Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Yes there are "pork" aspects to the Ares I/V plan, but any plan that doesn't address the "pork" IE the constituencies involved, is a non starter and that is simply a political reality. It is the same thing with every government program, not saying it's a good thing it is just a fact.

In some ways the Ares pork is one of it's "good" points in that by satisfying certain political needs it helps insure it's survival (note the "helps" before insure). If all the vehicles involved in whatever architecture was created to fulfill the VSE were built in and launched from Rhode Island at one tenth the cost of the Ares plan that plan who die because it was only pumping a little money into one small state, only RI would want it to survive while TX, CA, NY etc would want it killed.

As for "Direct Launch", which surprisingly I can't recall you ever commenting on very much Rand, the more I read about it the better I like it.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 31, 2006 08:19 AM

Rand, Ares 1/5 may or may not be ill advised, but it is--for reasons I've previously stated--not pork.

I suspect that you would call Direct Launch "pork" too, were it ever to be implemented. Indeed, any your definition, any launch option would be "pork" because it would benefit some state and some district(s).

Posted by Mark R Whittington at October 31, 2006 08:56 AM

Mark,
As I see it, almost all of the valid technical excuses for Ares I/V have been shot down over time. The biggest remaining excuse is "political realities" involved with "maintaing the Shuttle workforce as much as possible". That makes it a jobs program, and jobs programs are pork. Any government expenditure that is made not on it's own merit, but mostly on the number of "jobs" that it will provide in a given state is pork in my book.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at October 31, 2006 09:46 AM

No, Mark. No matter how much fun you have assembling straw men, that's not my definition. My definition is something that is done, or done in a certain way, solely because it benefits a particular district (or small number of districts). As I noted, there are many possible ways to fulfill the VSE. NASA has chosen the Shuttle-derived route not because it's the best way (either in terms of spending the taxpayers' dollars wisely, or in maximizing the probability of program success), but because it's the one that will maintain support of key congressional people whose districts benefit.

It's pork. As has been much of the human spaceflight program since its inception.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 31, 2006 09:49 AM

Rand: So, what, your point is that human spaceflight has always been a jobs program? Fine, then--why are you suddenly lamenting the fact that this is any different? Of course it's a political decision. It's being made by politicians! These people, when you get right down to it, consider the interests of The Country As A Whole to be secondary. And that's entirely correct! They weren't hired to ignore their constituents!

"Well," you say, "but why does the government have to be involved in space at all?" Because commercial space does not work. The aerospace industry has thrown billions of dollars down that rathole (and Loral is about to throw a billion more) and, time and again, the conclusion is the same--there just is not enough value in space to make commercial operations worth putting up there. You can't depend on the private sector to get space rolling, because all you'll get is fads--rich people flying suborbital profiles and experiencing five or six minutes of freefall.

Also, I question your assumption that "not the best" equates to "not worth doing". Aren't you engineers always ranting about how perfect is the enemy of good enough?

Posted by DensityDuck at October 31, 2006 10:35 AM

Rand/Mark,

Pork has a range of possible definitions. Most narrowly, it is funding inserted into an appropriations bill for a specific project in a specific congressional district, aka "earmarks".

Calling any government funding pork is clearly too broad.

What many of us are objecting to re Ares is that Griffin, et al have chosen a technical approach for a number of non-technical reasons.
One of these is the political "sustainability" of using Shuttle-derived hardware.

But another reason for choosing this approach is that NASA engineers are more familiar with this hardware than they are EELV or clean-sheet approaches, and so they more likely to (be competent enough to) succeed at managing the Ares 1/5 development efforts.

I suspect this latter reason was a much bigger factor than the political attractiveness of the former. The latter reason even has some technical merit to it.

Of course, those of us who are capitalists would prefer NASA to use more-commericial (i.e. EELV and eventually Falcon 9) vehicles. But this is definitely politically unwinnable. Because without a need to design semi-new rockets, what would the Marshall Space Flight Center do?

And that is the real heart of the pork issue. Because NASA has 18 thousand public sector and hundres of thousands of contractor jobs in existence, a change in approach towards a more market-driven plan would threaten some/all of those jobs. And Congressmen don't like telling their constituents 'no, i'm not going to try to save your job'.

- Heavy sigh

Posted by WishIcouldusemyname at October 31, 2006 10:40 AM

Rand/Mark,

Pork has a range of possible definitions. Most narrowly, it is funding inserted into an appropriations bill for a specific project in a specific congressional district, aka "earmarks".

Calling any government funding pork is clearly too broad.

