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...
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.
That's only half of it - the astronauts have to wear magic underwear inside their space-suits to meet the clothing law
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!
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 law itself is very fishy. Quoting TFA:
The law states that NASA “shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.”
To me, the intent there is "don't change it unless reasonable on safety or other grounds". But why the enforcement of staying with current contracts? It stinks of the lobbying parent describes. More from TFA:
Phrases like “to the extent practicable”, “if necessary”, and “as appropriate” give NASA leeway to go in different directions if they determine something as specific as outlined in the legislation’s report language is not practicable, necessary, and/or appropriate.
Or dangerous, as the summary suggests.
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.
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.
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.
But why the enforcement of staying with current contracts? It stinks of the lobbying parent describes.
Not only does it stink, it's a rotten fish in plain sight. Quoting directly from the statement released by Hatch:
"My purpose in calling this meeting was to explain in no uncertain terms the Utah congressional delegation's interest in ensuring that Utah's solid rocket motor industry is protected."
"I will continue with other delegation members to ensure the agency abides by the law and protects this industry that is so vitally important to our national security and northern Utah's economy."
"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"
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.