Slashdot Mirror
Utah vs. NASA On Heavy-Lift Rocket Design
FleaPlus writes "Utah congressmen Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett, Rob Bishop, and Jim Matheson issued a statement claiming that NASA's design process for a new congressionally-mandated heavy-lift rocket system may be trying to circumvent the law. According to the congressmen and their advisors from solid rocket producer ATK, the heavy-lift legislation's requirements can only be met by rockets utilizing ATK's solid rocket boosters. They are alarmed that NASA is also considering other approaches, such as all-liquid designs based on the rockets operated by the United Launch Alliance and SpaceX. ATK's solid rockets were arguably responsible for many of the safety and cost problems which plagued NASA's canceled Ares rocket system."
It's always a shame when the law gets in the way of science. If it didn't, I would probably have six testicles by now due to cloning.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what lobbyist wrote that clause of the bill...
in the morning.
So... if I understand correctly, what's actually happening here is that a Utah company claims that NASA cannot meet the legal requirements by using the competition's designs, and the various Utah congressmen are joining in the chorus to support that Utah company.
Company discredits competitors, congressmen support their state's industry. Surprising? Hardly.
The solid rocket boosters have always seemed to be the most dangerous piece of the "stack". The problem is, YOU CAN't SWITCH THEM OFF. Because of this, I believe there is literally no way out for the shuttle crew while they are firing. I think Wehrner Vom Braun refused to design man rated vehicles with a solid rocket stage (he mustn't have been responsible for the Redstone I guess). Even the Russians used liquid fueled strap-on boosters in their Buran.
Of course if the shuttle had been properly funded it would've had a liquid first stage (maybe even winged so it could fly back). But that was in an alternate universe I guess. I know that Constellation would've had an escape tower that would be (hopefully) be able to pull it away from the main vehicle but still it would be much safer if the main vehicle's engines were OFF at that point.
A law to dictate which supplier to use? That sounds like something from soviet Russia.
Every time I think I remotely understand the US something shows that doesn't make sense.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!
Hatch and Bennett are the two US Senators from Utah, while Bishop represents Utah's 1st District (most of northern Utah) and Matheson represents Utah's 2nd District (most of Southern and Southeastern Utah), the latter two in the US House of Representatives. (The western portion of Utah forms the 3rd House District, represented by Jason Chaffetz. No word on why he didn't sign on with everyone else.)
How about strapping the people who made this dumb law to them, then shooting them off into low earth orbit? Or, better still, just _short_ of low earth orbit :)
We got bought by this rocket manufacturer right here and we promised them that, with our legislation, they'd get all the business from NASA. Now, NASA is tossing a monkey wrench into the whole works because they want to consider other rocket manufacturers, and our feet are being held to the fire to deliver on what we promised. We can't let NASA just select any old rocket manufacturer or we'll end up in cement shoes at the bottom of the ocean.
ATK lobbied for the laws, and now NASA is trying to circumvent the laws (read: circumvent ATK's monopoly), so ATK's bought congressmen are crying foul to preserve ATK's profits. All is well in capitalist America.
Regulation and red tape is seriously hampering the space program. We need to cut back on that. Unfortunately that won't happen until pigs fly.
Dumb laws and dumb servants block progress towards new ideas.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
If the people in Utah are happy, what does it matter what the other 49 states think of them?
That's what freedom is all about.
Of course if Utah came begging for a bailout, like what Greece and Ireland did in the EU, then I suggest we tell them "too bad" and let them figure it out by themselves. Same goes for California, New York, or any other state that overspent beyond their means. But overall I think Utah has been well-behaved and limited spending, and therefore doesn't deserve the criticism you aim at them.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
From the Release:
The language Hatch was successful in getting inserted in the NASA Authorization Act does not require the new heavy-lift rocket to use solid rocket motors. But delegation members say the Utah experts they consulted say the legislation’s requirements for the heavy-lift rocket can only be realistically met by using solid rocket motors.
If NASA said "We're going with liquid fuel boosters." they would not be violating the law.
Even if NASA told ATK "Go to hell... We'll buy our rocket motors from someone else", they would not be violating the law.
The only way they'll be breaking the law is if they fail to come up with *some* method of making it work within their budget.
And gee, what a surprise that the stonecutters are telling everyone that stone bridges are the only feasible way to get a ton of lentils across the creek.
And with those designs come terra-based launch assistance, which can (not so easily) be accommodated by hydroelectric, tidal, or nuclear power.
Our atmosphere is the big problem, here. Maybe we can design something to disrupt and push the atmosphere out of the way to make friction less of an issue towards launching in the future.
