Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I'd be willing to bet that had Boeing not made a new jet airliner in decades, they might well go back to the last one to see how it was done.

What's the purpose of the CEV, to get back to the moon and perhaps one day to Mars or to create new technology in order to create work for engineers?

As the article stated, many of the young engineers weren't even born when Apollo was going to the moon. If young engineers can learn how something was accomplished during Apollo that could be applicable to the new program (like how to operate a J-2 engine), why spend a lot of time and money reinventing that particular wheel? All too often, I've heard engineers whine that an existing practical solution is "low tech", thus denying them funding to develop a "new and improved" version.

Posted by Larry J at August 15, 2006 02:41 PM

If you were to base your argument on that story, it would not get you very far.

The specific example was the J-2 engine, which has not been in production for decades. Rocketdyne actually had a pretty good "knowledge retention program" in the 1960s and 1970s and this has allowed it to restart production on engines that were out of service for many years (for example, the RS-27/27A Delta engine production line was closed in the late 1960s and reopened after Challenger). It's a great example of a company doing something smart--and in fact, they did this partly because NASA paid them to retain that knowledge.

By selecting the J-2, NASA made a conscious decision to use an upper stage engine that has a lineage and that has worked successfully, which also seems to be an eminently defensible decision. Given that choice, then looking at existing examples, even if they are in museums, seems to make perfect sense.

The comparison to the 787 fails on so many levels. In that case, Boeing made a choice in favor of substantial improvements in fuel efficiency and economy. But the company also has relatively recent experience with designing the 777. They did not need to look to an old design because they could incorporate more recent technology and experience. The same cannot be said for hydrogen-oxygen upper stage engines.

Put another way, this seems like a smart thing for them to do. Why are you knocking them for it?

Posted by Jim Naylor at August 15, 2006 03:01 PM

If you were to base your argument on that story, it would not get you very far.

I'm not even making an argument (when I do, you'll know it). I'm simply spurring a discussion. Based on your comment, it seems to be working.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2006 03:28 PM

I don't think it relects a cargo cult mentality as much as it reflects bureaucratic survival instinct. Here they will be able to say they are simply resurrecting established technology in the name of engineering expediency. Of course, it sure looks like it is the same argument they used for that purely shuttle derived abomination in the first place. They must take us all for fools, and going by the continued budget increases over the past few years, years with little or no shuttle launches, years in which they simply mastered the art of pissing away dollar after dollar chasing a rather myopic vision, they are quite right. I don't know when they will finally push too far, and some smart congressman sees a story like this one and finally calls them what they are, a bureaucratic monstrosity suffering terminal arterio-sclerosis, and push for their destruction. I'm all for space exploration, but what little NASA is accomplishing could be done cheaper and better at DARPA or some similar group.

Posted by Brad at August 15, 2006 03:45 PM

Some things were done "right" (or acceptably right enough) the first time. Only fools would discard workable older designs just because they're old. Real engineers know there's no percentage in reinventing the wheel if you've got something that can do the job already and has well established (and acceptable) performance parameters.

Would you reject your car because the concept of passenger car fuel injection is over 50 years old?

Posted by Purple Avenger at August 15, 2006 04:11 PM

This is a silly bit of sniping. The difference between NASA and Boeing is that Boeing had (and has) a long, continguous history of building air liners. Neither NASA for anyone else has built a Moon ship for forty years.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at August 15, 2006 04:27 PM

Two opposing forces are responsible for NASA reverting to Apollo architecture: The Bush administration's refusal to fund a real exploration budget, and Mike Griffin's (heroic, IMHO) determination to get back to the Moon anyway. Very little new technology will be available for these missions without several times more funding, and it will take some luck for even this "Apollo 18" concept to succeed in such a ridiculous climate.

Far from "cargo cultism," this is an example of dedicated people with no other options trying to drive an elephant through a keyhole--and hoping, just maybe, it will break down the door in the process. Bush's post-Columbia publicity stunt gave NASA only the slimmest razor's edge of a path foward, with the status quo gaping on either side, and the only way across it is dusting off Apollo. Personally, I'd redirect $100 billion per year from the Pentagon into civilian exploration and send people outward in awesome waves, but for now we can only hope serendipity favors the desperate.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 15, 2006 06:10 PM

The Bush administration's refusal to fund a real exploration budget, and Mike Griffin's (heroic, IMHO) determination to get back to the Moon anyway.

