Congress, States

With Bennett out, what does his successor think about NASA?

At the Utah Republican Party convention in Salt Lake City yesterday, delegates effectively ousted Sen. Robert Bennett, failing to nominate him for a fourth term. Bennett didn’t make it past the second round of balloting, which ended with two candidates, Tim Bridgewater and Mike Lee, selected to face off in a primary next month. The convention all but ends Bennett’s political career, unless he attempts a write-in campaign, something he has not explicitly ruled out but currently appears unlikely.

Given Utah’s demographics, whomever wins that June 22 GOP primary will likely win the general election in November. So how do Bridgewater and Lee stack up on space policy compared to Bennett, who sharply criticized NASA’s plans to cancel the Ares launch vehicles—which could lead to the loss of hundreds or thousands of jobs at ATK’s Utah facilities—during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last month? The two candidates haven’t touched on this much yet. Lee doesn’t mention space on the issues page of his web site. Bridgewater, though, does answer the question of whether he supports the president’s plan “for the privatization of NASA” in the negative. “The same rockets that send a man to the moon could send a missile across the world to defend our nation,” he claims (bringing visions of a Saturn 5 or Ares 5 being repurposed as an ICBM). “NASA plays a vital role in the security of our nation and the strength of our military.”

81 comments to With Bennett out, what does his successor think about NASA?

  • Bennett

    Bridgewater seems a tad confused about what NASA actually does. He may become just another (junior) NO vote against anything Obama. No news there.

  • amightywind

    Bennett wrote: …

    A fair assessment. Not really political news. No new Utah Senator in their right mind would pick a fight with ATK.

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100509/COLUMNISTS0405/5090321/1086/John%20Kelly%20%20SpaceX%20focuses%20on%20changes

    a pretty good article. As my friend Rich Kolker said (to paraphrase) Musk is betting on the Cape changing…and for the American rocket industry to recover it has to…but I bet he has a plan B.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    I would imagine ATK would provide campaign funding to all three.

  • Robert G. Oler

    “The same rockets that send a man to the moon could send a missile across the world to defend our nation,” he claims (bringing visions of a Saturn 5 or Ares 5 being repurposed as an ICBM).”

    typical right wing Republicans…their mind and thinking stopped in the 60’s…the clown has visions of Americans riding on Atlas (the old one) and Titans…

    seesh

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Vladislaw wrote @ May 9th, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    I would imagine ATK would provide campaign funding to all three.

    as “Doc H” proves ATK will funnel money to anyone who will shill for them…facts are not important nor is any sense of reality.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bridgewater bloviated:

    “The same rockets that send a man to the moon could send a missile across the world to defend our nation,” he claims (bringing visions of a Saturn 5 or Ares 5 being repurposed as an ICBM).

    Wow, I don’t recall anything in the specs about the Ares V being used to drop a nuke on the Russkies.

    I want my money back.

  • Robert noted the SpaceX article in today’s Florida Today. It confirmed what I’d suspected, the government has been dragging its heels to keep SpaceX from succeeding by trying to force them to use obsolete technology from government contractors.

    Hopefully the Obama administration gets wind of this and sends word through the chain of command to knock it off. Let SpaceX succeed or fail on its own merits.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 9th, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Robert noted the SpaceX article in today’s Florida Today. It confirmed what I’d suspected, the government has been dragging its heels to keep SpaceX from succeeding by trying to force them to use obsolete technology from government contractors…

    Stephen.. I agree with you that there is a lot of foot dragging…but to be fair (grin).

    The USAF has no way to do business other then the way it does business until someone tells it to do business otherwise. (and as an aside I guess proves that the alternate way of doing business will work).

    What this points up to me at least is the urgent need to have some meeting of the minds about “who” (as in an agency) is going to be in charge of “how rockets fly” and how the various launch facilities operate. And eventually “how people” ride on those rockets.

    I know that AVN of the FAA really wants to be that agency and they might be the choice for it…the folks who should not be the choice for it are NASA JSC …I dont know if the FAA has the expertise to do the job, on the other hand the only expertise that JSC NASA has is how to foul things up (none of those people have made a real living in their lives).

    On the other hand (again to be fair, without Titusville beneath it) the Army runs a pretty solid range out at Kwaj and I hear that the Aussies are interested in having Musk launch from their little slice of near the equator…

    At some point innovation in rocket design has to be something that “government” allows. Boeing and the FAA did a fairly hefty (but pretty fair) back and forth on the innovation in the Dreamliner and rocket companies need to be able to push innovation in terms of rocket use.