Still gotta fight gravity, though.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Let's use this motto from now on, please NASA?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
If the people in Utah are happy, what does it matter what the other 49 states think of them? That's what freedom is all about.
Of course if Utah came begging for a bailout, like what Greece and Ireland did in the EU, then I suggest we tell them "too bad" and let them figure it out by themselves. Same goes for California, New York, or any other state that overspent beyond their means. But overall I think Utah has been well-behaved and limited spending, and therefore doesn't deserve the criticism you aim at them.
In 2005 (the last year I could easily find number for) CA received 79 cents of federal spending for every federal tax dollar paid, NY was 78 cents and Utah was $1.07. To give you some framework for those numbers, CA works out to have sent ~$286,627,000,000 to the Federal Government, and received ~$242,023,000,000 dollars worth of federal funding. A disparity of 44 billion.
Who's bailing out who exactly?
I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
...because the engineers are trying to figure out a way around one of his pet earmarks!
I recall, from reading Aviation Week as a wee lad (my dad was a guidance systems engineer), that the then-senators from Utah managed to get the SRBs for the Space Shuttle (mostly) built in Utah. The preferred design was a one-piece booster, built in Alabama, barged around to Florida, but because it was built in Utah and could not travel by barge, it was instead built in segments, with O-rings between the segments. O-rings, that get hard in the cold weather, and leak gasses.
I've been trying to confirm this for years, because hey, I could have remembered it wrong, but decades-old back issues of Aviation Week are still not online in searchable form.
Just add amendments to the laws of gravity, aerodynamics and celestial mechanics and the whole rocket design process will become much easier. Surely the utah legislature can manage that, can't they? (and while they're at it, sort out Pi, too?)
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Oh, NASA, NASA, when will you learn? You keep trying to make spacecraft, when as we all know your job is to build precision pork delivery vehicles.
As I recall, the reason the boosters were not a safer one-piece design was because Hatch had to have Morton Thiokol in Utah get the contract. MT could only build them in segments using the questionable O-ring joints because a whole booster could not be shipped from Utah to Florida.
Seven people would still be alive today if Hatch had kept his sanctimonious oinky nose out of NASA's engineering process.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
After the disaster in 1986, everyone knew about the role of Utah's senators in the disaster - but as you say, it's hard to find now. Between the fact that much data from that era was never put online, and possibly some gaming of search results to steer searchers elsewhere, I don't see anything now. I imagine that certain rocket companies in Utah would prefer that no one knew about that.
Anyway, it was common knowledge at the time.
it's not like this is rocket science or anything...
oh, wait a minute... what?
Steve -- If you have to call it a system, you don't know what it is.
If everyone knows that all politicians are corrupt and anti-democratic, then why do we never do anything about it?
Because power and corruption are like radioactivity. Those who want to change things in government are slowly infected as they get closer to power. Once they get elected to a lower office it has already started changing their DNA. By the time they get into a real office or position with power they too are corrupt.
I would have used a car analogy, but the only one I could think of involved changing a timing belt and that would have led to another argument about metric vs standard/imperial.
Well you could set off an atomic bomb and follow up behind the shockwave as it pushes the air out of the way, ride the wave of air created by the rising fireball, or you could just let the atomic bomb push you into orbit. Wait, I've read that somewhere before...
Now how much of that $287 billion was paid by the top 1% of income earners. Sure, THEY are paying way more than they receive in services. But to extend that to the entire state, including the poor who vote Democrat?? It's ridiculous.
Really? Weren't experimental new technologies the whole point of the space program? Wasn't national security being at stake the whole reason the space program dared to do something farther, faster, and bigger than anyone had ever done before? These congressional idiots have literally lost touch with reality and the spirit of exploration and innovation, which is what made this country great. Thanks Utah for voting these morons in...
"According to the congressmen and their advisors from solid rocket producer ATK, the heavy-lift legislation's requirements can only be met by rockets utilizing ATK's solid rocket boosters. They are alarmed that NASA is also considering other approaches, such as all-liquid designs based on the rockets operated by the United Launch Alliance and SpaceX."
No, they're alarmed that the corporation that fluffed Orrin won't be getting the kickbacks he promised them. Fuck Orrin Hatch. Fuck him right in his mouth. Repeatedly.
It isn't an export but the Skiing in Utah is some of the best on the planet
I guess the election is over and Republicans don't have to play pretend anymore.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Hey, wait, you're considering designs that don't mandate using boosters built by a specific contractor based in our state? That can't be legal.