It's not like this wasn't already obvious, but the fact that you think that Mike Griffin's cargo cult plan is "heroic" just indicate how clueless you are on this issue, as on all others.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2006 06:27 PM

"It's not like this wasn't already obvious, but the fact that you think that Mike Griffin's cargo cult plan is "heroic" just indicate how clueless you are on this issue"

I'd like to see you rebuild a manned Moon program from scratch on a billion per year, even on paper. Since you evidently have a secret plan for how to do that, perhaps you can share it with the rest of the class? Show everybody how stupid Griffin is for not being able to make bricks without straw. Or are you just typing with one hand again?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 15, 2006 06:48 PM

> Neither NASA for anyone else has built a Moon ship for forty years.

You mean NASA doesn't have vastly greater experience than private enterprise? A remarkable admission.

However, your statement is only partially correct. No one has built a lunar lander for 40 years, but the "new moon rocket" is another matter. There's nothing particularly special about a "moon" rocket. The delta-vee to get to the Moon is about the same as the delta-vee to get to geosynchronous orbit. To find out how to build such a rocket, you don't need to go to the altar of the Saturn V. You only need to go where Delta, Atlas, Proton, Ariane, etc. are built.

Posted by Edward Wright at August 15, 2006 06:52 PM

"The delta-vee to get to the Moon is about the same as the delta-vee to get to geosynchronous orbit."

Which would be meaningful if all we were trying to do is send mid-sized satellites to Lunar orbit. The LM alone for an Apollo mission was more than twice as massive as the maximum capacity to GEO for today's Delta IV Heavy, and greater than the max even for GTO. NASA used Saturn Vs because they were necessary to get the hardware up, and something equivalent still is unless you want to open a can of worms with on-orbit assembly missions in LEO.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 15, 2006 07:31 PM

> Which would be meaningful if all we were trying to do is send mid-sized
> satellites to Lunar orbit. The LM alone for an Apollo mission was more than
> twice as massive as the maximum capacity to GEO for today's Delta IV Heavy

It's still meaningful, if you understand how to connect things on orbit.

Posted by Edward Wright at August 15, 2006 07:50 PM

Rand

Here is something that has been slipping through the cracks story wise for a couple of weeks.

I have seen two or three separate references to the Aeres V having a greater throw mass to the Moon than the Saturn V. In none of the ESAS scenarios so far has this been the case. Do you have any information that is not from private sources that indicate this change at NASA?

Someone said that the delta v to get the moon is the same as for GEO? Not even close. Maybe to TLI but you still have to slow down when you get there, even with WSB trajectories.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 15, 2006 07:52 PM

"It's not like this wasn't already obvious, but the fact that you think that Mike Griffin's cargo cult plan is "heroic" just indicate how clueless you are on this issue, as on all others."

You mischaracterize cargo cults. The fundamental illogic of cargo cults is that there is no connection at all between what they do and the results that they desire. Sitting at the end of a runway with coconuts on your head chanting "Comindeltaoneninerfive" will not produce an airdrop. Looking at 40-year-old LOX/H2 engines _can_ produce a useful upper stage.

Posted by Jim Naylor at August 15, 2006 08:15 PM

"I'd like to see you rebuild a manned Moon program from scratch on a billion per year, even on paper. Since you evidently have a secret plan for how to do that, perhaps you can share it with the rest of the class?"

Oh, come on! It's really easy to do. People do this stuff on the Internet every day!

Posted by Jim Naylor at August 15, 2006 08:22 PM

It's still meaningful, if you understand how to connect things on orbit.

Well, that does seem to be one thing that the Russians and even the NASA half of the ISS have been having some success at. So why do these lunar plans keep sounding like they're doing a non-stop flight, instead of building an orbiting O'Hare (or Hartsfield or DFW...) in the middle?

Posted by Raoul Ortega at August 15, 2006 08:46 PM

After an initial flurry of successes, space flight has stagnated.

There have been many theories for why this has happened, namely political, e.g. not allowing free market competition, not enough funding, etc.

I am increasingly of the opinion that space flight has failed, not for these reasons, for technical reasons.

Current space technology is the equivalent of the early-mid XIXth century hot air baloon. Low density, low power, fragile, expensive. To be able to escape Earth's gravity well, something like 90% of liftoff mass is shed away. Elaborate reusable alternatives so far have mostly eaten those remaining 10%, or even aborted from being overweight (e.g. Venturestar).

To me, these reusable approaches seem to be the equivalent of the Ader Éole.

We need more performance. Seemingly chemical propulsion will not be enough. A paradigm shift seems to be required. Either we use higher density propulsion (i.e. nuclear), move stuff offboard (beam propulsion), or use something different (tethers, space elevator).