    Musk will get by this and I think will eventually pertubate the range…BUT where the big issue is going to come eventually in terms of carrying people is going to be “what is safe enough”…look for a giant argument in the LAS that Musk is working on. A more or less fall back in terms of holding on to their slice of the pie at JSC is that MOD and others want to become the safety people for the commercial folks and if that happens then its doomed.

    What they want is to force the Orion LAS on everyone…and I am pretty certain that Musk and company will resist that for a lot of reasons.

    it is interesting times. Nice blog hope you are well

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith

    I should add one more thing. Musk should be supported in his efforts.

    It is critical (among other things) that the effort to revamp the regulation environment of the entire American industry (but space in particular) be tackled. We have as a rule regulations and regulators agencies that make a lot of noise and yet really accomplish little in terms of keeping the public safe and making industry appropriately competitive.

    NASA is a good example, but what has happened out in the Gulf is yet another example…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Prompt Global Strike

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike

    Obama is said to like the idea.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/world/europe/23strike.html

    However neither Trident nor Minuteman III can deliver our larger conventional bunker busters.

    GBU 57:

    http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11609

    GBU 43 (MOAB):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast_bomb

    An Ares 1 class solid fuel ICBM could deliver these big conventional bunker busters with capacity to spare.

  • Vladislaw

    “Q: Would you support Obama’s plan for the privatization of NASA?

    A: No. The same rockets that send a man to the moon could send a missile across the world to defend our nation. NASA plays a vital role in the security of our nation and the strength of our military. The government has the responsibility “to raise and support” and army. We must be involved in defense related R&D.”

    The military gets what 700 billion and another 80 billion in black projects off the books .. ya better have NASA spent it’s 10 billion human space flight budget on supporting the military, they have been beggered the last decade.

  • common sense

    “The same rockets that send a man to the moon could send a missile across the world to defend our nation,” he claims (bringing visions of a Saturn 5 or Ares 5 being repurposed as an ICBM). “NASA plays a vital role in the security of our nation and the strength of our military.”

    So much nonsense! I’d like to know what these guys are on and ban it from use! So the military has worked for decades at miniaturizing stuff including nukes and now we are going to use an Ares V as an ICBM??? How many nukes de we plan to bring up/down? 1 million? What for? I would think that a moderate I.Q. is required for politics but clearly it is not. Which goes a long way about those who vote for these clowns and their enlightened policies…

    Oh well…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ May 9th, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Prompt Global Strike

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike

    Obama is said to like the idea.

    NO good idea ever fades but almost all have been thought of before they are just not practical sometimes when they are thought of. I am having shades of “RHOMBUS” here.

    the problem with Global Strike is trying to field a weapon that doesnt look like a special going out. The USN has the perfect hull for a GS…the first four Ohio class have been converted to SSGN’s (and in that config carry an unholy number of cruise missiles)

    I’ve thought one role of the X37 or follow ons might be a GS platform.

    The problem of course with an Ares SRB as a GS is that it would take weeks to stack it, weeks to prep it and by the time it is done so is the crisis (grin)

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 9th, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Musk is betting on the Cape changing

    I am sure Musk wishes in a way that Constellation was still there so he could hide in its shadow, and perform quietly on the ISS resupply contract awarded him by President Bush. Now every SpaceX launch will describe the current status of US manned spaceflight. The pressure on the upcoming Falcon 9 flight will be enormous. One wonders if the architects of Obamaspace considered this risk? Political fortune could change drastically if Falcon 9 fails. The daggers are out.

  • abreakingwind wrote:

    Now every SpaceX launch will describe the current status of US manned spaceflight.

    Only to ignorami who are unaware of, or in denial about the existence of Atlas and Delta.

  • amightywind

    Rand Simberg wrote:

    “Only to ignorami[sic] who are unaware of, or in denial about the existence of Atlas and Delta.”

    I am not aware of any advanced plans for manned launch on an Atlas or Delta. Post some links. The shuttle retires this year. You’d think those trying to kill of Constellation would have had some concrete plans at this stage. And Ares I had a successful test flight too. What a shame.

  • Bennett

    “Ares I had a successful test flight too.”

    Talk about needing a link to back up the comment! What you write is pure nonsense, and you know it. It makes me wonder what kind of thrill you get out of writing such obvious BS.