Too bad we can't vote to recall senators from other states.
The pork must flow.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Back when Wernher Von Braun created the Saturn 5, he was given the freedom to design the BEST rocket for the job. And that rocket put 12 men on the surface of the moon.
When they built the space shuttle, they made compromises in its design in order to ensure companies located in key congressional districts got contracts and as a result, the Shuttle Challenger blew up and killed 7 people. (I have no clue if the aforementioned design compromises were responsible for Columbia)
The politicians need to leave NASA alone and let NASA buy and fly the BEST rocket for the job. Regardless of whether that rocket is made by ATK, Boeing, SpaceX, the Russians or some guys on a sheep station in the Australian Outback. And they need to get out of the way of the private space industry and let it thrive, only getting involved in so far as ensuring that 3rd parties and their property are not harmed/damaged and that the work done by these space companies is not turned into nuclear missiles aimed at downtown DC.
crony capitalism = crapitalism
As in "the crap always trickles down"
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Next reality TV show: "Vote them off the planet!" With a suspense scene - One-way or... Return.
;) ).
Even if you don't actually send the "one-way" winners unless they volunteer to pay for return fare (with a potentially embarrassing interview), I'm sure many would be happy to pay to vote (or even vote more than once
Next, "Launching up the Stars"...
We need to elect people who will continue to drive this country in the same direction as Bush and Obama. Full speed ahead and damn the people. Only then will we get or revolution.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Now that would impress the ladies.
See, this is what happens when your business relies entirely on massive government contracts. You lobby congress, and buy legislators to make sure you keep getting them.
that with Mitt Romney running in 2012, they are kicking into high gear for sales as part of an effort to increase his campaign contributions.
Is it true that all Utah state employees will be required to wear these starting in January 2012?
If Utah lives beyond its means and California doesn't, then who cares who pays the taxes? Seriously, what difference does it make to anyone?
And what the hell does anyone voting for any particular party have to do with this? Nothing, that's what: taxes in both states apply to voters of both of your big parties, so don't add any needless party politics here.
No, thats incorrect. The law is there for several good reasons; It just happens there is only 1 supplier of the technology. With funding I could star another company creating the same technology and compete.
The is a gross misrepresentation of the law and it's intent.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This is why for all their platitudes and supposed small government aims that I will not vote for Republicons. The Dems are guilty too. But the republicons lie more when they claim small government. They want all the low taxes in the world (to help subsidize their industries) and then whey get a chance they use the government to step in subsidize business even when its not in the best interest of the country or in this NASA. They block out competition which is anti-competitive behavior and has nothing to do with the "free market" economics that the republicans claim to uphold. They are all liars the whole bunch of them. Duplicitious, greedy liars who only support their own company and their own aims. The only reason they don't want any regulations is so they can make a faster buck and take more public money for themselves and their own corrupt corporations. Many will argue loudly. The more loudly they argue the less any should listen to them. All their bunch with the tea partiers, haters, homophobes, corporate welfare state mergers, Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs and other literalists are a bunch of crazy, lunatic, psychopathic fascists. Cast them out and ignore them. They are self delusional and out of control. Well, my vote didn't go for them. Good day.
I never understood why people keep bothering tossing around those numbers. Those dollars aren't paid by the state, but rather are paid by the businesses and individuals within the state. Since those tax rates aren't well linked to standard of living rates (which is significantly higher in New York and California), and people in California and New York tend to earn higher salaries to make up for the higher standard of living, it is only logical that those states would end up sending more money to the Federal government since they are more likely to hit the higher tax brackets.
It's not Utah's fault that people can live on 35k a year when it would require 70k or more a year to have the same lifestyle in New York or California.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The rich also vote Democrat to at least as great a degree as the poor.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You mean the top 1% who are wealthy because of everyone else's labor? How dare they be asked to give back to society
Tax Breaks for companies keeping permanaent stations in orbit and lunar bases.
Just say that any company that can man a permanent lunar base with an increasing number of astronauts ever year has to pay no taxes on earth.
Lockheed and Boeing and maybe even SpaceX would have permanent lunar bases on the moon so fast it would make your head spin.
The taxes you wouldn't collect would probably even be less than the extra money we throw at NASA every year, win-win.
Make the moon a tax shelter and watch the human race expand into the solar system.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Now how much of that $287 billion was paid by the top 1% of income earners. Sure, THEY are paying way more than they receive in services.
Okay, I'll bite.
What is the correct tax rate for the rich then so that they only pay for the service they actually receive? How do you calculate this number?