Worse: our solar system has proved so far to be mostly uninteresting. No spices, tea, porcelain from Asia. No gold and silver from the Americas. No ivory from Africa. No intelligent aliens. Just rocks and dust with the same boring basic elements we have on Earth.

It seems we must probe deeper. Projects like the Terrestrial Planet Finder seem particularly important if we are ever to find the motivation to get out of this swamp.

Posted by Gojira at August 15, 2006 08:59 PM

"It's still meaningful, if you understand how to connect things on orbit."

The number of dockings per mission would be rather large, and probably require some form of refueling depot in LEO and orbital assembly of one of the elements. Assuming no more hardware than Apollo had, which will clearly not be the case, and using the Apollo architecture as the model, you would need three separate launches, three or four more for orbital assembly of the TLI stage (which is too big to be launched fully assembled, let alone fueled), and four orbital dockings for a total of about a dozen steps *before* TLI: (1)~Three launches for orbital assembly of TLI stage, (2)~Two dockings for completion of TLI stage, (3)TLI stage docking with orbital refueling depot, (4)launch SM, (5)launch LM, (6)LM-SM docking, (7)LM-SM-TLI docking, (8)launch CM, (9)CM-LM-SM-TLI docking, and THEN you can go for TLI burn. And that's AFTER you've figured out how to put up a workable fueling depot, and assuming no more hardware per mission than Apollo.

Every launch, every orbital assembly, every docking and undocking presents exponentially more opportunities for a mission-ending failure. To prevent the failure of any step in the process from derailing the entire mission, there would need to be backup hardware for every step waiting on the launch pad, which is not operationally or financially feasible for the rockets in question. So really it's just not plausible, at this point, to talk about currently available heavy lifters.

Don't get me wrong, I know there is a lot of unrealized potential in existing technology, but Delta IV, Atlas V, and Ariane 5 are only worth considering for transportation to ISS. Lunar missions need vastly more power, and scaling even the Ares V up for Mars will be a doozy--currently available rockets are utterly out of the question in that arena.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 15, 2006 09:08 PM

"Oh, come on! It's really easy to do. People do this stuff on the Internet every day!"

Indeed, heh heh. Maybe we can get to the Moon using zero-point energy, or a fusion ramjet, or any of the other brilliant technologies that exist only on the webpages of 12-year-old space cadets. Anyway, I was just pointing out that Rand seems to spend quite a bit more time unfairly ridiculing other people's solutions than he does suggesting any of his own. I agree with the criticism out there about the Block I CEV, but going after the whole idea of basing Ares on Apollo is meritless under the circumstances--nothing else is remotely feasible at this level of funding.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 15, 2006 09:21 PM

Ok, so instead of asking LockMart, you go and consult the guys at RKK Energiya.

Posted by Chris Mann at August 15, 2006 10:13 PM

The fundamental illogic of cargo cults is that there is no connection at all between what they do and the results that they desire.

As I understand it, the VSE was sold as a path to space development and colonisation. Cargo cult.

Posted by Chris Mann at August 15, 2006 10:16 PM

Cargo cult.

I prefer the Potemkin Village analogy.

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 15, 2006 10:40 PM

> The number of dockings per mission would be rather large,

It would be less that the number of operations that occur at your local airport -- before breakfast.

> and probably require some form of refueling depot in LEO and orbital assembly of one of the elements.

Horrors, no!

I get so tired of people who think we should *never* do *anything* even slightly ambitious in space. Sigh.

> Every launch, every orbital assembly, every docking and undocking presents exponentially
> more opportunities for a mission-ending failure.

You think that making everything dependent on one single-point failure improves the chances of success???

An interesting theory. I trust you haven't used it on any probability exams.

Do you believe the Internet will fail if one packet doesn't get through? What about airports, roads, railroads, canals, and shipping lines? Do they fail if one car, truck, airplane, ship, or train fails?

> To prevent the failure of any step in the process from derailing the entire mission, there
> would need to be backup hardware for every step waiting on the launch pad, which is not
> operationally or financially feasible for the rockets in question. So really it's just not plausible,
> at this point, to talk about currently available heavy lifters.

Who said anything about using heavy lifters? You're setting up a strawman.

As for the "operational and financial infeasibility" of having backups, I suggest you look at any commercial or military operational. Do you think the Strategic Air Command put all its warheads on one really big missile? Ask the US Navy how many planes are involved in an Alpha strike, every one as complex as a space launcher -- and they do that at sea.

