If there are supporters of the House’s version of the NASA authorization bill, they’re not nearly as vocal as the opponents of the legislation, as a couple more recent examples illustrate. Yesterday the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, decried the bill as “sole source space pork” for its support of the Ares 1 (or at least an Ares 1-like vehicle). “At a time when the economy is struggling and there is a rapidly growing $13.5 trillion national debt, politicians in Washington, D.C. should invest limited taxpayer resources in projects that have merit instead of wasting money on an attempt to resurrect the redundant, overpriced, unproven, and ethically challenged Ares 1 project,” said CCARW president Tom Schatz, who is also president of the parent CAGW. He called for passage of the Senate version, “which would allow the private sector to invest in a competitive commercial system and result in more efficient space travel.”
In an editorial today, Florida Today also endorsed the Senate version of the authorization bill as a better path to remove “uncertainty” on Florida’s Space Coast. “It’s time to move forward, and that can best be accomplished with House members dropping their measure that could come up for a vote soon and supporting the better Senate blueprint,” the editorial states. While the Senate version has programs like commercial crew and HLV development that could benefit the region, “the House bill rides the dead horse that’s Constellation” without even providing that with sufficient funding, it argues.
The House version didn’t even make an attempt to compromise on anything, it was just a half-hearted effort to extend the “life” of a zombie project by keeping the pork wagon rolling as a half-funded jobs program.
I don’t really care for the Senate version either, but it’s a true compromise and I’ll take it.
I have doubts about the DIRECTish HLV getting completed on time, but at least the commercial launch industry will get the jump start it wouldn’t otherwise get with the House version.
The Orion spacecraft won’t get to space by itself. We must have Ares I. The aerodynamics of the vehicle have been fully verified. The first stage is ready. All we need is the second stage. An inferior EELV solution would need the same stage.
amightywind wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 8:15 am “We must have Ares I” <- It's a lousy rocket, Windy. Crater it and press on with better birds. Existing LV short term and heavy lift in out years. The sooner Ares is buried, the better for Orion… and NASA.
Saying the same thing over and over again doesn’t necessarily make it true. The Aerospace Corporation found that the EELV Heavy options would be easily capable of launching Orion, with margin to spare and no need for the Ares I upper stage to be bolted on. You are also overstating both the readiness and necessity of Ares I.
The Orion spacecraft won’t get to space by itself. We must have Ares I. The aerodynamics of the vehicle have been fully verified. The first stage is ready. All we need is the second stage. An inferior EELV solution would need the same stage.
Arguments against the readiness and capabilities of the Ares1 have been made by folks more knowledgeable in the engineering aspects of it than you and I both Windy and you still bang the drum on it.
Repeating ideological beliefs all of the time do not make them facts, despite what you neocons say.
“We must have Ares I. The aerodynamics of the vehicle have been fully verified. The first stage is ready. All we need is the second stage. An inferior EELV solution would need the same stage.”
Wrong on all accounts. You have further discredited yourself with this blind support of the kludge called Ares I and posting of disinformation
1. There is no must have. see below
2. The aerodynamics of the vehicle have been NOT been verified. Ares I-X had an old version (3 or 4 versions earlier) of Orion and there were other Ares I differences.
3. The first stage is not ready, it has yet to perform any qual firing
4. EELV’s do not need the Ares I upperstage. Delta IV Heavy has more performance than Ares I
NASA is working on Orion on EELV studies now
Ares I – NASA and ATK giving America the Shaft
Ares I – NASA and ATK giving America the Shaft
Or more accurately, ‘The Stick’. I have not seen one technical, cost, or political argument against Ares I that merits the vitriol seen on this forum. The best argument I have seen against Ares I is ‘under powered’. It is very common to see dramatic weight reductions in spacecraft in subsequent generations. It happened with Apollo and the Space Shuttle. It will be the same with Orion. I am sorry, but I do not see a hydrogen fueled triple body rocket as superior in cost or complexity to a single man-rated solid rocket motor.
Of the two bills – the Senate has the best chance of being approved. Senators have far more influence than Representatives, and several very powerful Senators (Hutchison, Nelson) are behind the compromise Senate bill.
Now fortunately the Senate bill is also more realistic! We probably will be launching the revived Orion on a Delta (avoiding the Russian engine question we have with Atlas) sooner than we could have done so on an Ares 1.
And hopefully we will also have the choice of flying on a Dragon, a CST-100, a Cygnus, etc.
