Earlier this week the National Space Society issued a press release (missing from their web site as of Friday morning) about the success of the recent lobbying push by its members, as well as others in the Space Exploration Alliance. Nothing unusual about that, but if you go to the web site of the Space Exploration Alliance you’ll find a document [actually hosted on the California Space Authority’s web site] dated August 31 titled “Template press release” with the comment “Please remember to replace the example quote with one from yourself or the leader of your organization.” Indeed, if you view the document, you’ll see italicized text stating “Insert quote from organizational leader”, with a sample quote from AIAA executive director Bob Dickman included. Now, such templates are certainly not out of the ordinary, but usually they’re not published in public view.
Wow Jeff. Really slow news day at Futron, eh?
Oh wait – a hurricane has caused major damage and disruptions to several NASA facilities.
Nah. No policy implications there
Thanks, Keith, as always, for your high-minded, intellectual comments.
Or not.
For once I agree with Keith Cowing. He may just be ribbing Jeff Foust, but that’s fine. Unintellectual comments are okay from time to time.
Anti-intellectual comments, on the other hand, are not okay. Like this one from Dwayne Day in the Space Review:
In other words, “I do not understand cosmology, therefore cosmology is irrelevant”.
In fact, cosmologists are respected because they have both ideas and results. It was their recent result that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. They can now measure the age, shape, and content of the visible universe to one percent. In fact, they used a space telescope (not Hubble) as well as a lot of mathematics. Most people do care how old the universe is, unless they decided by prior revelation that it’s 6,000 years old. Maybe Dwayne Day is in that latter camp.
Day prefers the discovery of Xena, which earned some limelight, which he does respect. But Xena is not a new idea; it is just the sort of object that you’d expect to see in the Kuiper belt. The Kuiper belt really was a new idea. Several astronomers inferred its existence using boring old equations.
But hey, who needs mathematics when you’ve got dedication and limelight. When you’ve got patriotism and resolve, and good public relations. When you don’t know or don’t care what the word impossible means. Many people see those as the truly essential traits not only in astronomy, but also for building rockets, designing flood levees, and so on.
Aw, Keith, your wisecrack sounds like cheap sniping at a competing blogger. Meanwhile, you have some very worthwhile reporting at your website: ( I understand, nasawatch.com was a web page before there was blogging. )
“Competition is impracticable for the following reasons: … ”
More CEV Work for CSC
NASA MSFC Solicitation: Additional Operations, Engineering, and Integration Work In Support of the Crew Launch Vehicle Project
“NASA/MSFC intends to contract with CSC for the proposed effort on a sole-source basis by awarding a modification to the current purchase order to add this work, which has an estimated period of performance by three months (October 01, 2005, through December 31, 2005).”
Posted by kcowing at 11:35 AM | Permalink
http://www.nasawatch.com/
leads to:
http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=17943
STATUS REPORT
Date Released: Thursday, September 1, 2005
Source: Marshall Space Flight Center
NASA MSFC Solicitation: Additional Operations, Engineering, and Integration Work In Support of the Crew Launch Vehicle Project
Synopsis – Sep 01, 2005
General Information
Solicitation Number: NNM05128524Q
Posted Date: Sep 01, 2005
FedBizOpps Posted Date: Sep 01, 2005
Original Response Date: Sep 08, 2005
Current Response Date: Sep 08, 2005
Classification Code: R — Professional, administrative, and mgmt support services
NAICS Code: 541710 – Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
Contracting Office Address
NASA/George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Procurement Office, Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812
Description
NASA/MSFC’s Operations Integration Office has a requirement for additional operations, engineering, and integration work in support of the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) project. This work includes the development of the CLV Concept of Operations Document, Operations Timeliness, and Functional Flow Block Diagrams. This work is currently being performed by Computer Science Corporation (CSC) under NASA MSFC Purchase Order NNM05AB08P in conjunction with NASA MSFC personnel.