    Are you really a person? Or just a semi-sophisticated bot?

  • brobof

    Manned launch on an Atlas
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Launch_of_Friendship_7_-_GPN-2000-000686.jpg
    Happened back at 14:47 UTC February 20, 1962. Lovely day! Remember it well :)

  • amightywind

    Bennett wrote @ May 9th, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    “Talk about needing a link to back up the comment!”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091028125147.htm

    Sorry, I thought it was public knowledge. Perhaps you are semi-retarded?

  • Bennett

    amightygoof wrote @ May 9th, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    Again, that is the “Ares 1-X” which was not Ares 1. You know it, everyone knows it. It was sham by Griffith to launch “something, anything” to try and justify the 10 billion spent on the program. Different SRB, different avionics, no reason to launch it really.

    Care to try again?

  • The Man

    Perhaps you are a paid liar.

    Ares I-X was not an Ares I. Ares I doesn’t exist.

  • amightywind

    US space and aeronautical test vehicles often designated with an “X” in the name. Ares I-X refuted all of the gloom and doom scenarios posited by the peanut gallery and then some. Time went so far as to call it the best invention of 2009.

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1934027_1934003_1933945,00.html

    I must concur.

    “Different SRB, different avionics”

    The inertial characteristic of the 5 segment SRB was simulated with an inert segment. Different avionics? Do you expect them to get worse with age? You are not thinking clearly.

  • Bennett

    The Man wrote @ May 9th, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Bingo! As evidenced by his next comment.

  • abreakingwind babbled:

    I am not aware of any advanced plans for manned launch on an Atlas or Delta.

    No “advanced plans” are necessary. All they need is failure onset detection (something that ULA just got a contract to develop) and a launch escape system on the capsule. So you are confessing your ignorance?

    Ares I-X refuted all of the gloom and doom scenarios posited by the peanut gallery and then some. Time went so far as to call it the best invention of 2009.

    Yes, that was hilariously stupid, as though Time knows anything about space technology, or that Ares I actually existed. Ares I-X refuted very little. And it confirmed the biggest problem — the outrageously high cost.

    The inertial characteristic of the 5 segment SRB was simulated with an inert segment.

    Inertial characteristics aren’t the issue. Combustion characteristics are.

    Different avionics? Do you expect them to get worse with age?

    No, we just expect to see them actually developed before we can declare them to exist.

  • amightywind

    Rand Simberg wrote:

    “No “advanced plans” are necessary.”

    Oh, forgive me. This is the part of the flexible path where ‘a miracle occurs’, or maybe it is that ‘game changing’ technology I’ve heard so much about. What a relief!

    Although he has been trying, Obama and his NASA toadies won’t be able to talk people into space. Denigrating the Ares design won’t either. The Atlas V is not large enough for an Orion class spacecraft. The Delta IV would need a massive upgrade, including a new upper stage – a lot like the one on Ares I. Aren’t you embarrassed yet?

  • amightywind, your contribution to this site is negative.

    Rand, please stop feeding the troll.

  • Studying Both Sides

    The 5th segment motor DM-1 happened in September right?

  • @ Bennet in his response to Almighty Wind….. The Aries 1 test flight WAS A SUCCESS. And many more successes were going to be in the works, had we had a President of the U.S. who actually cared about America’s continued greatness! (NO-BAMA in 2012!!) If McCain could’ve somehow won the election, none of this destruction & tearing apart of Project Constellation would’ve ever happened, that’s for darn sure! Constellation DOES deliver a heavy-lift launcher: The Aries 5. Plus, the Altair lander can further be used to soft-land heavy cargo & base modules onto the Moon. Hence, CONSTELLATION WOULD’VE LED TO LUNAR BASES, no matter what its opponents are currently saying. [The Altair lander would’ve had an unmanned variant, which would’ve used the usual ascent stage, as a platform to permanently emplace hab modules & accompanying cargo, onto the Lunar surface.] The industrial development of the Moon could be begun, if Constellation gets revived by Congress. All Flexible Path gets us is one-time-only, big-brag, “Look-we-got-there-first!”, dead-end missions to Asteroids! Flexible Path= Flags, Footprints & Nothing More.

  • Bennett

    “If McCain could’ve somehow won the election,”

    Sorry to disappoint you.

  • amightywind

    Trent Waddington wrote:

    Thanks for the advice, but net cops are a bore.