Does anyone know how many Orions will be built with the initial contract, how reusable they are, and (if so) how many flights per ship are anticipated?
amightywind wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 10:08 am
“I am sorry, but I do not see a hydrogen fueled triple body rocket as superior in cost or complexity to a single man-rated solid rocket motor.”
Cost to develop:
Ares I = ~$20B R&D
Delta IV Heavy = $1.3B to man-rate
Cost to fly:
Ares I = $1B/year for operations + $138M marginal cost
Delta IV Heavy = $300M/flight
Now you see. And you always have, so pleading ignorance is not going to help you make your case.
Bennett asked: Does anyone know how many Orions will be built with the initial contract, how reusable they are, and (if so) how many flights per ship are anticipated?
There has been NO contract for production of Orion – just development. Once Orion is developed, a production contract can be negotiated. That having been said, the initial plan is for Orion to fly twice a year. And for the capsule itself to NOT be reusable. Now lots of options are being considered but they are all vague plans.
Bennett wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:12 am
as they say most of the details about Orion are still being “hammered flat”…
Robert G. Oler
Coastal Ron wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Cost to develop:…
Thanks for the illuminating numbers Ron. I would have never guessed they would work out so unfavorably to Ares. The usual source citations I see. But we have learned to assume the numbers are PFYA.
@almightywind
There are several viable options for launching manned space capsules, including Orion, into orbit.
NASA’s Next Crew Launch Vehicle?
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2001/09/nasas-next-crew-launch-vehicle.html
“Now fortunately the Senate bill is also more realistic! We probably will be launching the revived Orion on a Delta (avoiding the Russian engine question we have with Atlas) sooner than we could have done so on an Ares 1. ”
what?
Senate bill I think has orion on top of shuttle derived Hlv,,like Direct,,no ohter rocket is needed..
dont complicate things without a reason,,delta 4 heavy both and Ares 1 are not storng enough and orion weight will have the same problems..and maybe it will not be a good beo vehicle..
while with Direct senate plan we have one rocket manned or not..
like Saturn V ,but with reusable first stage-srb..
Florida Today’s position on the House Bill amounts to a sparrow’s burp in the midst of a hurricane since most of the motivation for the House Authorization Act is not coming from Florida but from AZ, TX, AL, and TN. If anyone here would read Gordon’s letter to Hubbard and the Aerospace Corp. letter to Giffords, it is clear that the House isn’t going to compromise–that is what FL’s Nelson does.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:41 am
NASA’s Next Crew Launch Vehicle?
I wish. This was my preferred choice among the options proposed by Boeing. The problem is engineering sanity doesn’t count for much.
amightywind wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:34 am
“ would have never guessed they would work out so unfavorably to Ares. The usual source citations I see. But we have learned to assume the numbers are PFYA.”
Yes, so now you can finally stop obsessing over Ares I. And regarding costs, I know I low-balled it, since the overall public estimates (it keeps going through redesigns) are somewhere in the neighborhood of $40B, and I think they’ve only spent $10B so far.
What have we seen for our $10B? One dummy launch of a rocket that had no Ares I flight hardware. Such a deal!
You keep coming up with new acronyms – “PFYA” = Parents For Young Actors?
p.s. I’ve asked you repeatedly for what you think the Ares I costs are, but you have declined. If you don’t have them, fine, but don’t complain when others actually have facts, and show that you are wrong.
I would prefer the best parts of all three proposals and that it be funded to be successful. If there must be a compromise (that is less than full funding) then the Senate version is the best out there.
Never could see the point to Ares I when we had proven families to evolve in the Atlas and Delta programs.
I’m becoming a late, and a little reluctant, sign-on to the Senate version.
Maybe we can all be friends again once the compromise is finalized.
Boeing and Space Adventures announced today they are doing commercial rides to orbital destinations.
http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.viewnews&newsid=809
Check into the “CCAGW” and you will find that they are totally opposed to any manned space program. If anything, their support of the Senate bill is like Nazi support for a Jewish settlement an Antartica.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
no matter if your statement is accurate or not it still does not change Ares as being pork
Robert G. Oler
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:41 am
about 20 years ago that was a neat idea Robert G. Oler
. I have not seen one technical, cost, or political argument against Ares I that merits the vitriol seen on this forum. The best argument I have seen against Ares I is ‘under powered’. It is very common to see dramatic weight reductions in spacecraft in subsequent generations. It happened with Apollo and the Space Shuttle. It will be the same with Orion. I am sorry, but I do not see a hydrogen fueled triple body rocket as superior in cost or complexity to a single man-rated solid rocket motor.
