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.
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!
Spider-Pork, Spider-Pork,
does whatever the lobbyist says,
Can he introduce
useful laws?
No he can't
he's a pork
LOOK OUT!
He's a spider POOOOOOORK
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.