  • brobof

    The Aries 1 and 5 don’t exist outside of Science Fiction:
    http://simonatkinsoncreativearts.webs.com/Ariescolorpic.jpg
    You would have thought they would have learnt to spell it correctly by now. Seeing as they are such fanbois for the “Rockets to Nowhere.”

  • Studying Both Sides

    It’s Ares – as in the god, not the zodiac sign

  • Ben Joshua

    Atlas cannot orbit a full-up Orion, true (though apparently it can orbit a Dreamchaser).

    Neither can Ares-I (orbit a full-up Orion). That is why Orion was put on a severe diet, shedding some redundancies, some safety features and other pounds here and there.

  • Ben Joshua

    BTW, weren’t the original illustrations of Ares-I based on the 4 segment shuttle SRB?

    Adding a fifth segment – talk about a crude fix to address a mass fraction issue that should have nixed the Ares-I concept early on…

  • Studying Both Sides

    Can anyone help me with this information? I’ve found most of this online…

    Engine Costs (operational, not development):
    Cost Thrust
    Shuttle SRB 23.2 Mil (All Inclusive) 3.2 Mlbs
    RSRMV ??? (All Inclusive) 3.6 Mlbs
    RD-180 10 Mil Engine Only 0.861 Mlbs
    RS-68A 20 Mil Engine Only 0.702 Mlbs
    SSME 50 Mil Engine Only 0.470 Mlbs
    Merlin 1C ??? Engine Only 0.125 Mlbs

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Joshua wrote @ May 9th, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    BTW, weren’t the original illustrations of Ares-I based on the 4 segment shuttle SRB?

    it cannot lift Orion

    Robert G. Oler

  • Studying Both Sides

    Can anyone help me with this information? I’ve found most of this online…

    Engine Costs (operational, not development):
    Cost Thrust (in Millions of pounds)
    Shuttle SRB 23.2 Mil (All Inclusive) 3.2 lbs
    RSRMV ??? (All Inclusive) 3.6 lbs
    RD-180 10 Mil Engine Only 0.861 lbs
    RS-68A 20 Mil Engine Only 0.702 lbs
    SSME 50 Mil Engine Only 0.470 lbs
    Merlin 1C ??? Engine Only 0.125 lbs

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Joshua wrote @ May 9th, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    to be more accurate.

    The original Ares config (I was not in the US at the time, but I am sure someone will correct me here…grin) had the standard SRB with an SSME second stage. Problem is that the SSME is not an air starter and to make it such was not easy, so the answer was to go to the J2…even though they went to the J2 it didnt have enough so they did two things one tried to improve the J2 (hence the J2 X) and then went to the new solid with a better nozzle. The Ares 1 is not a good performer

    Robert G. Oler

  • The Man

    You need to keep studying both sides of the multifaceted multidimensional problem because your numbers are horribly naive and in no way reflect the programmatic and production realities of these integrated technologies. The both sides mantra is boring and laughable at best.

    You need to look at the contracts from conception through development and production to get a real handle on the scope, scale and cost of any of these various engine paradigms and endeavors.

    These engines have all kinds of different thrust, throttling and thrust to weight limitations and restrictions as well. So remember, besides country and western music, there is a considerable amount of diversity out there.

  • Studying Both Sides

    Sorry for the formatting… it didn’t come in right

  • Robert G. Oler

    Chris Castro wrote @ May 9th, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    @ Bennet in his response to Almighty Wind….. The Aries 1 test flight WAS A SUCCESS. And many more successes were going to be in the works, had we had a President of the U.S. who actually cared about America’s continued greatness! (NO-BAMA in 2012!!) If McCain could’ve somehow won the election, none of this destruction & tearing apart of Project Constellation would’ve ever happened, that’s for darn sure!

    none of that is really accurate.

    The ARes 1X test flight was a success if you mean the rocket didnt blow up…whatever else it proved had little or no real resemblence (or at least 1/2 billion worth) to the Ares 1.

    the more I read about the test flight, the more useless for most things I think it was. I dont even think that it proved anything serious about the thrust oscillation problems of a solid

    As for McCain.

    there was really no chance that he was going to win the election after the TARP bailout exploded. For those of us who fell in love with McCain in 92-96 period and wished he would have been the nominee in 00 (still do) the campaign both in the primary and the general was simply a death knell…it was like watching a person who had once been a great actor…lose it on national TV.

