The FY12 budget was wrapped up and signed into law on Friday, but there are still some reactions to the bill filtering in. Last week Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) issued a joint statement about the bill, praising elements of the bill that support the Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, in particular space technology. (The statement includes a quote from Bobby Braun, the former NASA chief technologist, who says the space technology funding “allows NASA to begin development of a suite of cutting-edge technologies that will accelerate the pace of our future in space while creating high-tech jobs and fueling American innovation at home.”) Rep. LaTourette also hailed the funding for the Space Launch System, which he called “the rocket that was envisioned under the Constellation program”, adding that “one day we will get America back into Space and back to the moon”.
The bipartisan cooperation of Sen. Brown and Rep. LaTourette got the attention, and praise, of the Cleveland Plain Dealer in an editorial Monday. “The fact that Brown is a Democrat and LaTourette a Republican ought to underscore both the value of bipartisan cooperation and the fact that shoring up NASA Glenn is a goal that transcends party labels,” it notes.
An editorial Sunday in the Orlando Sentinel is more pessimistic because of the reduced funding for NASA’s commercial crew efforts. “Now it’s the Russians who can celebrate,” it states, noting that the reduced funding it likely to delay the development of such systems and thus lengthen the time the US is reliant on Russian vehicles to access the ISS. “It’s penny wise and ruble foolish for Congress to extend such dependency by starving funding for shuttle successors.”
The editorial did see a bright side to the bill in the form of $484 million for KSC facility upgrades, something also cited by Florida Today columnist John Kelly on Sunday. He also points out the reduced commercial crew funding as well as the funding for the “boondoggle” James Webb Space Telescope. On JWST, he argues, “Congress missed an opportunity here to finally take a stand on NASA’s inability and apparent unwillingness to reform how it plans and runs big projects.”
Rep. LaTourette also hailed the funding for the Space Launch System, which he called “the rocket that was envisioned under the Constellation programâ€, adding that “one day we will get America back into Space and back to the moonâ€.
Perhaps someone should introduce Rep. LaTourette to the NASA Channel so he can see that America is in space right now.
Jeez, these people are idiots.
Bobby Brown: “Space technology funding “allows NASA to begin development of a suite of cutting-edge technologies that will accelerate the pace of our future in space while creating high-tech jobs and fueling American innovation at home.â€
Nothing is accelerated. We are buying Russian high tech jobs. This is clearly a ‘talking point’ passed down from the Obama Admin to each of the Agencies.
With the impasse of the Deficit Commission, and the failure of democracy that impasse represents, it’s time to bring on the NASA BRAC Commission and shut down some NASA Centers.
Merge JPL and GSFC and APL (the 11th NASA Center), Glenn and LaRC, JSC and MSFC, WFF and KSC. Close Stennis and Dryden.
Time to “Occupy NASA’.
That should do it.
Good morning.
This is a question about commercial and the distant historical past. Slightly off topic but generally deals with regulating of commercial and what the ‘powers’ did to help/hinder and apply that to what we see today:
Conestoga 1 (a blast from the past)
I was only a kid, but still it caught my attention that a private firm wanted to launch a rocket. Yes, I remember being disappointed it failed miserably. Although I’ve read some history on it, I’m hoping those here that have some background can fill in some gaps.
Was NASA supportive of the effort? Did FAA try to regulate? (Rutan got a FAA tail license for Spaceship1/2). What roadblocks that exist today that didn’t exist leading up to countdown then? Basically were the owners of Conestoga1 allowed to look around and say, “fire in the hole” and push the green button without bureaucracy or Congress breathing down their neck similar to Robert Goddard launching the first rocket on Pakachoag Hill, in Auburn, MA (5 minutes from here)
Gary Anderson
PS: Supercommittee ‘dismal failure’, Congress Fy12 ‘dismal failure’. Blame goes round and round I blame everybody. (including myself, what more could I have done that I didn’t do, because I lamented, (i am powerless and we are spinning wheels)
Goddard launching the first rocket on Pakachoag Hill, in Auburn, MA (5 minutes from here)
One of the reasons I am glad I no longer live in Massachusetts (I grew up in Ware.) is the annoying, stifling, nostalgia. As interesting a side note as Goddard was, Von Braun and the Germans were the real inventors of modern rocketry. I am just glad we had a wise enough military and political leadership to grab them after the war.
Congress Fy12 ‘dismal failure’.