NASA/MSFC intends to contract with CSC for the proposed effort on a sole-source basis by awarding a modification to the current purchase order to add this work, which has an estimated period of performance by three months (October 01, 2005, through December 31, 2005).
Competition is impracticable for the following reasons:
1. The operation engineering and integration work supporting the CLV relies heavily upon the processes and technical expertise obtained by CSC during current operations; therefore, continuity in support from CSC is critical in order to meet the aggressive Systems Requirement Review (SSR) schedule.
2. Any disruption to schedules would adversely impact critical deadlines and potentially disrupt the SSR. Specific expertise gained in the prior months by CSC cannot be duplicated or communicated to another vendor in a timely manner; therefore, only CSC can provide necessary effort to support near term requirements without impacting the schedule.
3. The cost to bring another contractor up to speed would represent substantial duplication of cost to the government which is not expected to be recovered through competition.
The Government intends to acquire a commercial item using FAR Part 12.
Interested organizations may submit their capabilities and qualifications to perform the effort in writing to the identified point of contact not later than 4:00 p.m. local time on September 08, 2005. Such capabilities/qualifications will be evaluated solely for the purpose of determining whether or not to conduct this procurement on a competitive basis. …
David:
Why did you clog up Jeff’s blog comments like this? A link and a quote would have sufficed.
[ A link and a quote would have sufficed.]
OK, sorry.
However, I think there might be real scandal pending at NASA.
This dictum is outrageous:
“… The cost to bring another contractor up to speed would represent substantial duplication of cost to the government which is not expected to be recovered through competition. …”
Greg, I partially agree with you here, but I also have a certain amount of sympathy for Dwayne’s opinion as quoted by you (even though I disagree with his implied criticism of Cosmologists’ religious sensibilities).
While measurements of the Universe’ age seem reasonably valid, in things like “string theory” I think Cosmologists and Physicists are getting way, way beyond the evidence. Mathematical modeling is fine, but only if you can experimentally prove your modeling, and, recognizing that I am neither a methematition or physicist, I fear that based on the history of science some recent theories in physics do sound uncomfortably more like religion than physics.
An example of where I fear Physics and Cosmology have gone very wrong is the discussion a decade or so ago of “an end to Physics,” the idea that we might be within reach of a theory of everything. That is so rediculous that anyone who took it seriously deserves not to be taken seriously. I’ll listen to the idea that we really understand the Universe when we have physically explored, say, ten percent of the place. Which means, of course, that we never will — which for me is a fine thing, part of what makes life interesting.
A great example is in our own Solar System. Where were the physicists who knew everything before Voyager got to Jupiter? With possibly one exception, nobody accurately predicted the structure of either Io or Europa before we went there and looked. If we can’t even predict the structure of our own Solar System, what are we doing talking about understanding the structure of everything? The very idea that that even theoretically can be done from one point location (Earth’s surface) is patentenly absurd.
I have no sympathy with creationists, but I do think that many scientists are relying way to much on modeling on the basis of way too little evidence and measurement, and getting way to big for their britches. Once we have a Solar System wide civilization in a few thousand years, I expect our theories of Cosmology will sound every bit as quaint as the Greeks’ do to us. They probably won’t be entirely wrong, but we will have proved a long, long way from knowing even a tiny bit of everything.
— Donald
This template form letter Keith Cowing brought to light: the phrase “non-profit space organizations” is a tip-off that these organizations accept non-trivial donations, else the writer wouldn’t be motivated to protesteth muchly about being premier but non-profit.
The question is, who are some of the donors?
“…FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WASHINGTON, August 30, 2005
Members of Congress will return to Washington with a clear message from their constituents – support NASA’s new Vision for Space Exploration – thanks to a nation-wide August legislative push by the members of the Space Exploration Alliance.
The Space Exploration Alliance (SEA), a partnership of the nation’s premier non-profit space organizations with a combined membership of more than 1.2 million people … “
[ This template form letter Keith Cowing brought to light ]
Sorry again, I should have said “Jeff Foust” in that sentence.