1. 10 more billion to develop is a great cost argument against. It is at less 10x more than any EELV.
2. Under performing is enough technical argument, along with TO at any level
3. Again you are clueless. Both the shuttle and Apollo grew in weight as the programs progress. The launch vehicles had to increase performance.
4. Because it is a manrated solid, it is costly and complexity because it is susceptible to process influences which takes a large amount of labor to mitigate.
http://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/24583711846
Jeff Foust tweets a comment by Boeing’s Eblon at today’s CST-100 & Space Adventures press conference:
Elbon: comm’l crew part of balanced exploration program, including development of Orion and an HLV
“NASA’s Next Crew Launch Vehicle?
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2001/09/nasas-next-crew-launch-vehicle.html”
This is a piece of crap writing and highly biased.
Environmental impact comments are all BS.
H2 is not carbon neutral and won’t be for many decades to never.
RP-1 is not as polluting as H2 for those same decades
The piece of crap conveniently over looks the perchlorate and acid pollution from SRM’s, not to mention ozone reduction.
Florida Today on the Boeing Space Aventures announcement:
http://space.flatoday.net/2010/09/boeing-space-adventures-to-market.html
Marcel:
Excellent and concise breakdown of the options open to NASA for crew launch to LEO.
Thanks
byeman wrote:
H2 is not carbon neutral and won’t be for many decades to never.
What about H2 + O2 = H2O + E don’t you understand? LH2 happens to be manufactured from methane, but so what? The gas products would be used anyway.
RP-1 is not as polluting as H2 for those same decades
It kinda is, not that I care at all.
The piece of crap conveniently over looks the perchlorate and acid pollution from SRM’s, not to mention ozone reduction.
The Aluminum salt trails of the shuttle SRM at sunset made some of the most beautiful images of the shuttle era. The environmental impact is minimal. Indeed, the recovery and reuse of spent motor casings is very environmentally friendly, as compared to SpaceX who plans to litter the floor of the Atlantic with expensive F9 tanks and engines. I think they should be fined.
Long tailpipe issue. you gotta put energy into that system to get out the H2. You do it via burning coal, I’d hardly find it carbon neutral.
More and more research is saying that fireworks alone are producing dangerous levels of percholate, and the amount of percholate in fireworks is MUCH lower than in the SRBs. And why is it I seem to remember Musk talking about reusing the Falcon 9?
Oh please!!!!!
Dose the environmental impact of ANY of these launchers really make a noticeable impact. I would seriously doubt it! Cow farts and chicken manure cause more of an environmental impact!
Lady to Bess Truman: Could you get the president to stop using the word, “manure”?
Bess Truman: It took me 20 years to get him to call it manure!.
Excellent and concise breakdown of the options open to NASA for crew launch to LEO.
Amazing how SDLV proponents will happily continue to spout falsehoods after they have been called on it repeatedly.
As well as announcing Boeing and Space Adventure’s planned commercial manned joint venture today, Spacex is also running tanking test today on the fully integrated Falcon 9 and Dragon cargo capsule preparing for an October launch. This will be the second flight for Falcon 9 and the first for the completed Dragon cargo capsule. Here is a tanking picture from the cape. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22041.0;attach=244532;image
“The Aluminum salt trails of the shuttle SRM… The environmental impact is minimal.”
This is not true. When it enters local water supplies in high enough concentrations, aluminum perchlorate inhibits iodine uptake in the thyroid, inducing hypothyroidism in adults and adversely affecting child and fetal development. The EPA and the states of Arizona, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Texas have all set aluminum perchlorate groundwater standards. See:
spacedaily.com/news/fuel-02h.html
newscientist.com/article/dn7057
ewg.org/report/CDC-Scientists-Find-Rocket-Fuel-Chemical-In-Infant-Formula
dtsc.ca.gov/hazardouswaste/perchlorate/
yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/e87e8bc7fd0c11f1852572a000650c05/d595d12e9bddd708852572bb0063cd61!OpenDocument
Environmentally, aluminum perchlorate also interferes with thyroid function in animals ranging from fish to racoons. For example, in some fish, this disrupts (or reverses) sexual development and “masculinizes” the females. See:
thefreelibrary.com/Macho+moms%3A+perchlorate+pollutant+masculinizes+fish-a0150090687
A number of government facilities have had to undertake very expensive activities to remediate plumes of aluminum perchlorate dumped into water tables during various military and civil rocket development and testing programs from the latter half of the last century.
I don’t know if KSC or ATK are such facilities yet or how close local groundwater is to exceeding aluminum perchlorate standards, but you definitely don’t want to become such a facility. Even setting aside liabilities, the costs of environmental remediation are huge — we’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars. Every SRB firing adds to the potential liability and environmental remediation costs.
FWIW…
Martijn:
“Amazing how SDLV proponents will happily continue to spout falsehoods after they have been called on it repeatedly.”
And what falsehoods would that be?
The idea that the Shuttle/SDLV is more environmentally friendly than LOX/kerosene launchers or that it would matter, apart from local effects which would benefit LOX/kerosene launchers.
And why is it I seem to remember Musk talking about reusing the Falcon 9?
Musk has said much, delivered little.
Well Martjin, this is the first time I can remember the topic of which is the most environmentally friendly launch vehicle and it doesn’t really matter anyway.
The important parts are reliability and viability.
We discussed it at length over at NSF.com and Marcel was unable to defend the idea.
amightywind wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
“Musk has said much, delivered little.”
Hmm. As a person, he has previously built and sold two successful companies. As a current CEO, he has lead one company to a successful IPO, and for another (SpaceX) turned $150M in investor money into a $2.4B customer order backlog.
Also for SpaceX, they have fielded one operational commercial launcher (Falcon 1), have a larger one in test (Falcon 9), anticipated the ISS cargo market with their Dragon capsule, and are getting ready for their first orbital test. Also for Dragon, as part of the COTS program SpaceX has successfully passed 16 of 22 COTS milestones, of which they have been paid $248M.
In comparison, Ares I has consumed $Billions in taxpayer money, of which $445M was spent on a test flight that tested no Ares I flight hardware or software.
Right as always Windy…
More BS from Windy,
1. What about H2 + O2 = H2O + E don’t you understand? LH2 happens to be manufactured from methane, but so what? The gas products would be used anyway.}
2. RP-1 is not as polluting as H2 for those same decades
It kinda is, not that I care at all.
3. The Aluminum salt trails of the shuttle SRM at sunset made some of the most beautiful images of the shuttle era. The environmental impact is minimal. Indeed, the recovery and reuse of spent motor casings is very environmentally friendly, as compared to SpaceX who plans to litter the floor of the Atlantic with expensive F9 tanks and engines. I think they should be fined.
1. Because the production is CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2 and no you can’t say the gas products would be used.
2. wrong see above
3. Perchlorate is the issue
Ares I would be littering upperstages. Also, refurbing SRB’s is a very polluting operation.
So again, Windy makes a fool of himself
“I am sorry, but I do not see a hydrogen fueled triple body rocket as superior in cost or complexity to a single man-rated solid rocket motor.â€
And hence, that is why you are not in the space program and just a poster on a forum who has opinions that are grossly wrong.
MrEarl wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
“Marcel:
Excellent and concise breakdown of the options open to NASA for crew launch to LEO.”
You just discredited yourself. It was neither concise or excellent, it was highly biased and contains incorrect information.
1. EELV options use an upperstage (ACES) that is not planned for any near term use or for Orion. Any EELV for Orion will use existing components.
2. 8.4 meter core only SDLV is not on the table
3. Falcon 9 would not be a NASA vehicle
4. where is Boeing’s CST?
Vladislaw wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Bill White wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
The Boeing / Space Adventures announcement is interesting but it may be less than it appears. Boeing has a process for launching commercial products where the business unit goes to the board of directors and gets approved for offering the product. For example, this happened in 2003 for the 787. I would not consider the CST-100 to be truly real until it goes to the board.
Boeing has signed off on 3 mou’s for this (memorandum of understanding) and though it is a binding agreement that doesn’t hold the same weight as a contract, it is a legal agreement to carry out the articles set forth. It would be nice to see what some of the stipulations, does boeing have to win development money from NASA to proceed? So i would imagine the board has green lighted at least something.
Bigelow supposedly put up over 700 mil in promisary contract spending to boeing in the one they signed. I believe Boeing joining the commercial space federation was the telling point, that they were going to cut some strings to the traditional way of doing business and are going to seriously take on commercial crew services.
