Utah vs. NASA On Heavy-Lift Rocket Design 285
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the my-money's-on-the-dudes-with-rockets dept.
from the my-money's-on-the-dudes-with-rockets dept.
FleaPlus writes "Utah congressmen Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett, Rob Bishop, and Jim Matheson issued a statement claiming that NASA's design process for a new congressionally-mandated heavy-lift rocket system may be trying to circumvent the law. According to the congressmen and their advisors from solid rocket producer ATK, the heavy-lift legislation's requirements can only be met by rockets utilizing ATK's solid rocket boosters. They are alarmed that NASA is also considering other approaches, such as all-liquid designs based on the rockets operated by the United Launch Alliance and SpaceX. ATK's solid rockets were arguably responsible for many of the safety and cost problems which plagued NASA's canceled Ares rocket system."
Like riding a firecracker (Score:5, Informative)
The solid rocket boosters have always seemed to be the most dangerous piece of the "stack". The problem is, YOU CAN't SWITCH THEM OFF. Because of this, I believe there is literally no way out for the shuttle crew while they are firing. I think Wehrner Vom Braun refused to design man rated vehicles with a solid rocket stage (he mustn't have been responsible for the Redstone I guess). Even the Russians used liquid fueled strap-on boosters in their Buran.
Of course if the shuttle had been properly funded it would've had a liquid first stage (maybe even winged so it could fly back). But that was in an alternate universe I guess. I know that Constellation would've had an escape tower that would be (hopefully) be able to pull it away from the main vehicle but still it would be much safer if the main vehicle's engines were OFF at that point.
Re:Move along, nothing to see (Score:5, Informative)
So... if I understand correctly, what's actually happening here is that a Utah company claims that NASA cannot meet the legal requirements by using the competition's designs, and the various Utah congressmen are joining in the chorus to support that Utah company.
Company discredits competitors, congressmen support their state's industry. Surprising? Hardly.
The law itself is very fishy. Quoting TFA:
The law states that NASA “shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.”
To me, the intent there is "don't change it unless reasonable on safety or other grounds". But why the enforcement of staying with current contracts? It stinks of the lobbying parent describes. More from TFA:
Phrases like “to the extent practicable”, “if necessary”, and “as appropriate” give NASA leeway to go in different directions if they determine something as specific as outlined in the legislation’s report language is not practicable, necessary, and/or appropriate.
Or dangerous, as the summary suggests.
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Informative)
I believe they've got their names listed above.
Just to be clear... (Score:4, Informative)
Hatch [senate.gov] and Bennett [senate.gov] are the two US Senators from Utah, while Bishop [house.gov] represents Utah's 1st District (most of northern Utah) and Matheson [house.gov] represents Utah's 2nd District (most of Southern and Southeastern Utah), the latter two in the US House of Representatives. (The western portion of Utah forms the 3rd House District, represented by Jason Chaffetz [house.gov]. No word on why he didn't sign on with everyone else.)
Re:Like riding a firecracker (Score:2, Informative)
The problem is, YOU CAN't SWITCH THEM OFF.
Could you provide some references? I found claims on wikipedia that
"Once ignited, a simple solid rocket motor cannot be shut off, because it contains all the ingredients necessary for combustion within the chamber in which they are burned. More advanced solid rocket motors can not only be throttled but also be extinguished and then re-ignited by controlling the nozzle geometry or through the use of vent ports. Also, pulsed rocket motors that burn in segments and that can be ignited upon command are available.
Modern designs may also include a steerable nozzle for guidance, avionics, recovery hardware (parachutes), self-destruct mechanisms, APUs, controllable tactical motors, controllable divert and attitude control motors, and thermal management materials."
Re:Like riding a firecracker (Score:4, Informative)
>> Modern designs
>> More advanced
How old are the designs for the shuttle boosters? Shuttle boosters cant throttle or pulse.
Re:You dont... (Score:5, Informative)
Really? I've heard tea partiers & Libertarians claim they want to bring the budget under control, but not Orrin Hatch or other Republi-crats. The party now is still the same out-of-control spending party under George Duh Bush. Very little has changed.
In fact I just read the Republicans are pushing for yet *another* war, but this time against Iran.
Congressman Ron Paul responded by calling them, "Sick" and "speeding us faster towards bankruptcy."
*Not* circumventing anything ! (Score:5, Informative)
The language Hatch was successful in getting inserted in the NASA Authorization Act does not require the new heavy-lift rocket to use solid rocket motors. But delegation members say the Utah experts they consulted say the legislation’s requirements for the heavy-lift rocket can only be realistically met by using solid rocket motors.
If NASA said "We're going with liquid fuel boosters." they would not be violating the law.
Even if NASA told ATK "Go to hell... We'll buy our rocket motors from someone else", they would not be violating the law.
The only way they'll be breaking the law is if they fail to come up with *some* method of making it work within their budget.
And gee, what a surprise that the stonecutters are telling everyone that stone bridges are the only feasible way to get a ton of lentils across the creek.
Re:Like riding a firecracker (Score:2, Informative)
The Redstone was his, and it was liquid-fueled.
Re:I'm confused (Score:1, Informative)
If the law does state, explicitly or implicitly, that NASA shouldn't consider competitors, then NASA probably has competing legal directives here. The company that I work for has sold hardware to NASA before and they ALWAYS have to get multiple bids. Even when their engineers wrote up the specification for the hardware so that only one company's hardware actually meets the requirements, they're required to evaluate the "best equivalent" of competing vendors.
Re:Like riding a firecracker (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shame (Score:2, Informative)
never mind the bollocks, it's the sex pistols.