> Don't get me wrong, I know there is a lot of unrealized potential in existing technology, but
> Delta IV, Atlas V, and Ariane 5 are only worth considering for transportation to ISS. Lunar missions
> need vastly more power,

Nonsense. Even Von Braun wanted to do it by clustering small payloads in orbit, before he got all German and decided to build Der Great Big Rocket.

Posted by Edward Wright at August 15, 2006 11:08 PM

In addition to what Edward said, go ask Boeing what the per launch cost would be if you did 20 launches per year guaranteed...

Posted by David Summers at August 15, 2006 11:23 PM

"Ok, so instead of asking LockMart, you go and consult the guys at RKK Energiya."

Chris,
Russian heavy lift capability is comparable to European and American launchers, and the Proton is actually somewhat inferior to European and American heavy lifters in terms of capacity.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 15, 2006 11:35 PM

"It would be less that the number of operations that occur at your local airport -- before breakfast."

If all of those operations occurred while the planes were still in the air, then maybe that would be a reasonable analogy.

"Horrors, no!"

Hey, I'm not against taking bold risks. As I said, I personally would fund NASA at $100 billion a year and send out massive waves of manned ships and robotic science missions, but the most pro-space politician you can imagine would never achieve anything close to that. With this budget, in this risk-averse political and cultural climate, it's very important to minimize unnecessary complexities, and orbital refueling is a completely untested technology.

"I get so tired of people who think we should *never* do *anything* even slightly ambitious in space. Sigh."

So do I. But you can deal with those pests in one of two ways--make an end-run around them with your eyes on the prize, or try to run straight through them and probably get clobbered. Apollo had massive public, political, and military backing, not to mention being associated with a posthumously deified American president, and even that came close to being chopped down after the Apollo 1 fire. What do you think will happen to Orion--with far less public interest, no military or geopolitical imperative behind it, and associated with an administration going down in flames--if disaster strikes? And anyway, neither Congress nor the Bush administration would fund your scenario, so there's no point to this speculation.

"You think that making everything dependent on one single-point failure improves the chances of success?"

A multiple-launch, multiple docking, on-orbit assembly scenario is also subject to single-point failures, albeit repeated a dozen times over. The only way to avoid that would be to have backups for every single element waiting on the launch pad to replace failed modules, which then means you have to forego the benefit of an investigation and risk similar or worse mishaps occurring--possibly later in the mission when they can't be replaced.

Or imagine the TLI stage bumps into the refueling depot and dents the fuel socket out of shape; now it is effectively useless, and you have to wait for a human repair mission to replace the socket. That, in turn, would mean any modules already docked in orbit would probably have to be de-orbited because they wouldn't have the fuel to wait in LEO and have enough remaining for their mission. Or, for that matter, imagine the TLI damages the depot beyond repair--then you have to launch and assemble a whole new depot, with all the crewed missions and dockings that would entail. This architecture would more than triple costs, multiply risks by a double-digit factor, and improve redundancy only in a minority of contingencies--there's simply no case for it at present.

"Who said anything about using heavy lifters? You're setting up a strawman."

If you're not talking about heavy lifters, then the problem is a lot worse. Every launch has its own bureaucratic and operational overhead, which means separating one launch into two should more than double its costs even with the benefit of economies of scale (which won't always apply).

"Do you think the Strategic Air Command put all its warheads on one really big missile?"

No, because the missiles had to cover a wide target area, but most of them were MIRVed to deliver multiple warheads on a given region. It would make absolutely no sense to give every single warhead its own ICBM, nor send up a Moon mission in half a dozen separate launches.

"Nonsense. Even Von Braun wanted to do it by clustering small payloads in orbit, before he got all German and decided to build Der Great Big Rocket."

Von Braun's initial plans centered on the rockets then available, which were puny, and their habit of exploding made up-scaling seem impractical. But once people got some experience dealing with rockets, and the smaller versions were made reliable, then he came to the conclusion that Saturn V could work.

David says: "In addition to what Edward said, go ask Boeing what the per launch cost would be if you did 20 launches per year guaranteed..."

Unfortunately, the NASA budget isn't tied to the per-unit costs of its contracts, it's a fixed dollar amount. So it doesn't help the program to have 20 flights at $80 million per launch instead of 5 at $160 million (for example).

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 16, 2006 01:00 AM

>> "It would be less that the number of operations that occur at your local airport -- before breakfast."

> If all of those operations occurred while the planes were still in the air, then maybe that would be a reasonable analogy.

Half of them do begin with plane still in the air. Every landing does.

Are you under the impression that most ELVs are launched from the air? Or is this a non-sequitar?