Donald: Your comments about string theory and theories of everything are a misinterpretation. What physicists mean by a theory of everything is a complete description of the fundamental laws of physics. They don’t mean a complete description of the way that those laws play out, which as you say will never been completely understood. It’s the same as the difference between the rules of chess, which are easy to write down in full, and how to play chess well, which people might never understand.
The point of string theory is the following. Quantum mechanics is true, and general relativity is true. But general relativity, in its present form, is not quantum mechanical. String theorists believe that string theory is the only logical mutual extension of quantum mechanics and gravity. If they could prove that, then string theory would be a fantastic, but perfectly valid, reading of past experiments. They would have a very strong case even without new experiments. But also, time would be on their side to come up with new predictions to test. If their work is sufficiently complete by then, then these experiments would be of the “I told you so” variety, not the “we have no idea” variety.
To sweeten the pot further, the string theorists also think that what they have is not only a theory of quantum gravity, but will also basically predict the forces of microscopic particle physics: electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force. If they are right about that, then they really would have a theory of everything — but only in the weak sense of the rules of chess. They would be the first to tell you that they don’t know everything, or even know much, about all objects that follow those rules.
“the string theorists also think that what they have is not only a theory of quantum gravity, but will also basically predict the forces of microscopic particle physics: electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force.”
But, this is where I have the problem. These ideas are based on a small number of particle experiments at the very limited energies that can be reached with terrestrial instruments. Every time we’ve gone to higher energies, something new has been discovered. I see no reason to expect that to be different when we can build super-high energy Solar System-wide experiments — which someday I hope we will be able to do.
I think it very likely we have a small part of the answer (or more likely, answers), but even without understanding the details myself I think it is very, very unlikely that a full understanding of even the most basic rules of the chess game is even possible at this point in human history. We’re trying to see too much from way too focused a viewpoint (probably both cultural and physical) and making way to many assumptions.
To put it another way, I would be very, very surprised if peoples of two thousand years from now (conditional, since none of us will live to know) with cultures as alien to us as we would be to the Greeks (or more so since culture evolves faster now), weilding Solar System-wide or larger instruments at energies we can barely conceive of outside of the natural world, would agree with very much that the modern Physics says. They’ll say we had a tiny bit of it right, but we didn’t know anywhere near as much as we thought we did, just like we say about Greek scientists conducting their experiments on too few parameters with too limited a physical horizon.
And those far future gals and guys would be just as wrong to think _they_ understand the game, (although hopefully they would have learned better by then) . . .
And that, if I could, is something I would bet a lot of money on and consider it a very safe investment! History’s against you on this one Greg, and I’ll lay my money on the lessons of history, over the science of any individual time including ours, any day.
— Donald
One final thought. Whenever I need a lesson in intellectual humility, I go back to Thomas Huxley in my Sig file. The first two phrases are and always will be true. I only hope that the final sentence may continue to be a little bit true.
The known is finite, the unknown is infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land. — Thomas Huxley.
Donald: Maybe you do need a lesson in intellectual humility, but a different lesson than the one that you think you need.
The list of elementary particles and forces in physics is not all of science or all of physics, it’s one specific question. You have no independent way to know that particle physicists have almost completely answered it, or that they are miles away from the answer, or anything in between. You have no reason to believe that there are many, or few, or any unpredicted elementary particles left to discover. Your conviction that there will always be new particles left to discover is as silly as the conviction that there are tons of poles left to discover on Earth besides north and south. (The east and west poles must be there somewhere, because the experts can’t know everything, right?)
Anyway, the people who actually know something about it think of the known elementary particles and forces as a half-finished painting. They don’t think that it will never be finished or that it’s just barely started.
Also, arrogant expert that I am, I also believe that there are no unknown continents on Earth. I think that North and South America, Africa, Eurasia, Australia, and Antarctica is it. But hey, history is against me. After all, Columbus thought you could sail straight from Europe to India. Look how wrong he was.