In my mind the current congress is a rousing success. The march of socialism is stopped. The GOP are playing defense until the next cycle. Let the sequester go into full effect. It is only a fraction of what must come.
“Von Braun and the Germans were the real inventors of modern rocketry.”
An yet you shill for SLS with its SRBs. von Braun abhorred the idea of using SRBs for human spaceflight. Thought they were too dangerous because ignition could not be terminated. A criticism that is still valid to this day.
Hi AW –
What do you propose that NASA shut down?
Off the top of my head, I propose that when the sequester goes into effect, NASA shut down the SLS and Johnson, moving its operations to Kennedy and Marshall.
If they build the SLS, where do you think its first destination should be? http://bit.ly/rJVwRA
At what point does Congress cancel SLS?
If Congress cancelled it now NASA would have $1.86B this year to “fast-track” the Commercial entities and have America launching Americans in space in 2014 or 2015. That would save another $1B on Russian rides during those years.
If SLS is to be cancelled eventually (President Gingritch) it’d be better to do as soon as possible to direct funding to goals that achieve something with some merit. Like planetary science, in orbit technologies, etc.
@ sftommy wrote @ November 22nd, 2011 at 2:00 pm
“If Congress cancelled it now NASA would have $1.86B this year to “fast-track†the Commercial entities and have America launching Americans in space in 2014 or 2015. That would save another $1B on Russian rides during those years.”
Unfortunately if Congress cancels SLS the money will not go back to NASA. Not for this amount anyway. It will be scavenged by others. Why? Because those who determine space priorities and budgets are weak in front of others with much more pressing priorities. Because they have no clue as to what is needed for a thriving space economy.
Ah and Gingrich will not be President. Gingrich does not have the right charisma, too many affairs, does not have the base. Romney will lose because of his flip-flop on healthcare and does not have the base. Huntsman well does not even register with voters. Perry and Bachman are so nuts that GOP moderates will not go for them yet they have the base. Cain. Not a chance anymore, should not get close to women err… too late.
Today most likely Obama will have a 2nd term. Any sane candidate would not take the mandate in those demanding awful times. Who believes that any one candidate can actually “change Washington”?
Whatever.
As interesting a side note as Goddard was, Von Braun and the Germans were the real inventors of modern rocketry.
More ignorance from the usual suspect. Von Braun said that his rockets “blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles.” The Germans were strongly influenced by him as well as Oberth.
What do you propose that NASA shut down?
Mandatory 20% reduction in headcount, across the board. Zero out ISS, and climate sciences. Shutter Ames, Goddard.
von Braun abhorred the idea of using SRBs for human spaceflight.
I won’t quibble with the great man. He had the natural biases of a man who perfected liquid fueled rockets. The simplicity, compactness, and flexibility afforded by SRBs is undeniable. Von Braun was also an opponent of LOR.
Thought they were too dangerous because ignition could not be terminated.
I have often wondered what is ‘safe’ about cutting off a rocket engine operating at high pressure when the tanks are full. Kinda like committing suicide to keep from getting killed. But it makes a good talking point for you monkeys. Better to have a reliable motor and go for a ride.
Hi AW –
Well, if you’re going to zero out ISS, then you could shutter Johnson.
Zero out climate science? Obviously, you’ve never farmed, or ate.
That’s one of the most important parts of NASA research.
Repeat after me: Large solids have combustion oscillations. Large solids have combustion oscillations. Large solids have combustion oscillations…
Well, if you’re going to zero out ISS, then you could shutter Johnson.
No. JSC would support manned operations as it ever has.
Zero out climate science? Obviously, you’ve never farmed, or ate.
NOAA can perform essential resource monitoring. Interesting that your first reflex in considering simple reforms is to make wild claims and look for hostages. NASA has no measurable effect on agricultural production.
Large solids have combustion oscillations.
Successfully managed by a simple damping system which was demonstrated on the successful Ares I-X flight. Those oscillating solids will provide key energy in sending MSL to Mars.
At least you seem to support a mandatory RIF. That’s a start.
“The simplicity, compactness, and flexibility afforded by SRBs is undeniable.
And a greater danger to human crew in case of mission abort according to Air Force super computer analyses.
“The simplicity, compactness, and flexibility afforded by SRBs is undeniable.”
Nothing like flying on 7th Century Chinese-developed technology.
Still doesn’t address the disadvantages of solid propellants –
* Higher empty mass for the rocket stage
* Lower performance than storable liquid propellants
* Transportability – since Solid propellants have to either be either
(A) limited in size to be transportable
(B) cast in segments, with the segments assembled at the launch site or
(C ) cast in a factory at the launch site (like the 260″ Aerojet SRM).
* Once ignited, they cannot be shut down or throttled.
* Nearly always catastrophic results in the event of a failure.
* Lower performance than storable liquid propellants
Yes. Best used as a first stage solution where compactness and high thrust in the lower atmosphere are more important than Isp. And storable propellants are a waste of time compared to LH2.
* Transportability – since Solid propellants have to either be either
Segments have been successfully shipped from Utah to Florida for 30 years. You claim there is a problem when there is none.
(A) limited in size to be transportable
See above.
(B) cast in segments, with the segments assembled at the launch site or
They work. You just don’t like the solution.
* Once ignited, they cannot be shut down or throttled.
Which means they do the job without the need for expensive control systems or turbo machinery.
* Nearly always catastrophic results in the event of a failure.
The SRB failure rate (1/270) makes it one of the most reliable rocket engines ever built. The Orion Crew Escape System makes this point mute.
QED.
sftommy wrote:
At what point does Congress cancel SLS?
Only after everything in NASA that doesn’t have pork in it is cancelled.
If Congress cancelled it now NASA would have $1.86B this year to “fast-track†the Commercial entities and have America launching Americans in space in 2014 or 2015. That would save another $1B on Russian rides during those years.
But Congress won’t cancel SLS. Remember that, after the Augustine report and all those bad audit, the Obama administration tried to cancel Constellation only to have Congress go apes*** because it would cut off pork to their districts. So we wound up with a political compromise, SLS in exchange for saving the ISS and funding CCDev.
Congress has gone back on that compromise by cutting CCDev funding by more than half what was requested by the Obama administration for FY12. Meanwhile, they made sure SLS is more than fully funded.
If SLS is to be cancelled eventually (President Gingritch) it’d be better to do as soon as possible to direct funding to goals that achieve something with some merit. Like planetary science, in orbit technologies, etc.
Again, no President will be able to cancel SLS. The Senate Launch System is a Congressional pork program, plain and simple. No President will veto an omnibus or minibus appropriation package over one program in one relatively insignificant agency.
Gary Anderson sayd:
“Was NASA supportive of the effort? ”
No. The commercial launch industry did not exsist yet. All satelight launches were through NASA. In this world NASA is a bit of a middle man who selects the rocket on which to launch your satelight and launches it.
In addition NASA policy was to launch all satelights on the space shuttle. Hard to get outside private investment with policies like this. This was us policy till 1986.
“Did FAA try to regulate? (Rutan got a FAA tail license for Spaceship1/2). What roadblocks that exist today that didn’t exist leading up to countdown then? Basically were the owners of Conestoga1 allowed to look around and say, “fire in the hole†and push the green button without bureaucracy or Congress breathing down their neck similar to Robert Goddard launching the first rocket on Pakachoag Hill, in Auburn, MA (5 minutes from here)â€
FAA regulates all launches for the safety of the general public. They are not the main road block.
@AMW
“The SRB failure rate (1/270) makes it one of the most reliable rocket engines ever built. The Orion Crew Escape System makes this point mute.”
You always try to worm your way out of situations where you have shown your ignorance by piling up even more B.S. For one thing the crew would be subjected to higher acceleration during an escape because they have to pull away from a still accelerating vehicle putting greater (possibly medically detrimental) physical stress on there bodies. There is also the issue of explosively dispersed still burning solid propellant endangering astronauts lives as indicated in the Air Force study I already mentioned.
How can you think anyone will take you seriously after the endless series of ludicrous claims you have made. Such as: Claiming the first Falcon 9 flight didn’t make it to orbit long after it was an established fact it had. Claiming Commercial Crew is primarily supported by left-wing radicals. Recently not taking into account the difference in gravitational pull for Earth vs Mars when disparaging a powered plane on Mars. I could go on and on. Don’t you ever get tired of being humiliated from not knowing what you are talking about? You’re the laughing stock of this blog.
Hi AW –
When you add in the casing mass, solids really become loosers.
When you look at LOC, the same holds.
Area 1-X was a 4 seg.
How much mass did that “simple” damping system need?
How complex were its sensor/control system?
What manned missions for Johnson are you talking about?
Flying a few men to the Moon or Mars?
What makes you think we should spend money on either one?
Why do you think that money from shutting Ames and Goddard would be spent on either?
von Braun actually intended to fly in his rockets, and he remembered Max Valier.
Hi AW –
“Interesting that your first reflex in considering simple reforms is to make wild claims and look for hostages. NASA has no measurable effect on agricultural production.”
Interesting that you mentally tie climate research to AGW.
AGW or not, our economy has to end its dependence on foreign oil.
The problem is long range weather forecasts, and they are not good enough.
Ever hear of El Nino and La Nina?
Solar Variability?
NOAA lacks the expertise to build the systems to investigate these.
Speaking about earmarks, I’d like to add one to the cur-backs. NASA could fire David Morrison and shut down astrobiology. The guy can’t even get his ELE’s straight.
common sense wrote @ November 22nd, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Who believes that any one candidate can actually “change Washington�..
I do.
American history is full of “one person” getting elected to the Presidency in difficult times and changing almost “single handily” (OK with the help of the rest of his/someday her administration).
The difference today is that the pols of both parties are increasing sucking up to a base taht is really out of touch with the rest of America while really feeding at the corporate trough…and determined to protect that life line all the while believing in virtually nothing.
The fact that we have essentially “weak Xicks” replace X with the right letter, running for office, even the female candidates is not a reflection on what can be done in the office, it is just what they are capable of RGO
More clueless statements from windy. Just shows that he doesn’t know anything about spaceflight
“Shutter Ames, Goddard.”
Asinine, Goddard does much more space science than earth science.
“Successfully managed by a simple damping system which was demonstrated on the successful Ares I-X flight. Those oscillating solids will provide key energy in sending MSL to Mars.”
There was no damping system on the fiscal and engineering failure called Ares I-X.
MSL does not have oscillating solids, they are smaller and not subject to the same oscillations.
“I have often wondered what is ‘safe’ about cutting off a rocket engine operating at high pressure when the tanks are full. ”
Here is something for idiots like you to learn, the same thing happens when the tanks are partially full or totally empty, the engine shuts down and the vehicle coasts.
See, you don’t even understand the simplest concept about spaceflight.
I worked for many years with the people who actually assembled and recovered the SRBs. They did a fantastic job, among the most difficult at the Center, for over 30 years. But if you really go to know them, they would tell you that it never made economic sense. Transport, assembly, recovery and disassembly are all time-consuming, hazardous and expensive.
NASA is going to take a huge budget hit. We need to start bombarding our legislators, particularly Senator Nelson who’s district has little to gain from SLS and much to loses in comparison to better funding for commercial, with the point that something big has to go, and that something should be SLS/Orion.
Rand Simberg wrote:
“More ignorance from the usual suspect. Von Braun said that his rockets ‘blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles.’ The Germans were strongly influenced by him as well as Oberth.”
Actually, there is an interesting story behind Wernher von Braun’s statements about Goddard’s patents which hasn’t been fully told. I hope to get more of it into print in a future book project. The story was revealed to me by Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger during a visit at his home in June 2003. Stuhlinger, of course, was von Braun’s colleague, friend and biographer. And he told part of the story in his 1994 book, Wernher von Braun: Crusader for Space. Specifically, Stuhlinger mentioned the fact that prior to 1950, von Braun had never seen any of Goddard’s designs or patents. Although Goddard had been one of von Braun’s boyhood heroes (he had read Goddard’s 1919 monograph), he wasn’t fully aware of the American’s work in liquid fuel rockets until after his arrival in the United States. Moreover, von Braun never had the opportunity to meet Goddard, who died in August 1945. But von Braun did meet Esther Goddard in the early 1950s, and he and Ernst Stuhlinger became very close friends with the widow of Robert Goddard. (As an aside, our conversation about Goddard began when Dr. Stuhlinger told me that I was sitting in the same chair “Esther always sat in when she visited our home.”)