    The only chance McCain had to win the election was to describe how his America was different then Bush’s…and when he signed up for the TARP…he essentially told the rest of The Republic that he wasnt all that much different. Yeah Obama signed up for it as well…but Obama didnt have to prove he was different…he was.

    As for what McCain’s space policy would have been…we will never know. But I would not have held my breath that he would have continued the Bush effort or the POR.

    I played a minor role in his 00 effort and raised money in his 08 effort. I am not unhappy he lost. I am not all that pleased Obama won…in my view in hindsight the person who would have probably made the best POTUS of anyone who had a shot at it was HRC.

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Oler

    I misjudged you. I thought you were a commie subversive liberal America hater. You are really just a confused independent. My apologies.

    Discussing what would have been in the 2008 election is pointless. We all must expect to eat a sh*t sandwich to some extent, until November.

    Ares I/Orion weight shedding is standard development. It happens with all spacecraft, even your beloved Dragon. Personally, from what I saw in a Boeing HLV document posted here last week, I liked an Orion LEO carrier based on an ET/4xRS-69 design. It makes me wonder what the heck is the problem! Build a friggin’ Orion carrier of some kind, now!

  • red

    “The same rockets that send a man to the moon could send a missile across the world to defend our nation,” he claims (bringing visions of a Saturn 5 or Ares 5 being repurposed as an ICBM). “NASA plays a vital role in the security of our nation and the strength of our military.”

    National security and the strength of our military are really bad reasons to support the Ares rockets. Using commercial rockets, spacecraft, and other services, developing generally-useful space technologies, demonstrating exploration technologies that could be useful for national security, flying lots more robotic spacecraft, and the other new items in the NASA budget are far more useful for national security than the Ares rockets.

  • red

    From the Bridgewater link: “In my entire career as an entrepreneur, I have only received a paycheck by getting results.”

    It sounds to me like Bridgewater should (if ATK local politics weren’t a factor) like the trend towards COTS-like contracts.

    “If we want to stimulate the economy, we need to get the government out of the business of doing business and leave it to the professionals.”

    One good way to do this is to get NASA out of the Earth-to-LEO space transportation business, and leave it to the professionals (i.e. ULA, Orbital, SpaceX, etc).

    “Second, reduce the regulatory burden to allow successful businesses to make a profit.”

    This sounds like a cry for ITAR reform and other reforms.

    “When government steps in to pick winners and losers, we all wind up losers.”

    Hmmmm … sole-source contracts?

    “As a small businessman, I have been paid my whole life to get results. I know from personal experience how to find inefficiencies, eliminate them, and cut spending. We are in the middle of an outrageous budget crisis, and in these times there is no more valuable experience for our Senators than that of a small businessman.”

    I could point out one giant inefficiency: Constellation.

    In a continuation to the quote Jeff pointed out on “the privatization of NASA”:

    “The government has the responsibility “to raise and support” and [sic] army. We must be involved in defense related R&D.”

    He will find a lot more defense related (or at least useful to defense) R&D in NASA’s new budget than in the old Constellation budget. In fact, the old Constellation budget hardly had R&D at all, unless you count building rockets and spacecraft based on existing components and an Apollo strategy as “R&D”.

  • Major Tom

    “Personally, from what I saw in a Boeing HLV document posted here last week, I liked an Orion LEO carrier based on an ET/4xRS-69 design.”

    The engine designation is RS-68, genius. Stop posting until you can get at least one fact right per thread.

    Ugh…

  • Major Tom, if you ignore trolls they go away….

    So long as you feed it, he’ll keep posting his inanities.

  • Bennett

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 9th, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    All you wrote was great, but the last 4 paragraphs were excellent. Like you, I’m not 100% satisfied with the performance of our President. But I think that having McCain/Palin in the White House would have been a disaster for us AND the world.

    For chucks, here’s an alternative 2012 universe for you: President Obama decides that the fight for reelection would cause an unacceptable level of national division, and declines nomination in order to nominate and support the candidacy of HRC. 8 years later, after serving as Secretary of State for 8 years, Obama is reelected to serve his second term as President.

    Stranger things have happened.

  • byeman

    “It confirmed what I’d suspected, the government has been dragging its heels to keep SpaceX from succeeding by trying to force them to use obsolete technology from government contractors.”