I suspect this latter reason was a much bigger factor than the political attractiveness of the former. The latter reason even has some technical merit to it.

- Heavy sigh

Posted by WishIcouldusemyname at October 31, 2006 10:41 AM

So, what, your point is that human spaceflight has always been a jobs program? Fine, then--why are you suddenly lamenting the fact that this is any different?

I'm not doing anything "suddenly." And I'm lamenting the fact that this isn't different, not that it is. Are you saying that I should be happy that it's not different? If not, what are you saying?

"Well," you say, "but why does the government have to be involved in space at all?" Because commercial space does not work.

Really? Hughes would have been very surprised to discover that, given the billions of dollars worth of satellites they built and sold.

The aerospace industry has thrown billions of dollars down that rathole (and Loral is about to throw a billion more) and, time and again, the conclusion is the same--there just is not enough value in space to make commercial operations worth putting up there.

When did that happen? On what planet?

You can't depend on the private sector to get space rolling, because all you'll get is fads--rich people flying suborbital profiles and experiencing five or six minutes of freefall.

Do you have no comprehension of the history of technology development? How do you know that personal space travel is a "fad"? And even if it is, why can't a "fad" get space rolling?

Also, I question your assumption that "not the best" equates to "not worth doing".

I make no such assumption. You seem very confused. Are you sure that you didn't mistakenly post this to my blog, when you were responding to someone else's?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 31, 2006 10:53 AM

Jon - No, they haven't. My impression, not being a rocket scientist, is that every launch system that could be proposed has its tradeoffs. From my vantage point, there are just as many "experts" who support Ares 1/5 as are those who oppose it. So what is a non technical, objective observer to do? Who to believe?

I suspect that even if the Ares 1/5 are not the "optimal" launch system, it will still be good enough to work for the mission defined, which is to return people to the Moon. Opening the Moon up to at lot of other people is another matter.

Rand, I wouldn't disdain Congressional support if I were you. The best conceivable launch system inaginable will never fly if people are not willing to pay for it.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at October 31, 2006 11:54 AM

There is opportunity for commercial Space to outdo the government. Perhaps private industry can come up with a better Orion booster than Ares I.

Posted by Babe in the Universe at October 31, 2006 12:07 PM

I’ll pass on the pork issue, but would like to comment on the direct launch. I wonder if the authors of www.directlauncher.com consulted the Lockheed Martin structural engineers that build the external tank to see if the tank can handle the proposed configuration? Of course the answer is no. I get really tired of seeing paper rockets proclaimed to be the best thing since sliced bread based on a sketch.

When NASA funded a study to determine if the Atlas could be human rated (whatever that means) the conclusion was that you’d almost be better off starting from scratch. Yes, given that information I too wonder what Bigalow has in mind that’s different.

I suspect that after the engineers took a look at the paper rocket on www.directlauncher.com it too would be found to be a complete redesign.

Posted by brian d at October 31, 2006 12:16 PM

When NASA funded a study to determine if the Atlas could be human rated (whatever that means) the conclusion was that you’d almost be better off starting from scratch.

Isn't it funny how a NASA-funded study could come to such a conclusion? You'll be shocked to learn that Lockheed-Martin-funded studies have come to a different one.

Yes, given that information I too wonder what Bigalow has in mind that’s different.

He doesn't have to justify a new SDLV.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 31, 2006 12:34 PM

"it's also clear that the shuttle hardware was never capable of meeting ambitious flight rates"

Isn't the one major component of the Shuttle architecture which made ambitious flight rates impossible, the Shuttle itself, removed from the new design?

Posted by Josh Reiter at October 31, 2006 10:55 PM

"Hughes would have been very surprised to discover that [commercial space doesn't work], given the billions of dollars worth of satellites they built and sold."

Built and sold...at a loss, with the business subsidized by their government work. Don't confuse gross with net, and don't confuse Stupid Accounting Tricks for actual profitability. Lockheed's commercial space business is delivering six A2100 vehicles this year and is showing a massive profit, while at the same time they've cut 25% of their workforce because there is no work for them to do.

Boeing tried commercial-only business; didn't work. Lockheed tried commercial-only business; didn't work. Loral is trying commercial-only business, and I've talked to a number of their engineers who have zero confidence that it's going to work. No commercial customer will ever be willing to pay enough for a subcontractor to profitably build a satellite.

"Do you have no comprehension of the history of technology development? How do you know that personal space travel is a "fad"? And even if it is, why can't a "fad" get space rolling?"

Why hasn't personal space-travel gotten space travel rolling already, then? The Russians certainly don't seem to have a problem with shooting people up there.