If you can't make a supportable estimate then you are blowing smoke when you imply the rich are "over taxed". Note the simple existence of a progressive tax system in which those who have more pay more (the rule everywhere in the world - ours is one of least progressive) does not demonstrate this supposed "over-taxing".
Recall that without a strong state-level economic infrastructure (roads, water, power, law enforcement, educated work force, etc., etc.) it is impossible for businesses and the individuals the own them (outright or through stock) to be successful.
A nice actual study of this issue for businesses which is updated annually is the one by Ernst & Young: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Total-state-and-local-business-taxes-March-2010/$FILE/Total-state-and-local-business-taxes-March-2010.pdf
On pg. 8 you will see that California has one of the most favorable business tax receipt vs business benefiting expenditures in the nation. If education expenses are entirely excluded then only 5 states do better than California, and if half of education costs are allocated to the business support column (educated workforce and all) then California's spending ratio is actually in businesses' FAVOR (a ratio of 0.97).
But to extend that to the entire state, including the poor who vote Democrat?? It's ridiculous.
So why is it reasonable to treat the rich as an exploited demographic group and not a state? "Ridiculous" is not an argument. The point is some states are subsdidizing the economies of other states. That is a fact.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
According to the congressmen and their advisors from solid rocket producer ATK...
Wow, I've never seen lobbyist spelled that way before.
#include <signature.h>
What would he do without his Pork?
The weird thing is, his heavily Mormon population state, Utah, has typical Semitic-Judeo-Christian fundamentalist prohibitions on Sexuality, Caffeine, and Alcohol, but unfortunately, NOT PORK.
Personally, since Orrin Hatch has suggested that RIAA companies have the right to hack into my computer and destroy it; without any warrant, probable cause, judicial oversight, or any state-backed law enforcement, (basically, having a big, fascist, caca-smearing-eating-fetish party all over the Bill of Rights), I have zero sympathy for Orrin Hatch, or the idiot people of Utah who keep re-electing him. Utah is a state, that as far as I'm concerned, can secede back to the freaking stone age where they belong. They deserve no rights, and no federal dollars, and no benefits of modern science.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You mean short of a bloody revolt.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
the heavy-lift legislation's requirements can only be met by rockets utilizing ATK's solid rocket boosters
The military-industrial-congressional complex in all its glory. The point is to transfer money to specific highly influential businesses. The rest is pure bullshit.
How about the money the FBI spent chasing after that crazy polygamist guy (who is by definition no longer mormon, as the mormon church supports following local laws)
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
No, Comrade! You are wrong! They are our valiant national heroes, struggling against terrorism and injustice! Fighting for freedom, liberty, small government, a balanced budget, and prosperity for all! There aims are true, their spirit is noble! They know that by enriching Job Creators, Investors, and Patriots, the rest of us will soon have a chicken in every pot, affordable health care, and a pension on which to retire. Support the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the War on Socialism, the War on Taxes for Job Creators and Investors, the War on Gay Marriage, the War on Anyone Who Isn't an Evangelical Christian, the War on People With Too Much Melanin, the War On People Who Want to Get Rid of Lobbyists, and all of the great and patriotic wars they fight in our name!
Why should the federal government "give the state back its land" when the state never owned the land in the first place?
These politicians are from Utah and they are stealing for the people of Utah. You don't vote out the crooks when they are your crooks.
ohh damn, you got flamebaited by the Utahian committee!
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
While that's not a wholly unworthy point, it is rather dodging the issue. It doesn't matter here why those numbers are, it matters that they are.
It seems to me that the big problem most (I use most advisedly, see below) people have with the California bailout boils down to, "They spent themselves into a hole and how they want some of MY money to get out of it!"
The original bailout request maid in January 2010 was for 6.9 billion. Which does sound like a lot of money, until you see those 286 billion and 44 billion numbers.
Let me throw a couple more numbers out there:
In 2005, the total Federal revenue was 2,153 billion, which means that California's contribution of 286 billion amounted to 13.3% of the Federal revenues...by far and away the greatest single contributor to the Federal revenues.
(I saw a number go by in my research, and I ask you to take it with a grain of salt because I didn't research how it was arrived at, that NY was second with 184 billion, or 8.5%...again, that exact number could be wrong, but I do know California was on top.).
Now, back when I was a California resident, I quite happily paid my federal taxes, even knowing that most of it was going to go elsewhere, and help people from other states...because it was still helping people (minus the pork barrel, of course, but if you haven't come to terms with that, we've got bigger issues.). But when California needed a little help (and I don't feel I'm exaggerating TOO much to call even 6.9 billion "a little help", given the other numbers.) "Screw you, you can't have my money!"? W. T. F?