Hey guys, think you can take your physics debate somewhere else? I came looking for policy chatter, not string theory.
I have always been scared of cosmologists.
I think this goes back to the time when I was young, and a cosmologist killed my dad…
To: David Davenport
Re: Not-for-Profit status
Of course we look for non-trivial donations. As President of the North Texas chapter of NSS I’m always on the hunt for monetary support. As chief and co-chair of the 2007 ISDC I’m going to be requesting large amounts of money for the conference. Being a not-for-profit 501c3 is one of the selling points in getting people to make the decision to give us money they can then deduct from their itemized taxes.
If you want to know the big donors to NSS you can find them in Ad Astra magazine.
So what does that money get used for here in D/FW?
-Photocopies of coloring pages for kids
-Craft materials for displays and childrens activities
-Childrens picture books for a reading library at the Frontiers of Flight Museum
-Website registration and hosting costs
-Postage for the newsletter (not everyone has e-mail) and other mailings
-Opportunistic purchases of space items for later raffle
-Facility use charges
All kinds of other miscellaneous expenses, like NSS-NT buttons for members to wear, or t-shirts for special events.
I wouldn’t say that NSS, or any of the other organizations associated with the SEA, “protesteth” with regards to their NFP status. It’s a badge of honor for those of us down in the trenches taking space to the public and showing them why it’s so important to have their active support of space activities (NASA or otherwise), and also why they should join up and give us their money so we can keep doing the good work we do.
About discovering new particles: there’s at least one that’s thought to be out there, the Higgs particle, but physicists readily admit the Higgs mechanism may not be correct, in which case who knows? As usual, the theorists have huge numbers of ideas that can’t yet be ruled out.
Having said that, it’s been very hard to find experimental results that are at odds with the Standard Model. This is a change from how particle physics was before the SM came along.
Xena vs. cosmology: isn’t this just another expression of the tension between more applied and less applied science? Arguably we’re more likely to be able to exploit Xena than we are anything on the other side of the universe (especially if the cosmological constant is nonzero, in which case that other side of the universe is now unreachable unless we can go faster than light), but the cosmological discoveries are more likely to inform the foundations of the rest of science.
[ … it’s so important to have their active support of space activities (NASA or otherwise) … ]
Let’s hope you emphasize the “otherwise.”
NASA’s dispiriting New Vision using Thiokol Solid Rocket Boosters for first stages = Your Father’s Rocketmobiles, obsolete on arrival.
Please spread the word about that.
NASA might as well buy its launch vehicles from the same place Wile E. Coyote does:
OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. IMA SCHOFFER, ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, MR. WILE E. COYOTE
My client, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, a resident of Arizona and contiguous states, does hereby bring suit for damages against the Acme Products Corporation (“ACME”), manufacturer and retail distributor of assorted merchandise, incorporated in Delaware and doing business in every state, district, and territory. Mr. Coyote seeks compensation for personal injuries, loss of business income, and mental suffering caused as a direct result of the actions and/or gross negligence of said company, under Title 15 of the United States Code, Chapter 47, section 2072, subsection (a), relating to product liability.
…
Mr. Coyote states that on December 13, 1989, he received of Defendant via parcel post one Acme Rocket Sled. The intention of Mr. Coyote was to use the Rocket sled to aid him in pursuit of his prey. Upon receipt of the Rocket Sled Mr. Coyote removed it from its wooden shipping crate and sighting his prey in the distance, activated the ignition. As Mr. Coyote gripped the handlebars, the Rocket Sled accelerated with such sudden and precipitate force as to stretch Mr. Coyote`s forelimbs to a length of fifty feet. Subsequently, the rest of Mr. Coyote`s body shot forward with a violent jolt, causing severe strain to his back and neck and placing him unexpectedly astride the Rocket Sled. Disappearing over the horizon at such speed as to leave a diminishing jet trail along its path, the Rocket Sled soon brought Mr. Coyote abreast of his prey. At that moment the animal he was pursuing veered sharply to the right. Mr. Coyote vigorously attempted to follow this maneuver but was unable to, due to poorly designed steering on the Rocket Sled and a faulty or nonexistent braking system. Shortly thereafter, the unchecked progress of the Rocket Sled brought it and Mr. Coyote into collision with the side of a mesa.