""Also, I question your assumption that "not the best" equates to "not worth doing".

I make no such assumption."

You have repeatedly stated that the Ares/Orion program was not the best technical solution. If I'm wrong and you do consider it the best technical solution, then I guess I missed that.

Posted by DensityDuck at November 1, 2006 09:47 AM

Bigelow and LM want to have a robust, safe, reliable, commercial human access to space. Bigelow and LM have done studies that demonstrated Atlas can accomplish the LEO human transportation quite nicely, not only to be commercially "human-qualified" (hat tip to Rand), but also meet Bigelow's Business Plan needs. (Bigelow wouldn't be pursuing Atlas if it wasn't cost effective, not to mention that it exists and has a flight-demonstrated reliability record.)

NASA is pursuing a policy of having 11 healthy Centers.

"It's the jobs, stupid!"

Posted by General at November 1, 2006 01:05 PM

> The biggest remaining excuse is "political realities" involved

Ah, political correctness. The ultimate trump card for bigspending liberals.

Mark and Cecil want us to ignore engineering, economics, mathematics, which are all against them. Instead, they want us to design space systems solely on the basis of political "realities." Realities which they define, of course, and for which they present no more evidence than the fact that they say so.

This is the liberal arts approach to engineering, the modern equivalent of Lysenkoism. Unfortunately, as Lysenko's followers found out, the universe follows its own laws and does not care what pundits consider "politically correct." It's no wonder that their space program has done about as well as Lysenko's plants.

Posted by The Cold Equations at November 1, 2006 01:41 PM

"Cecil want us to ignore engineering, economics, mathematics.."

I never said nor even implied that.

What is your ultimate trump card, lying?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 2, 2006 01:12 PM

> "Cecil want us to ignore engineering, economics, mathematics.."

> I never said nor even implied that.

Then why don't you present your cost calculations to show Rand is wrong, instead of handwaving about political correctness?

If you really have any, that is. So far, all you and Mark have shown is that you think the government has an obligation to fund anything you consider politely correct and ignore people who've done really math.

Posted by Hell is Freezing Over at November 2, 2006 04:44 PM

NASA has done it's own cost calculations, you and I can either agree or disagree with them. But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

If NASA tries to go about fulfilling the VSE in any manner that costs thousands of jobs in key congressional district the plan will fail. That is a matter of economics that you are ignoring. It is also a matter of mathematics you are ignoring, as without political support the votes to continue will not add up.

I don't claim that is a good thing, it is simply an undeniable truth.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 3, 2006 12:40 PM

Hope this is a good place to ask this question.

The Delta IV Heavy places three core stages, each with a single engine, in parallel -- I believe the Atlas Heavy (never launched?) is supposed to do the same thing. What are the human-qualified safety aspects of this?

Shuttle has those two SRBs -- am I to assume that once they are lit they stay lit? One of the whole points of Saturn is that it could tolerate engine shutdowns, at least at points in the flight. The other thing I notice is that all of the engine nozzles on Shuttle -- SRBs as well as SSMEs -- are canted so the thrust lines go through the approximate center of mass of the vehicle.

Can a Delta IV Heavy tolerate an engine shutdown, or would the thing have to be zapped by Range Safety if they lose an engine because 1) the thrust is all along core centerline instead of vehicle CG centerline, and 2) there is no cross pumping of propellant between tanks and engines so a core with a failed engine is just dead weight?

The other thing about Delta IV Heavy (did Aviation Week covered the launch of one or was this a single-core launch?) is that the engine runs hydrogen rich, they set that hydrogen on fire at the launch pad with sparkers to get a controlled burn instead of a pad explosion, this sets the tank insulation on fire, and the tank insulation chars as the vehicle leaves the pad. Is setting the rocket on fire a first? Does this present additional human-rating issues.

The last question is that it is said that the SRBs are very rough riding owing to the nature of combustion in solid rockets. Are the mini-solid rockets that they strap on to a Delta or Atlas as bad, or are they less severe because they are a smaller portion of the total thrust?

I am sure some experts (or engineers and Lockheed or Boeing) have evaluated EELV's for human flight, but can anyone explain whether these architectural features of them (parallel core stages, chared insulation) are showstoppers or not?

Posted by Paul Milenkovic at December 5, 2006 08:18 PM

Hope this is a good place to ask this question.

Sorry, it's not a good place. Or, rather, it's not a good time. It's an old thread, and I don't know the answer to your question absent research, and no one else is following it..

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 5, 2006 08:32 PM

Post a comment