Goddard was not a wealthy man when he passed away. Far from it. But when von Braun saw the detailed designs for Goddard’s rockets — and the patents that Goddard had taken out for various components — he (von Braun) realized that the American inventor had devised many of the same solutions to the problems of rocketry that the German team had independently developed at Peenemunde. The V-2 and Redstone used many of the same ideas that were key parts of Goddard’s rockets, although the V-2 and Redstone were light years ahead of Goddard’s rockets. But since Goddard had taken out patents on those ideas, von Braun saw an opportunity to help Esther Goddard … and to pay tribute to a brilliant American who never received the credit he deserved during his lifetime (partly because Goddard shunned publicity). Thus, von Braun decided to write a lengthy report that gave Mrs. Goddard some ammunition in the lawsuit she filed against the U.S. Government for patent infringement in the designs of its postwar rockets (which were really based on the V-2, not Goddard’s patents). As von Braun himself wrote about the subject later on, “It might be of interest that (maybe in part as a result of my affirmative report) the lawsuit led to an amicable settlement under which the U.S. Government paid a generous sum to the Goddard estate …” That generous sum was one million dollars.
Moreover, while Hermann Oberth did influence the 18-year old Wernher von Braun, the teacher would become the pupil at Peenemunde and Huntsville. Oberth was big on theory. Von Braun was big on results.
Soviet rocket pioneer Boris Rauschenbach’s 1994 biography of Hermann Oberth describes this change in the relationship between the two men, and how von Braun never forgot his mentor.
In short …
Amightywind wrote:
“As interesting a side note as Goddard was, von Braun and the Germans were the real inventors of modern rocketry.”
I wholeheartedly agree.
Rick Boozer wrote:
“Von Braun abhorred the idea of using SRBs for human spaceflight. Thought they were too dangerous because ignition could not be terminated. A criticism that is still valid to this day.”
Before I befriended Ernst Stuhlinger and Konrad Dannenberg many years ago, I would have agreed with you. But they both told me that von Braun didn’t really abhor the idea of using SRBs for human space flight. He preferred liquid fuel rockets. But he was not opposed to solids, and Stuhlinger and Dannenberg both showed me drawings of advanced Saturn IB and Saturn V vehicles which would have used solid strap-on boosters. Both were intended for manned space flight as part of the Apollo Applications Program. “But what about Challenger?” I asked Dr. Stuhlinger. He said the problem with Challenger wasn’t necessarily the failure of the O-rings on the SRB. It was the lack of an escape system on the Space Shuttle Orbiter. Dannenberg further noted that telemetry during the ascent indicated that there was a problem with the SRB which could have triggered an escape system on Challenger … had there been one. Both pioneers told me that the von Braun team had no aversion to solids per se (they were used in several of the rockets the team designed for the U.S. Army). They simply preferred liquids.
The key point von Braun would have agreed with you on is that a liquid rocket can be shut down at the time of ignition (Gemini 6, for instance). But once a solid is lit …
As you say, that problem still exists.
William Mellberg wrote:
He said the problem with Challenger wasn’t necessarily the failure of the O-rings on the SRB. It was the lack of an escape system on the Space Shuttle Orbiter.
Actually, the problem with Challenger was the NASA bureaucracy. They were told by the engineers it was too cold to launch, but they launched anyway.
My gripe with SLS is that politicians designed it, not engineers. If Congress really wanted a heavy-lift, deep-space launcher then they should have ordered NASA to send their best engineers off to a room and have them come back with a design and cost. But they didn’t. They told NASA to use SRBs to appease the Utah congressional delegation and keep their lobbyists happy.
vulture4 wrote:
We need to start bombarding our legislators, particularly Senator Nelson who’s district has little to gain from SLS and much to loses in comparison to better funding for commercial, with the point that something big has to go, and that something should be SLS/Orion.
I e-mailed Senator Nelson on October 27, asking him to urge the reconciliation committee to fund the full $850 million to help assure we’d be flying on U.S. vehicles again by 2015.
I heard nothing until Monday November 21, when I received the below generic response in e-mail.
Thank you for sharing your concerns about our country’s human spaceflight program. I want to assure you that the retirement of the Space Shuttle is not the end of the U.S. space program, and we are going to continue to be world leaders in spaceflight. I have been working to provide NASA the direction and the funding they need to begin the next phase of space exploration. We will not take a back seat to Russia or any other nation in science and technology.
NASA just recently announced its plans to build a new monster rocket that will be the most powerful one ever created. It will carry our astronauts to deep space destinations in this decade and will one day take them to Mars. At the same time, NASA is helping four separate companies develop the next generation of rockets and spacecraft that will taxi American astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). The ISS was originally going to be cancelled in 2015, but thanks to legislation I led last year, it has been extended through 2020. That means we will continue to have a permanent presence of Americans in space through this decade.