…
http://www.ishkabible.com/coyote.php
Ken, is the your NSS one of the nations’s PREMIER non-profit space organizations? How do we know you’re really in with the in crowd? :0\
“… The Space Exploration Alliance (SEA), a partnership of the nation’s premier non-profit space organizations with a combined membership of more than 1.2 million people … “
Paul: There is nothing whatsoever applied about the discovery of Xena. It is an article of sheer experimental curiosity that does not involve any new ideas. (The Kuiper belt is a good idea, but not a new one.) Well, with one exception. The people who found it were clever to look out of the plane of the solar system.
If the idea is to mine Xena, hey, it’s only 37,000 times farther away than the Earth-moon distance. That’s almost right around the corner! At least compared to Alpha Centauri.
Cosmology is also not applied, but it is a broad subject with many new ideas. Some of the ideas of cosmology might one day be reused in other areas of research, even applied ones.
Good morning, Ken.
On a more serious note, I’d like to ask if your North Texas chapter of NSS is going to help propagate this “Template press release”?
[ … but if you go to the web site of the Space Exploration Alliance you’ll find a document [actually hosted on the California Space Authority’s web site] dated August 31 titled “Template press release” with the comment “Please remember to replace the example quote with one from yourself or the leader of your organization…”
Paul: There is nothing whatsoever applied about the discovery of Xena. […] If the idea is to mine Xena, hey, it’s only 37,000 times farther away than the Earth-moon distance.
Oh, maybe not Xena itself, but if we can find a larger KBO that has retained a helium atmosphere, then maybe in a few generations it would be a great place to obtain 3He. Sure, it’s far away, but presumbably if we can fuse 3He, we can make fusion rockets, and then getting out to the Kuiper Belt doesn’t seem completely impossible.
This is just the merest shred of potential utility, granted, but the potential is nonzero.
Gregh: “You have no reason to believe that there are many, or few, or any unpredicted elementary particles left to discover. Your conviction that there will always be new particles left to discover is as silly. . . ”
All true, but irrelevant. I’m arguing that physics has gotten so esoteric, and so far from practical experiment and application, that there is a good chance that the entire edifice is completely wrong or correct in only the most limited aspects. This does matter to spaceflight because it is the physicists who will get us there . . . or otherwise. I would prefer that the physicists supported by my tax dollars worked a little more on propulsion and a little less on “theories of everything,” although I do recognize that, in the long term there msy be significant overlap.
Your poles analogy is also inappropriate. It’s true we know quite a lot about the Earth — though recent discoveries about the core suggest rather less than we think. Only physicists claim to know anything about, literally, everything. There is a world of difference between claiming to know a little bit about a finite place (Earth) and knowing a little bit about everything.
Greg: “Anyway, the people who actually know something about it think of the known elementary particles and forces as a half-finished painting. They don’t think that it will never be finished or that it’s just barely started.”
“Natural Philosophers” have been wrong before. I expect them to be again. You are correct that I have no idea whether they are this time. Neither do you. Neither do they. However, I strongly suspect that, at best, it’s just barely started. In almost any profession, the practitioners themselves are rarely the best ones to view their beliefs in the larger context. It’s shear hubris for physicists to think that they alone know the route to a theory of everything. I feel justified in doubting them.
— Donald
David – Yes, we emphasize the otherwise. Our focus is not supporting getting NASAnauts into space but getting the American civilization into space.
As for the SDHLV-related architecture, I’ve come out against it, but there are members who support it. The hook that makes it so popular seems to be that it is a cool engineering exercize.
We are one of the PREMIER non-profit space organzizations, and our members are included in that 1.2Mn number you cite. We’ve been quite active in the D/FW and North Texas area and have garnered a fair degree of respect in our community as purveyors of good space information through our displays and project.