Re:Like riding a firecracker (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Move along, nothing to see (Score:5, Informative)
But why the enforcement of staying with current contracts? It stinks of the lobbying parent describes.
Not only does it stink, it's a rotten fish in plain sight. Quoting directly from the statement [senate.gov] released by Hatch:
"My purpose in calling this meeting was to explain in no uncertain terms the Utah congressional delegation's interest in ensuring that Utah's solid rocket motor industry is protected."
"I will continue with other delegation members to ensure the agency abides by the law and protects this industry that is so vitally important to our national security and northern Utah's economy."
"delegation members say the Utah experts they consulted say the legislation's requirements for the heavy-lift rocket can only be realistically met by using solid rocket motors"
Re:Like riding a firecracker (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My recollection is that this is not new (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Like riding a firecracker (Score:3, Informative)
Which is why - off the top of my head - there are 6 igniter circuits, 5 detonators per srb (only 1 is needed to do the job) and quadruple redundant control electronics.
This is why man-rating a rocket is HARD and why these things take such a large workforce to run.
Re:I'm confused (Score:3, Informative)
The actual bill (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010) however can be found here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s.03729 [loc.gov]:
Sponsored by Jay Rockefeller (D)
Unanimous pass in the senate
74% of dems and 69% of republicans.
A rather bi-partisan effort given the political climate shortly before midterms. Which I think highlights that dems and republicans can actually work together to get things done. Not probably the most popular sentiment but I find it comforting that things are as divided as the media would have us believe.
Re:Hey, what happended to all that Tea Party shit? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know anything about Bishop, but (1) Hatch's seat wasn't up for grabs this cycle, and I doubt he is a favorite of the Tea Party, (2) Matheson is a Democrat, and (3) Bennett is a lame duck who was defeated by the Tea Party candidate in the Republican primary. So, what exact point are you trying to make?
Re:You dont... (Score:2, Informative)
The people doing that are not the Tea Party candidates, they are the old school Republicans.
Re:You dont... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:yes, this is common knowledge (Score:3, Informative)
Your wrong.
The initial operating spec was 40 to 90, F.
MT's management revised the spec against engineers strong recommendations. IN fact one engineer had been told to 'take off his engineering aht and put on his management hat.
If ther is one person to blams fr that disaster, it's Joe Kilminster.
And Locke was an asshole whose concern for the problem was wrapped up in his 10 cents a share comment.
Re:Utah sucks... (Score:3, Informative)
Now how much of that $287 billion was paid by the top 1% of income earners. Sure, THEY are paying way more than they receive in services.
Okay, I'll bite.
What is the correct tax rate for the rich then so that they only pay for the service they actually receive? How do you calculate this number?
If you can't make a supportable estimate then you are blowing smoke when you imply the rich are "over taxed". Note the simple existence of a progressive tax system in which those who have more pay more (the rule everywhere in the world - ours is one of least progressive) does not demonstrate this supposed "over-taxing".
Recall that without a strong state-level economic infrastructure (roads, water, power, law enforcement, educated work force, etc., etc.) it is impossible for businesses and the individuals the own them (outright or through stock) to be successful.
A nice actual study of this issue for businesses which is updated annually is the one by Ernst & Young: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Total-state-and-local-business-taxes-March-2010/$FILE/Total-state-and-local-business-taxes-March-2010.pdf [ey.com]
On pg. 8 you will see that California has one of the most favorable business tax receipt vs business benefiting expenditures in the nation. If education expenses are entirely excluded then only 5 states do better than California, and if half of education costs are allocated to the business support column (educated workforce and all) then California's spending ratio is actually in businesses' FAVOR (a ratio of 0.97).
But to extend that to the entire state, including the poor who vote Democrat?? It's ridiculous.
So why is it reasonable to treat the rich as an exploited demographic group and not a state? "Ridiculous" is not an argument. The point is some states are subsdidizing the economies of other states. That is a fact.
Re:My recollection is that this is not new (Score:3, Informative)
I I've been trying to confirm this for years, because hey, I could have remembered it wrong, but decades-old back issues of Aviation Week are still not online in searchable form.
Even if you had a Lexis-Nexis subscription you would not be able to find this information - their database of AWST only goes back to 1975, and the contract was awarded before this. You'll have to go to an actual library and look at the indexes and news pages. If you can pinpoint the contract year then you'll only 50 issues or so to look at.
Re:yes, this is common knowledge (Score:3, Informative)
Apocryphal. Here's the lowdown: Chapter VI: An Accident Rooted in History [nasa.gov] from the Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident [nasa.gov].
Summary: Thiokol copied the successful Titan segmented design, won the contract due to the low cost, redesigned the seal in a way that eliminated the redundancy (now relying only on an o-ring and asbestos putty), told NASA to launch only at 53F and above, warned NASA again, got ignored by NASA, boom.
Re:My recollection is that this is not new (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite, but you're on the right track. The three leading contenders (Lockheed, Thiokol, and United Technologies) all proposed segmented booster designs. Lockheed's were to be shipped by barge, in a vertical position, as opposed to the horizontal rail shipping used by Thiokol. (Not sure about UT.)
A fourth contender, Aerojet, proposed a single, monolithic booster, to be built at a new facility in South Florida and shipped up the intracoastal waterway by barge. But the additional cost of the new facility made that proposal less competitive, where the others assumed use of existing facilities.
[You're right; there's not much hard info about this online. I'm relying here on Malcolm McConnell's Challenger: A Major Malfunction (1988), which in turn relied heavily on Rogers Commission testimony.]
Re:Deja boom (Score:3, Informative)