee report recommended with the alternative of just not doing anything worthwhile beyond Earth orbit, and in that case just stumbling on with the pointless Constellation program. Surprise, surprise, the Congress chose option 2. Just stick your fingers in your ears, make the humming noise and say “I can’t hear you”.
Of course, if Falcon Heavy had been an option back in 09 we probably would have had a very different result from the Augustine committee report for Congress to ignore.
Titus, I hate to tell you but IMHO Bart Simpson is already there. His nom de plume is Al Franken…LOL
Three billion to send Congress to the Moon? Cheap at twice the price. But I don’t support any money to bring them back.
“B” Ark.
WIth a single Falcon Heavy, you could launch all members of Congress as well as their staff into space. Now, that’s without life support or other creature comforts but the point is that SpaceX could do the job for a lot less than $3 billion.
David, George, Larry, Titus, me. Is this the start of the next big wave in political action?
That seems fair Larry. Since congress has never been able to choose a direction and stick with it why should we. Somewhere in the direction of the moon until the fuel and life support as such (how long can you guys hold your breath?) hold out should do nicely.
With as much as those companies in the Politico article spent on lobbying, they could have paid for CCDev1 themselves. Instead, they’ll get billion dollar contracts.
I have to revise my earlier post. A single Falcon Heavy will have approximately the throw weight to carry all 535 members of Congress (535 * 220 pounds each = 117,700 pounds) but not their staffs. That would require additional launches. Now, it’d get mighty crowded putting all of the Congress critters under the payload fairing of an FH. They may not all fit. Other than their heads, the density of your average Congress critter is likely too low to make them all fit under the fairing even if you employed an expert at packing theory to design the configuration. Stack them like cordwood and cram in as many as possible. You wouldn’t need to bother with life support or a capsule (most would likely suffocate before liftoff anyway) because of the fun of seeing them fly in all directions when you blow the fairing at high altitude.
Don’t think of it as the waste of a perfectly good rocket (maybe more than one). Think of it as a public service. We could fund the mission with pay-per-view….
It’s mostly water. Remove the water and you’d have plenty of room to include staff.
Larry J, I think you’re on to something there. Just send the heads, a much simpler task…