    Incorrect. Spacex is the one that dragged its feet.
    A. It tried getting approval to fly without an FTS, which is ludicrous.
    B. Instead of using existing components for an FTS, it developed a new system which requires a qualification program which is not quick.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bennett wrote @ May 9th, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    Two books that nailed the GOP on the head for me…were “Dead Right” by David “axis of evil” Frum and The Future and its Enemies by Virigina Postell. I’ve also enjoyed “Come Back America” by DAvid Walker.

    In the end both parties have for a couple of reasons become addicted to almost unlimited federal spending. Little or none of it has to do with making The Republic better…most of it is about maintaining the interest groups inside the parties.

    The debate (such as it is here) illustrates that. None of the people who support Constellation can explain why funding it is important to The Republic other then in just the most vague terms (Chinese are coming etc) and yet to support it the answers on funding go “its only X number of weeks of the Iraq war” or “cut the health care program and fund this” or “cut this and fund Constellation”.

    None of them are ever able to address the reality that the program is wasteful, doesnt do a lot…because it is what they think a federal program should look like. But transfer the money to people out of unemployment …never.

    Most of the people who are “on the dole” at NASA are conservative in their thinking, cant stand wasteful federal programs but will tell you until they are blue in the face how what they do is vital to The Republic.

    McCain somewhere in his decades in the Senate got caught up in that.

    After 7 years of Bush economics as the banks ran aground because of their actions during that period the GOP establishment just could not face the consequences of their actions. They had a choice…admit the failure and take the consequences…or borrow from the future and pawn the consequences off on not only “us” because the bailout wasnt fixing things and onto the future.

    As Frum noted the choice was easy.

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    We are 16 months into a calamitous new administration and all the left can do is continue to blame Bush. How pathetic. Obama has exceeded 8 years of Bush deficits in two years, with raw, unsustainable paybacks to public unions. Our economy collapsed because both parties pushed the idea that dead beats should own homes. Stupid foreigners bought the promises of the deadbeats in the form of mortgage securities packaged by criminals on Wall Street. Everybody deserved to lose. And, man, we’re losing now with Marxists running the US economy.

  • John Schilling

    Obviously, we need the Ares V ICBM to carry the 100-megaton warhead, which is the only way we’ll ever be able to hit an enemy nuclear stockpile, start a chain reaction, and destroy the entire solar system. Clearly Mr. Bridgewater is wise in the ways of Nuclear War.

  • Two books that nailed the GOP on the head for me…were “Dead Right” by David “axis of evil” Frum and The Future and its Enemies by Virigina Postell.

    Yes, because Virginia’s book had nothing to do with Democrats.

    [rolling eyes]

  • Jason

    John Schilling wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 10:47 am
    Obviously, we need the Ares V ICBM to carry the 100-megaton warhead, which is the only way we’ll ever be able to hit an enemy nuclear stockpile, start a chain reaction, and destroy the entire solar system. Clearly Mr. Bridgewater is wise in the ways of Nuclear War.

    You have nothing to worry about… If it were an Ares ICBM, the warhead would be made of wood.

  • Vladislaw

    I thought the shuttle main engines cost 59 million a piece and 34 million to recondition after each flight.

    The russian RS 68 I believe were about 20 million a pop.

  • The RS-68 is an American engine. If you’re talking about the RD-180, they’re about ten million each.

  • common sense

    @ Jason wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    “You have nothing to worry about… If it were an Ares ICBM, the warhead would be made of wood.”

    Pretty good… And don’t forget it would probably recontact with the LV but it is a feature, on-design ops…

    Ah!

  • Vladislaw

    And of course it would burn down the launch platform as the Ares 1x did.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg if you are so blinded by partisanship that you cannot see Postells narrative applies to both Dems and Republicans and would easily apply to Constellation then I feel for you.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    Heh! I read this last comment and a song starting playing in my head:

    http://www.last.fm/music/Chaka+Khan/_/I+Feel+For+You

  • Yes, this is off-thread but then again most of this thread is off-thread.

  • R7

    amightywind said:

    And Ares I had a successful test flight too.

    Don’t bother with arguing with amightywind, he is a liar. Don’t waste your time.

  • Rand Simberg if you are so blinded by partisanship that you cannot see Postells narrative applies to both Dems and Republicans and would easily apply to Constellation then I feel for you.

    How can I be ‘blinded by partisanship” when I’m not a member of a party?

    I didn’t say that it didn’t apply to both Dems and Republicans. But you implied that. Learn to read.