Now, there is a slightly more valid argument running around, which is that the bailout won't really fix things. That's absolutely true, it's a bandaid, designed to keep the state from going broke in order to give them enough time for 1) the budget to be juggled and 2) the recession to clear a little bit more. I can't see, however, that preventing the state government of almost 37 million people from going bankrupt is a bad thing...except, of course, that it's "dirty hippie Californian freeloaders.".
I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
Bravo.
I was trying to decide how exactly to respond to this, and you did a much better job than I could have hoped to...If it weren't for the fact that I 1) don't have any mod points and 2) have already posted, I would be happily allotting you one.
I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
That really doesn't address the fact that California doesn't pay those taxes from their treasury. They're just collected from within the state. You could make the argument that if the Federal government did not collect the taxes, the state of California would be free to instead collect them. However, the state of California could still always raise taxes to cover that deficit, barring any sort of Constitutional prohibition. So only if you could conclusively prove that the state of California would have collected all of the taxes the Federal government collected for the state then trying to suggest that the Federal government should bailout California because of how much was collected from the state is a bad argument since the problem would still exist.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
>>>Who's bailing out who exactly?
As I recall, I said that ALL these states deserve to be criticized, if they ask for a bailout. California AND Utah.
Also your numbers are skewed because a lot of that money directed to Utah, Wyoming, and other rural states actually goes toward the U.S.-owned property called national parks and military zones. The state or its citizens don't ever see the money.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Your argument is a non-starter for two reasons.
First, A lot of the money that goes to federal land is used for hiring people to look after it (which goes to that state), buying the equipment needed to look after it (which goes to the state it was sold in), and building the structures needed for it (which again goes to that state.).
Second, of the states that are in the top ten in terms of total federal land area owned, half of them, NV, CA, OR, WA and CO, are net "donors" to the federal government. Now, I'm willing to grant that Nevada is a special case, but I would also argue that so is Alaska, so if we strike them, (numbers 1 and 2 on the list, incidentally.). We're still left with half of the states with the most federal land being able to STILL contribute more than they receive.
Oh, and just by the by, number three on the list? That's California.
I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
Okay, I'll bite.
What is the correct tax rate for the rich then so that they only pay for the service they actually receive? How do you calculate this number?
It's not nice to bite. I don't think many people (and certainly not me) are pushing for a 100% pay as you go government. I suppose it could be done by charging taxpayers for services as they use them, like toll roads and stuff.
If you can't make a supportable estimate then you are blowing smoke when you imply the rich are "over taxed". Note the simple existence of a progressive tax system in which those who have more pay more (the rule everywhere in the world - ours is one of least progressive) does not demonstrate this supposed "over-taxing".
Fair enough, but while I can't provide a solution, I think it's reasonable to point out that lumping federal taxpayers together into state-based groups like California and Utah is silly. Federal taxes aren't paid by states, so saying that one state is "bailing out" another because they pay more taxes doesn't make sense.
So why is it reasonable to treat the rich as an exploited demographic group and not a state? "Ridiculous" is not an argument.
Ah because we are talking about groups of people who pay more than they receive, and other groups that pay less than they receive. It's not meaningful to divide them geographically. Since our tax system is progressive, based on income, the most meaningful way to divide people is also based on income.
Or would you rather hear arguments like "white people pay more taxes, we are BAILING OUT black people." That is as true as the contention that California is bailing out Utah. Forget that rich people in Utah pay more taxes than middle income Californians, or that poor white people pay less taxes than Michael Jordan... it's irrelevant right?? Ignore income, look at arbitrary divisions instead!
Fair enough, I don't know. I shouldn't have put that part in. I was reacting to other threads that are very similar, looking at the disparity in federal tax spending/receiving in blue states vs. red states. It's always pointed out that heavily Democratic states like California are "bailing out" the cheap red states, whose people are so stupid that they vote against their own interests, etc. Didn't really fit in with this thread now that I've reread it.
Yes, it is interesting that the blue states "vote against their own interest" as much as the red states. States that vote Democratic tend to send more tax dollars to Washington than they receive. States that vote Republican tend to receive more federal tax dollars than they spend.
I remember my father commenting on the governor of my state (a Democrat at the time) campaigning strongly for a new federal revenue sharing program where the federal government was going to distribute federal money to the states. My father's comment was that this program made no sense for our state as we would end up paying more in the new taxes associated with the program than we would receive.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison