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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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 with solid rocket booster assistance," according to an ATK spokesman.
Fixed that for ya.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
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
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>
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.
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.
Let's use this motto from now on, please NASA?
The problem is that "best" has many components, often conflicting:
* Best design for launching heavy payloads once or twice a yaer
* Best design for launching light payloads many times a year and attaching them together in space
* Best design to push technological boundaries
* Best design to minimize development cost
* Best design to minimize operation costs
* Best design to ensure astronaut safety
* Best design to promote the US space industry as a whole
* Best design to ensure future support from "space state" congressmen, who are the only people in congress willing to push for NASA funding