some comments are in order

The memo is one of the most poorly written memo’s from a manager in the US government that I have read…and that’s saying a lot…I’ve written some poor ones but this is about the worst.

It is almost a “blog” sort of stream of consciousness effort…and if the goal was to simply vent then it was successful. However, it the goal was to summon some intellectual arguments (there is very little technical presented in it) to help Coats defend the program it was a flop. Of course Coats is not much better in terms of intellectual horsepower so maybe it all worked out. It is laden with tired cliches “Buyer beware.” is one example.

Then there the are contradictory logical points made; particularly concerning launch vehicle development and NASA’s expertise…maybe in another post…

Where Jeff really flounders is his attempt to wrap himself in historical examples.

The memo writes: ”
. NASA’s present COTS program is THIS EXACT MODEL. Deliver cargo first, then grow toward crew after there is a trackrecord.

. Note that the federal government did not fund passenger service, but rather funded ‘cargo’, in that case.”

Hanley is referencing the Augustine commissions discussion of the airmail contract which more correctly is refereed to as McNary Watres Act (also called the Air Mail Act of 1930) and was passed on April 29, 1930.

the entire bill is fairly complicated (and is a study on how lobbying has not changed much over the years) and should be read by all. But the reality is that the act changed the way mail payments were computed with a direct goal of making passenger commercial air service profitable.

Under the act airmail carriers would be paid up to $1.25 per mile for having a cargo capacity on their planes of at least 25-cubic feet, whether the planes carried anything or flew empty. If they had less capacity, the “per mile” rate would be less. There was no incentive to carry mail since the airline would receive the same amount for a plane of a certain size whether it carried anything or not. But an airline could easily get additional revenue by carrying passengers. Thus, there was an incentive to use larger planes that were suited to carrying more passengers.

The goal despite what Hanley is claiming was to support passenger operations because the passengers were where the revenue was. It along with the awarding of routes essentially killed the “mom and pop” mail organizations

There were a couple of other provisions of the bill and they all were important BUT ALL were focused on creating profitable passenger carrying airlines.

the memo is correct in a narrow sense, the bill did not fund specific passenger operations…that was part of its charms.

There are a couple of other areas where Hanley “jumps the shark” and seems excited with his own ability to use the keyboard. There are on a wider plain… good and bad arguments to build Ares 1…but Hanley’s main thrust seems to be to stop commercialization of lift…and to make that point he does to history what is frequently done by folks who do not know it, he distorts it.

Jeff if you read this, get some historical background. Also there are several US government sponsored schools in memo writing. People at your GS level are routinely sent to them. Get Coats to send you. The arguments you make and the way they are presented are inarticulate and uninformative. By the “grading sheet” of at least one of the schools, you would receive a D plus.

This is probably about that. My excuse is, the kids are at their Uncle/Aunt’s house, the wife is out flying until Saturday, the Jack is open… and I am taking a break from the amateur radio…and this is a blog

Robert G. Oler

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

2. The Committee determined that, from a financial sustianablity point of view, the best option was an EELV “super heavy & propellent tranfer”

worth noting

The Ares 1 is a cancer on the space program, IMO, since it threatens to compromise the crew size of the Orion vehicle while also seriously delaying the replacement of the space shuttle and our return to the Moon. NASA is simply throwing good money after bad as long as they continue to fund the the development of the Ares 1.

Absolutely. I stand corrected. I was not able to find the reference any more and I wrongly associated ASSET with this in my mind.

Shuttle still is a lifting body with a lot of data but it’s a different story than that of the bathtub series.

The only lifting body shape in the world with more actual flight data is the BOR.

BTW, ASSET was apparently a sub-scale Winged Gemini shape. See Mark Wade for more on that.