Rhyolite wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
“The Boeing / Space Adventures announcement is interesting but it may be less than it appears.”
Yep, in that the agreement does not come with any dollars, just that it is a formal partnership. We don’t know what the terms are, so it’s hard to know for sure how big or little the potential is for either partner. And, of course, there is no product yet.
In your mentioning the 787, we have to remember all the hoopla around the Dreamliner, which was the precursor to the current 787. I think Boeing is doing it’s darnedest to promote not just their capsule/service, but woo dollars out of Congress.
Since our representatives are so short of detailed knowledge about space related stuff, an article in USA Today may be more informative than a 2 hour hearing. This Boeing promotion is also the kind of thing that SpaceX gets slammed for, so it will be interesting to see how some people spin the difference.
Vladislaw wrote @ September 16th, 2010 at 12:23 am
“Boeing has signed off on 3 mou’s for this (memorandum of understanding) and though it is a binding agreement that doesn’t hold the same weight as a contract, it is a legal agreement to carry out the articles set forth. It would be nice to see what some of the stipulations, does boeing have to win development money from NASA to proceed? So i would imagine the board has green lighted at least something.”
That is possible but it may also be the other way around. The business unit is collecting non-binding (or very loosely binding) MOU’s as a way of demonstrating to the board that there is a real business case and justifying the approval of large scale investments.
Coastal Ron wrote @ September 16th, 2010 at 1:07 am
“In your mentioning the 787, we have to remember all the hoopla around the Dreamliner, which was the precursor to the current 787. I think Boeing is doing it’s darnedest to promote not just their capsule/service, but woo dollars out of Congress.”
I think you might mean the Sonic Cruiser (the 787 is branded as the Dreamliner) but that is a good example here. Boeing spent much of 2001 and 2002 promoting the Sonic Cruiser concept for a Mach 0.98 airliner. It certainly looked cool but the airline interest didn’t materialize and they never took it forward to the point of offerability.
They floated the 7E7 concept soon after, which did attract the airline interest and went on to become the 787 Dreamliner.
The CST-100 may be where the Sonic Cruiser was in 2001 or the 7E7 was in early 2003 – a concept Boeing is promoting to see if a critical mass of customers will form. The form of the NASA authorization takes must play into this decision as well.
This is one telling reason why we don’t have a viable space program- much less anything else the people of the United States are crying out for:
“Iraq might be running a budget surplus but that doesn’t mean it should spend it, U.S. officials said Tuesday, arguing that the Iraqi government’s finances are too fragile for it to pay a greater share of its security costs. A GAO study found that Iraq had a $53.1 billion surplus at the end of 2009 including $11.8 billion ready to be spent. [Yet] the Pentagon has requested an additional $2 billion for training and equipping the Iraqi military and police in fiscal year 2011 and the Obama Administration has has asked Congress to approve the request. [Meanwhile,] as much as 90% of Iraq’s revenues come from oil.” – McClatchy Newspapers
@ Rhyolite wrote @ September 16th, 2010 at 1:49 am
“I think you might mean the Sonic Cruiser (the 787 is branded as the Dreamliner) but that is a good example here. Boeing spent much of 2001 and 2002 promoting the Sonic Cruiser concept for a Mach 0.98 airliner. It certainly looked cool but the airline interest didn’t materialize and they never took it forward to the point of offerability.
They floated the 7E7 concept soon after, which did attract the airline interest and went on to become the 787 Dreamliner. ”
If memory serves, actually, Boeing promoted several concepts of their new twin jet, the most spectacular being the Sonic Cruiser. However at that time they said that the current engine technology would either provide a near sonic cruiser or a fuel efficient airliner. It is difficult to blame the airlines for their choice. In addition the Sonic Cruiser may have required some overdue improvement to ATC worldwide. I think the Sonic Cruiser may exist already, Citation-X, that the public won’t see much of a difference between M 0.98 and M 0.83, the gains would be really small. But Boeing at that time was able to come back in the game, showing that innovation was not only taking place at Airbus. Suddenly Airbus was second in the game. Recall the history of the A350.
“The CST-100 may be where the Sonic Cruiser was in 2001 or the 7E7 was in early 2003 – a concept Boeing is promoting to see if a critical mass of customers will form. The form of the NASA authorization takes must play into this decision as well.”
