Slashdot Mirror
Senators Want Big Rocket Instead of New Tech, Commercial Transportation
FleaPlus writes "Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation are drafting a bill (due this week) which slashes NASA technology development/demonstrations, commercial space transportation, and new robotic missions to a small fraction of what the White House proposed earlier this year. The bill would instead redirect NASA funds to 'immediate' development of a government-designed heavy lift rocket, although it's still unclear if NASA can afford a heavy lifter in the long term or if (with the new technology the Senators seek to cut, like in-space refueling) it actually needs such a rocket. The Senators' rocket design dictates a payload of 75mT to orbit, uses the existing Ares contracts and Shuttle infrastructure as much as possible, and forces use of the solid rocket motors produced by Utah arms manufacturer ATK."
As I said, pork. The senators behind this set specfic requirements that demand their constituent's plants and factories get the money. It has nothing to do with practicality or being cost effective. It's just Pork. In its purest and most disgusting form.
I can see why DoD would want to keep the solid rocket companies in business, because those same companies also build and replace ICBMs. But surely DoD can figure out a way to pay to keep those companies in business without forcing NASA to go with solid rocket boosters.
Solid rockets are a good choice when you need to keep a rocket in storage for a while (like an ICBM hopefully), but for an active launch program it is a little less clear why you would go with solid fuel since they make lots more pollutants when you burn them.
The moon race had nothing to do with nuking Moscow with an ICBM. The missiles needed to put a warhead on Moscow existed before the Moon Race was announced.
The LGM-30A Minuteman-I was first test-fired on 1 February 1961
UGM-27 Polaris was test launched from a U.S. Navy submarine on July 20, 1960 and deployed by July 28, 1960
The SM-62 Snark was deployed in 1958.
Kennedy established the manned landings on the Moon as a national goal on May 25, 1961
Some of the early X33 work had a lot of potential, and I remember reading about how the rocket nozzle work could be qualified as a major breakthrough. But it got scrapped.
The X-33 still has a lot of potential! Lockmart is still funding its own development the reusable lifting-body concept based on the X-33, there has been significant progress with the most difficult technical issue (i.e. developing a composite material capable of making cryogenic tanks with complex shapes), and there was any serious technology issue with the linear areospike engine (they just lacked a vehicle to put it in, once the X-33 funding wasn't renewed). IMHO, it's potentially game-changing technologies and lifters like X-33 and the DC-X that NASA's R&D resources should be focused on, instead of the the Ares program. If most of the personnel and money that was used to support the now probably-defunct Ares was instead used to continue development on the DC-X and X-33, we would have learned a lot more (even learning what doesn't work is of some value) and maybe even gotten one or two revolutionary launch vehicles out of it.
I believe stepping forward and making a rare political statement against the Obama plan.
"Obama's proposal stunned U.S. space heroes Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan -- the first and last men to walk on the moon -- who, along with Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell, made a rare public statement denouncing the plan as a "devastating" scheme that "destines our nation to become one of second- or even third-rate stature."
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/NASA_s-new-mission_-Building-ties-to-Muslim-world-97817909.html#ixzz0tVAIqgwT"
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.