As for the Press Release I did not propogate that specific document to my chapter membership, but did inform them via e-mail of the activity. There were no takers, and Sen. Hutchison had returned to D.C. early and couldn’t meet with us, though her local office still wants to meet with us. She’s been quite supportive of us and even wrote a letter in support of our ISDC bid.
I’ve generally found that people get tired of politicking and being constantly bugged to send a letter to their Congresscritter about some particular topic (because the critters change periodically and you have to start all over again). What they don’t get tired of is going out and talking to people about how cool and important space is, like at an upcoming 3-day event “Festival of Stars”.
As for being with the “in crowd”, well that depends on “in”. Through the UNISPACE SGF, ISU, NASA Academy, and other activities I do have a pretty exensive network of contacts around the world. Through ISS work several other chapter members have well-developed networks throughout the space community. Local museums are stepping up and asking us to do events. I’d say we’re fairly “in”.
Thank you for replying, Ken. I was just kidding you about being in with the in crowd. You seem to be a nice guy.
To summarize my objections to using solid rocket boosters as trhe first stage for a new NASA missile to launch a new maned spacecraft to the ISS or elsewhere in low orbit, the objections are:
(1) Solid Rocket Boosters killed Space Shuttle Challenger;
(2) The aluminum compounds used as solid rocket fuel are bad for the environment;
(3) Solid fuel rocket boosters are not as easily reusuable as liquid propellant missiles;
(4) Contrary to popular impression, NASA does not intend to use the Solid Rocket Boosters currently used to boost the Shuttles, because one individual such booster is not powerful enough to be a first stage for the new launch system. The plan is to build a longer, five segment booster which NASA has not used before.
(5) In view of (4) above, there goes the argument that the SRB’s are more off-the-shelf than the liquid propellant Atlas or Delta EELV first stages.
— David Davenport
What nasty aluminum compounds do they make? I can see the chlorine being a problem, but not the aluminum. I’ve often heard the SRBs are big polluters, but I’ve never seen a list of combustion products. Usually when I’ve heard proposals to clean up these boosters, it has involved switching to some other oxidizer rather than fuel.
You are right Dfens, it is the chlorine from the SRB’s.
Says the notorious tree-hugger AIAA Aerospace America of July 2005:
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Archives.cfm?ArchiveIssueid=66
THE GREENING OF ROCKET PROPULSION (217k)
Efforts to limit the environmental effects of rocket launches continue
at home and abroad, but funding remains an issue.
…
According to the report, the emissions released into the atmosphere during UDMH-fueled launches deplete the ozone layers in small but measurable ways, as do the chlorine emissions released by solid-fueled boosters firing during ascent. …
The report says that overall, in the course of the study, the atmospheric impact caused by the launchers that burned solid fuels during atmospheric ascent was greater from the
chlorine emissions they generated than from the nitrogen radicals released by the UDMH vehicles. ….
“Though the two approaches provide slightly different results, it is clear that the nitrogen oxide emissions of 10 annual Proton launches caused much less global ozone losses than the chlorine [emissions] from SRMs [solid rocket motors],” the study
says. …
Interesting side-discussion on physics straying from reality there…
Anyway, NSS had released a press release I assume based on the “template”, with quotes from executive director George Whitesides… it’s up on the NSS site now (delay due to vacation and other distractions) – http://www.nss.org/
The other organizations in SEA are listed on the SEA website – though that seems to be down right now. I think the aerospace workers are the bulk of the “1.2 million” quoted; don’t recall the organization names.
Arthur Smith
Both HCl and Al2O3 are undesirable outputs from the Solid Rocket Boosters:
http://www.chem.queensu.ca/chembook/articles/ColumbiaDisaster.htm
…
(2) There are two solid fuel booster rockets attached to the side of the large tank. These rockets are filled with a mixture of ammonium perchlorate, NH4ClO4, and powdered aluminum metal. When ignited electrically, ammonium perchlorate decomposes to produce hot gas. The reaction can be represented approximately by the following equation:
NH4ClO4(s) ® ½ N2(g) + HCl(g) + 1½ H2O(g) + 1¼ O2(g)
In a sense, this is a redox reaction between the ions of the salt; you can check this by calculating oxidation numbers for all the elements. Notice that all of the products are gases, and the reaction is highly exothermic, so it is ideal for rocket propulsion.