I have been working with my colleagues to do everything we can to mitigate the impacts of the shuttle retirement to the Space Coast and the valuable workforce that made that program possible. NASA’s announcement of their plans for the new heavy-lift rocket will provide stability to the aerospace workforce and create jobs as the Kennedy Space Center is modernized. In addition, a nonprofit organization based on the Space Coast will be managing research projects planned for the ISS. Projects like this will bring money, jobs, and industry to diversify the economy of the Space Coast.
I will continue working with local leaders and community partners to bring in new opportunities by highlighting the concentrated, highly skilled workforce that the Space Coast has to offer. If there is anything additional I can do to help, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bill Nelson
I won’t vote for whatever yahoo the Republicans prop up next year, but I’ll consider any other candidate who runs against Nelson in 2012. I’m registered non-partisan, but if the Democrats had a credible alternative to Nelson in the primaries I might register Democrat just to vote for the other person.
Gentlmen, I believe Orion should continue so that we can move out of LEO once again. If commercial can supply trips to the ISS great, however that still keeps us trapped in LEO. We need to move outward once again. Orion we need, and if it can be launched on something other than SLS so be it, if costs are reduced. Im looking forward to Orions test flight aboard a Delta in a year.
And a greater danger to human crew in case of mission abort according to Air Force super computer analyses.
Tell that to Boeing who will be launching the CST-100 on an Atlas V x12 configuration with 1 solid.
the same thing happens when the tanks are partially full or totally empty, the engine shuts down and the vehicle coasts.
Think. You must shut down an engine which is malfunctioning. The engine is no longer viable and you are attempting a controlled shutdown. Do you see the contradiction?
Claiming the first Falcon 9 flight didn’t make it to orbit long after it was an established fact it had.
I was going by the fragmentary information released by SpaceX at the time. Completely understandable. I was misled!
Claiming Commercial Crew is primarily supported by left-wing radicals.
Obama, Holdren, Bolden, Garver. They are!
@William Mellberg
“But they both told me that von Braun didn’t really abhor the idea of using SRBs for human space flight.”
Look here in his biography:
Neufeld, Michael J, von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War, Vintage Books, 2007 Page 454
The key point was that ignition in liquid fueled rockets can be shut down at any time allowing an LAS with less power and less acceleration stress on crew as well as not exposing them to the danger of explosively dispersed fuel travelling faster than the escaping crew module (still dangerously rapidly combusting because the solid fuel has its oxydizer integrated into it) that would defeat the purpose of the LAS. These drawbacks of solids were the major criticisms put forward by the Air Force study.
“(they were used in several of the rockets the team designed for the U.S. Army).”
Irrelevant. These were either unmanned rockets or assisted take off units for airplanes. In the case of the latter, even though they were actually solid rockets, they were referred to as JATO (Jet Assisted Take Off) units. They were MUCH smaller than launch vehicle SRBs and a mishap would be far less likely to be catastrophic.
I was going by the fragmentary information released by SpaceX at the time. Completely understandable. I was misled!
A lie. As others here who watched the launch who were also on this bog that day can testify, we saw the live video transmission all the way to orbit and the SpaceX announcer even stated it reached orbit as soon as it did. You were making your wild claim long after that. Not even considering the fact that Jeff keeps archives of these blogs that can put the lie to what you are saying. Cut the B.S.
And the points I stated about your previous comments were just a few. I could have added many more. Other people could entertain us with other paradoxical amightwindisms that you have been caught on.
“Obama, Holdren, Bolden, Garver. They are!
Simberg, Muncy, Gingrich. You are so full of it.
@Dennis
“If commercial can supply trips to the ISS great, however that still keeps us trapped in LEO
No, Dennis, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Currently existing rockets with fuel depots could be used to go beyond LEO. It only keeps us trapped in LEO if we continue to waste money on SLS because it is those funds we could be using to do a real exploration program.
Good morning, WM –
It went far further than “preference”. When Nixon forced the use of SRB’s on the Shuttle, von Braun resigned from NASA.
Also, at the start of Apollo, Aerojet had lobbied for a large solid instead of Saturn. I think you might want to look at von Braun’s comments then.
Finally, the Germans were kept abreast of Goddard’s work by the American Rocket Society. They had already solved the cooling problem themselves, but there were other problems…
we saw the live video transmission all the way to orbit and the SpaceX announcer even stated it reached orbit as soon as it did.