  • mark valah

    This discussion thread has gone amok: RS-69 Engines, Russian RS-68, Ares-I versus Ares-IX confusions and various references to non-existing Atlas and Delta capabilities. Perhaps reference consulation and a bit of reading when formulating an opinion may be recommended.

    Obama plan is kicking in with the RFI for heavy lift (http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100507-heavy-lift-effort-inches-ahead.html). The industry is busy with proposal work as we speak, and the Constellation is becoming more and more of a shadow of the past. The correction described in the article was not as much meant for opening the choices of the liquid propellant combinations as much as it was let the solid propellant option in as well – correct me o this latter item if I’m wrong.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    I didn’t say that it didn’t apply to both Dems and Republicans. But you implied that. Learn to read.

    nope I didnt imply anything I stated that “In the end both parties have for a couple of reasons become addicted to almost unlimited federal spending. ”

    “both parties”.

    partisanship is not limited to “partys” ideological groups can be just as blinded. You were so blinded you looked for an implication instead of what I stated.

    gee

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    What will be entertaining to see in a case like Bennett’s is if the folks who are running against the people who pushed for the TARP can somehow find themselves in a political pretzel to justify their support of a program like Ares.

    But you can see the start of how they would do this by the thunderhead (is he a tea party person?) who talked about NASA rockets and nuclear deterrent. this is the kind of stuff that really racks up the hurrah’s of the right wingers who are in control in Utah.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    yeah

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    Glurps! How many different SD HLV can they come up with??? At least they show a lot of imagination. Hmm. A central tank with sold boosters on the side and the tank is SD and guess what the SRBs too. I assume there is as much support analysis to these things as there was with the Sidemount or Jupiter or the Boeing study or…

    New game at CxP: If I give you 2 SRBs and 1 Shuttle tank how many configs can you come up with? Of course we’ll have to add the engines and the LAS and…

    Well at least we know where the $2.5B for closing Constellation are going to.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    New game at CxP: If I give you 2 SRBs and 1 Shuttle tank how many configs can you come up with? Of course we’ll have to add the engines and the LAS and…

    everytime I see one of these studies which is the shell game you mention…I am reminded of one of my favorite songs from one of my favorite shows…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMkOt6nVQlU

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    “everytime I see one of these studies which is the shell game you mention…”

    You know it actually is pretty sad. ESAS was such a game and they came up with something and it did not work. And now they go about each and every configuration they can think of and it probably will not work either. And the reason is highly complex. I would like to give them a hint: “Shuttle derived” and “no requirements”. Okay that’s 2 hints.

  • Michael Kent

    amightywind wrote:

    I am not aware of any advanced plans for manned launch on an Atlas or Delta. Post some links.

    First, the Atlas V has already flown 21 times. It already exists, and, unlike Ares I, requires no development costs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

    Second, the Delta IV has already flown 12 times. It already exists, and, unlike Ares I, requires no development costs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV

    Man-rating these two vehicles requires only the development of an Emergency Detection System. Preliminary design of said system was initiated under the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program.

    http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=1677335289

    ULA estimates that the total development cost for man-rating the Atlas V is $300 million and the Delta IV is $400 million. Compare this to the $35 billion development cost of the Ares I.

    All of this is fairly well known in the aerospace industry. I’m surprised you missed it.

    Mike

  • Mike, as I keep saying, STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS. What’s wrong with you people? If someone says something stupid, just shake your head and MOVE ON TO PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION.. don’t dwell on the idiots.

  • amightywind

    Oler

    Thanks for theHLV posting. Fantasy or not it is good to see the debate becoming a technical and architectural one. You can expect a lot of folks to come out of the woodwork with the NASA leadership on the defensive. If you want an HLV, there are only so many ways to do it: shuttle derived, hybrid shuttle derived (Ares), EELV derived, Obama’s unicorns. It is hoped we can progress beyond ‘we will develop an HLV plan by 2015′. It makes much more sense to cut metal with the abundant components we have. I’m getting go fever just thinking about it.

  • Michael Kent

    amightywind wrote:

    The Atlas V is not large enough for an Orion class spacecraft.

    True, but that’s because Orion is massively overweight for the task at hand, not because the Atlas V is underpowered. Consider that the Orion is tasked with carrying four astronauts to LEO at a launch cost (of the Ares I) of over $1 billion / flight. Now consider that the manned Dragon, the DreamChaser, and the Boeing / Bigelow capsule are all being designed to carry seven astronauts to LEO at a launch cost of $150 million (Atlas V and Delta IV medium) or $50 million (Falcon 9). Seven astronauts at $50 – $150 million* / flight vs. four astronauts at $1 billion / flight. It’s not a difficult choice.