Oxygen is produced in the decomposition of ammonium perchlorate, just as in the decomposition of ammonium nitrate (CHEMBOOK, page 213). The energy release is greatly increased by adding aluminum powder, which reacts with the oxygen:
2 Al(s) + 1½ O2(g) ® Al2O3(s)
This is a highly exothermic reaction. (Compare with Problem 9.7 in CHEMBOOK) In addition, the powdered ammonium perchlorate and aluminum are mixed with a polymer ( a.k.a. rubber — DD ), which also burns and adds to the release of energy.
The solid rocket boosters are a source of serious pollution around the launch site, depositing many tonnes of hydrochloric acid and aluminum oxide into the atmosphere and on the countryside.
…
Arthur, that’s a good pointer to that nss web site:
Sample letter requesting a meeting – [Word format].:
Space Exploration Alliance
Summer 2005 Legislative Action Plan
Who We Are
The Space Exploration Alliance is an unprecedented partnership of the nation’s premier non-profit space organizations with a combined membership of more than 1.2 million people throughout the United States.
SEA Vision
We support the Vision for Space Exploration as a bold and substantial mandate for human and robotic exploration of the solar system that will help assure American technological and scientific preeminence in the 21st century.
…
http://www.nss.org/legislative/
//////////////////////////
If you go to http://www.spaceexplorationalliance.org/, I think you’ll see the list of PREMIER non-profit space orgs. This list includes outfits such as the Aerospace States Association and the NASA Alumni League. These are the types of associations where one might find people who can accurately be described as well paid lobbyists. Hmmm, the AIAA is also on that list.
Gosh, all this talk of aluminum oxide and hydrochloric acid pollution is giving me a sour stomach. I better take some Malox.
David,
I once wrote an Op Ed piece arguing that we should use LOX – H2 rocket engines because there is relatively little environmental cost. So, you could launch the very large numbers that a serious space program may require.
I received a physical letter (giving an idea of how long ago this was!) by a retired Rocketdyne engineer arguing that Kerosene rockets were in fact cleaner because (as I recall) the real LOX -H2 reaction in the real atmosphere created a lot more than water and that a lot of what it did create was toxic and long-lived.
It all seemed rather improbable to me, but I did not have the chemical background to argue. We had a friendly but short-lived correspondence after that.
Unfortunately, at this late date I doubt I can recover either the man’s name (he’s unlikely to be alive) or the details of his argument. I recently moved to a smaller house and many of my oldest files went into the recycling bin. Nonetheless, would any of that make sense to you?
— Donald
A hot reaction like H2 + 02 in the atmosphere, which is mainly N2 will produce NOx. The NOx will combine with the water produced by the primary cumbustion product to produce nitric acid – acid rain. This is a common byproduct of combustion in or using Earth’s atmosphere. The hotter the reaction, the more NOx is produced.
Aluminum Oxide makes up a large part of the Earth’s crust, so I’m sure it is not too toxic, but I do recall the people who worked at the Aluminum reduction plant did wear repirators to keep the stuff (Bauxite) out of their lungs.
Thanks, Dfens.
So, what does burning Kerosene produce in the real atmosphere?
— Donald
Thanks, Dfens.
So, what does burning Kerosene produce in the real atmosphere?
— Donald
Mostly it produces CO2 and H20. There are some more complex hydrocarbons that get through unburned, some carbon monoxide. I’m sure it produces some NOx by products too, but I’m not sure how it compares to the H2 + O2 reaction. It sounds as if the person who sent you the letter was making the point it makes less NOx, but I’m just guessing.