Your recollection of events is conveniently flawed. SpaceX cut off the video abruptly while the uncontrolled rotation rate of the stage was 4 RPM and increasing, uncontrolled. ‘Spinning out of control’, if you will.. They did not show video all the way to engine cutoff.
Simberg, Muncy, Gingrich. You are so full of it.
I wouldn’t refer to these folks as liberals. They are activist GOP gadflys of the kind we must purge from time to time.
When Nixon forced the use of SRB’s on the Shuttle, von Braun resigned from NASA.
It may have come as a shock to Von Braun, but in America there is no such thing as the indispensable man. The SRB is uniquely American.
TÂ amightywind wrote @ November 23rd, 2011 at 8:20 am
I was going by the fragmentary information released by SpaceX at the time. Completely understandable. I was misled!…..
Not only goofy but a lie..sorry I was on the blog as ou were spinning out of control
Not the falcon lol
RGO
SENT FROM MY IPAD
“Think. You must shut down an engine which is malfunctioning. The engine is no longer viable and you are attempting a controlled shutdown. Do you see the contradiction?”
Yes, I do. Thinking is not applicable to you. Shutting down an malfunctioning engine only involves some valve closures. It is not a contradiction
“Tell that to Boeing who will be launching the CST-100 on an Atlas V x12 configuration with 1 solid.”
No applicable, the Atlas solid is much smaller and doesn’t behave the same way as an SRB
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ November 22nd, 2011 at 10:37 pm
“American history is full of “one person†getting elected to the Presidency in difficult times and changing almost “single handily†(OK with the help of the rest of his/someday her administration).”
I think, unfortunately, that you are referring to highly hypothetical candidate. If you look at the crop of candidates from the GOP, none, absolutely none qualifies according to your terms.
The only one that has a semblance of qualification, so far, is the current President. For whatever reason he has been unable to dramatically change Washington, even though he did try. We’ll see his second term.
For a candidate to do what you think can be done he/she would have to come from a third party. He/she would have to have no or little support from the “industry” rather he/she would be supported by the “people”. I don’t think that our political system is set up to provide such a candidate. It is not a problem in D.C. It is a problem everywhere in the country. We would have to have popular vote for the federal elections and get rid of the Electoral College and ensure at the local level a non politicized redistricting at the very least so that Congress people have their feet to the fire and not be assured of reelection. And then there is the politics of the States…
In any case. I would hope you are right but I am far too cynical or may be realistic to believe such a candidate actually exists in our current political system.
Happy Thanksgiving!
mr. Mellberg, thanks for the history lesson. Please do publish the book.
If von Braun had a trailblazer he followed, it was Tsiolkovsky, not Goddard.
Tell that to Boeing who will be launching the CST-100 on an Atlas V x12 configuration with 1 solid.
Two points: 1. As far as I know, it is not yet set in stone exactly what configuration of Atlas V will be used for launching the CST-100. While the 412 configuration is likely, I think many would feel better about not needing a solid. 2. The air-force study was specifically studying crew escape from an Ares-1 configuration launch vehicle that uses a huge single solid as the first stage. Not a liquid fueled vehicle that uses a sidemount booster solid for the first 90 seconds of flight. Source.
Think. You must shut down an engine which is malfunctioning. The engine is no longer viable and you are attempting a controlled shutdown. Do you see the contradiction?
I don’t. Liquid engines are not simple things, and it would depend on the exact failure mode what steps would need to be taken to turn off the engine. Your eariler point about pressure:
makes no sense. The propellant tanks are pressurized to flight pressure levels while on the pad during countdown. That doesn’t ever seem to be a problem. The highest pressures are after the turbopump(s) in the fuel lines to the injectors and combustion chamber. To turn off the engine, you’ll need to stop the turbopumps which will immediately ends the highest pressures in the system. If the turbopumps themselves are malfunctioning, then you are very likely not getting the apropriate pressures to maintain combustion and continue to even power the turbopumps. Perhaps you should learn a little about liquid propulsion systems?
The safety of liquid engines was actually just demonstrated with the recent Soyuz launch failure. There was flaw or foreign object injestion in an upper stage liquid engine. Did it explode? No. The onboard computers detected the problem and simply shut down the engine, and the stage fell back to earth. The ability to monitor and detect problems before they become catastrophic is a huge plus for the safety of liquid systems, and one of the most important points in favor of a liquid system over a solid for manned vehicles.
Given the off-topic discussion, comments for this post are now closed. Have a happy Thanksgiving.