    The Delta IV would need a massive upgrade, including a new upper stage

    No, it would require only the development of the RS-68A engine. Funny thing. The RS-68A is already under development by PWR for the NRO. The development costs to NASA is zero. It is scheduled for first flight next year.

    Aren’t you embarrassed yet?

    Considering your ignorance of the Atlas V, the Delta IV, the CCDev contracts, the Ares I-X, and the development and operational costs of major pieces of America’s space program, I’d suggest refraining from slinging questions like that around.

    * launch cost. Does not include the cost of the crew vehicle or LAS.

    Mike

  • amightywind

    “No, it would require only the development of the RS-68A engine.”

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/Study061509.xml&headline=Study%20Finds%20Human-rated%20Delta%20IV%20Cheaper

    …and a J2-X, and 2.5 more years. pwnd.

  • @ Robert G. Oler…..I have every bit of confidence that in some alternate world, where the Republicans won the 2008 Election, that Constellation would have carried on. (Just like the damned ISS carries on, while keeping us trapped in LEO for another 15 to 20 years!) Republicans seem to be far more keener about doing things that keep the nation in a state of greatness. Just check out Mitt Romney’s new book: “The Case For American Greatness”. Under a hypothetical McCain Presidency, I see a man who would NOT have sold out to the petty “Let’s-take-care-of-the-Earth’s-problems-first” people. A truly GREAT nation or empire is basically obligated to do astounding things, and engage in exploration & re-exploration of other lands, continents, and frontiers. It is undeniable that the Democrats tend to shy away from doing grand space projects. (Aside from dull & boring business-as-usual in LEO.) I for one, will be rooting for the Republicans, for the most part, in this year’s Election and the next.

  • Chris, and Constellation would be no further along than it is now. Ares I won’t fly until 2014 at best, 2017 more likely, and Ares V simply cannot start at all until Ares I is operational. With the ISS splashed in 2014, as was the plan, there would simply be no-where to go and nothing to do with the Ares I. People are bemoaning the gap now, imagine the gap under that plan!

  • Robert wrote in confusion:

    nope I didnt imply anything I stated that “In the end both parties have for a couple of reasons become addicted to almost unlimited federal spending. ”

    You may have stated that, but it has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

    My response was to this:

    Two books that nailed the GOP on the head for me…were “Dead Right” by David “axis of evil” Frum and The Future and its Enemies by Virigina Postell.

    As I said, she wasn’t just talking about Republicans. Why can’t you even follow a discussion?

    Chris Castro irrelevantly wrote:

    Republicans seem to be far more keener about doing things that keep the nation in a state of greatness.

    Whether that’s true or not, Constellation was doing nothing to “keep the nation in a state of greatness.”

  • @ Trent Waddington…. All this petty talk about having no-place to go, if there isn’t a Skylab or an ISS some 200 miles up, sounds truly tiny-minded! When Apollo flew to the Moon, and broke the bonds of Earthian gravity, there was NO darned LEO space station!! What the blazes is going on here?! Now we GOTTA have a dull, gigantic aluminum can emplaced in LEO, or our astronauts go nowhere?! The Moon & other sizeable spherical bodies are totally disqualified as places to go to?? Just look at the Russians: LEO stations are all they’ve ever done, since the 1970’s. I predict, that the sooner we outgrow Low Earth Orbital stations, and see just what a dead-weight waste of time they truly are, the sooner we will actually remake grandiose strides into deep space, once more!

  • vulture4

    >>The USAF has no way to do business other then the way it does business until someone tells it to do business otherwise. (and as an aside I guess proves that the alternate way of doing business will work).<<

    Elon Musk apparently thought there was a way to persuade the USAF and its contractors to use some modicum of common sense, and it turned out there wasn't. The whole range safety system is obsolete. There's been talk of modernizing the range for at least the past 23 years, and commanders always talk of how great it will be next year, but nothing significant ever happens. The few people that really pushed for change were fought to a standstill by the range contractors, who apparently don't want real change because it may cost jobs. I could be wrong about this, but I've been here a long time and that's the way it looks to me.

Leave a Reply to Trent Waddington Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>