For the CST to be like the Sonic Cruiser it’d have to be the “crewed X-37″. It’d have to be a publicity stunt, a smart one. Something like SpaceX can only design a capsule, look what we could do! Tada! Then when reality settles they’d go for a capsule. A little like what LMT did with the CEV Phase 1 “lifting body” monstrosity and then the capsule… The LMT CEV Phase 1 concept had zero chance of seeing the day of light but it provided a lot of buzz as to what LMT was putting forth…
@Martijn Meijering
“We discussed it at length over at NSF.com and Marcel was unable to defend the idea.”
Actually, NSF.com deleted a lot of my post and my graphics on the SD-CV concept because they felt it confused readers with the SD-HLV concept that they advocated. However, I did receive a positive note from one of the Boeing architects who proposed the inline concept without the SRBs.
“Actually, NSF.com deleted a lot of my post and my graphics on the SD-CV concept because they felt it confused readers with the SD-HLV concept that they advocated.”
That is not true. NSF may host a Direct forum but it does not advocate any specific vehicle. You posts were deleted because
a. They were on the wrong thread
b. They were full of disinformation like your blog
On another note, the inline vehicle without SRB’s will never be built.
1. NASA wants more performance and hence SRB’s are required
2. NASA can use existing vehicles for a CLV
3, Without NASA sponsorship, Boeing can’t build it as a commercial vehicle because it would compete with EELV’s
@Byeman
Anything I post on my blog is heavily referenced. One of the Boeing engineers who proposed the concept actually sent me an email complimenting me on my blog. But if you don’t like a science blog that actually references what it writes, then don’t visit it!
The inline crew launch vehicle without the SRBs is Boeing’s concept and the ULA uses vehicles produced by both Boeing and Lockheed.
Williams,
I don’t like “science” blogs that blatantly wrong and have wrong information and have links to it in other sites. Unknowning people might think you have a clue and they will get the wrong ideas. I will continue to call you out every time you post incorrect statements.
Additionally, your blog is not a science blog, it is a highly bias opinion piece. References don’t mean squat if you also include unsubstantiated and incorrect information which your blog reeks of. All your points about various vehicle’s environmental impacts are wrong and misleading. Furthermore, the term “green” is not just limited to carbon emissions, it is includes all pollution, which means SRM’s are the worst of all existing propulsion systems. Also a compliment from one of the designers is meaningless since they are not a disinterested party.
Here is more proof that you don’t know what you are talking about.
“ULA uses vehicles produced by both Boeing and Lockheed”:
This wrong on many points.
a. ULA produce the vehicles.
b. ULA is no longer Boeing or LM, it is a separate company that only exists to produce EELV’s
c. It is both Boeing and Lockheed that uses vehicles produced by ULA
d. As part of the formation of ULA, Boeing and LM can not design and operate vehicles that compete with ULA vehicles.
@Byeman
1. Writing a science blog is about presenting your scientific opinions. The fact that you think my blog is biased strongly suggest that it is you whose actually biased.
2. My article focused on the most potentially dangerous environmental problem of our time (global warming). Some anonymous individual, however, did complain about other pollution from solid rocket boosters which I pointed out is– insignificant– relative to the amount of atmospheric chlorine produced from private industry and even by nature itself. So you’re clearly wrong on this point!
3. I believe that Boeing and Lockheed still retain the right to market their spacecraft to the ULA and even beyond the ULA. But if I am wrong on this point, I stand corrected.
“Musk has said much, delivered little.”
Except for that whole launching a 10 tonne vehicle to orbit on the first attempt thing.
Williams,
1. Your blog is not just biased but just plainly wrong
2. Again you are wrong/ Do some research.
a. The concern about SRMs is not air pollution but in ground and water from the production and perchlorates.
b same argument is valid and more applicable to hydrocarbon rockets. “insignificant– relative to the amount of atmospheric carbon produced from private industry and even by nature itself.”
3. you are wrong. Boeing and LM market the EELV to other spacecraft including each other.
“Democrat House leadership” You can’t even call the Democratic Party by its proper name? What’s next: “Obamacare”? It’s useful to learn Space Politics is a doctrinaire Republican Party site.
Mr. Crispen: I’m not sure I understand the criticism of “Democrat House leadership”, as that phrase does not appear in this post. However, as you’re no doubt aware by perusing the comments here, this site welcomes comments representing a broad range of opinions across the political spectrum. Thus, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that this is a “doctrinaire Republican Party site” but would be happy to discuss your specific concerns offline.