> Hey, I'm not against taking bold risks. As I said, I personally would fund NASA at $100 billion a
> year and send out massive waves of manned ships and robotic science missions, but the most pro-
> space politician you can imagine would never achieve anything close to that.

That's definitely a non-sequitar. Switching from Ares to Delta and Atlas would not cost $100 billion a year. It would cost less than what Griffin's planning to spend.

> Apollo had massive public, political, and military backing,

The last is debateable. The military test pilots at Edwards AFB were not big fans of spam in the can. Apollo was responsible for the cancellation of military space programs such as Dyna-Soar, the X-15 follow-on, MOL, and Reusable Atlas. I doubt if a lot of military officers were happy about that.

> even that came close to being chopped down after the Apollo 1 fire.

You're taking the wrong lesson here. The Apollo 1 fire would not have happened if NASA hadn't 1) ignored warnings from Scott Crossfield and 2) rushed the buggy Apollo spacecraft into service rather than allowing the proven Gemini to be used for lunar missions.

> What do you think will happen to Orion--with far less public interest, no military or geopolitical
> imperative behind it, and associated with an administration going down in flames--if disaster strikes?

Oh, I think they would probably get a big budget increase, as NASA does every time they have an accident. Unless, of course, Orion is cancelled before it gets off the ground, which is a real possibility if George W. Bush isn't reelected to a third term.

> A multiple-launch, multiple docking, on-orbit assembly scenario is also subject to
> single-point failures, albeit repeated a dozen times over.

No, it doesn't. The term "single-point failure" does not mean what you think it means.

> The only way to avoid that would be to have backups for every single element waiting on the

Or in space, or in a warehouse. There's no reason everything has to be on the launch pad, no matter how many times you say so.

> If you're not talking about heavy lifters, then the problem is a lot worse. Every launch has its own
> bureaucratic and operational overhead,

Why? Max Hunter used to talk about how he launched Thors with a crew of 10, none of whom ranked higher than Sergeant. Doesn't sound like a lot of bureaucratic overhead to me -- and that was during development.

> which means separating one launch into two should more than double its costs even with
> the benefit of economies of scale

Look up "learning curve effect." Doubling the number of launches means costs go down, not up.

> Unfortunately, the NASA budget isn't tied to the per-unit costs of its contracts, it's a fixed dollar
> amount. So it doesn't help the program to have 20 flights at $80 million per launch instead
> of 5 at $160 million (for example).

That's nonsense. If launch costs go down, NASA can spend less of its fixed budget on launches and more on other things (like stuff to put on top of the rocket). The benefit is obvious.

Posted by Edward Wright at August 16, 2006 02:05 AM

Doubling the number of launches means costs go down, not up.

Not necessarily. It rather depends on a lot of factors we don't know at the moment and don't have adequate data to extrapolate at the moment.

As my old planning manager used to say, "just because a woman can make a baby in 9 months, doesn't mean that 9 women can do it in a month."

You *might* get some wins, but that's not a prediction you can safely make at this time.

Of course, this space stuff is obviously really easy and it's just the evil(tm) conspiracy to keep people out of space that's holding us back. :-/

Posted by Daveon at August 16, 2006 02:42 AM

"Half of them do begin with plane still in the air. Every landing does."

The analogy is hopelessly unrealistic, and for far too many reasons to deal with here. Comparing vertical rocket launches to horizontal jet flight, runway landings to orbital dockings, is to ignore their fundamental differences and the emergent properties of scale in their similarities.

"Switching from Ares to Delta and Atlas would not cost $100 billion a year."

That was an aside regarding your accusation of lacking ambition, not a cost estimate.

"The military test pilots at Edwards AFB were not big fans of spam in the can."

They supported beating the Russians to the Moon, and no such imperative exists this time around.

"The Apollo 1 fire would not have happened if NASA hadn't 1) ignored warnings from Scott Crossfield and 2) rushed the buggy Apollo spacecraft into service rather than allowing the proven Gemini to be used for lunar missions."

The idea that you can just take whatever hardware is available and make it do what you want is a popular fiction among frontier advocates, but unfortunately it just doesn't hold true in space. Russian cosmonauts, those ultimate space pragmatists, will say exactly the same thing--you can tinker with subsystems, you can rob Peter to pay Paul, but there is no getting around basic design parameters. Gemini was a testbed for Apollo technologies, and could never itself have been a Lunar spacecraft without turning it into something like Apollo.

"Unless, of course, Orion is cancelled before it gets off the ground, which is a real possibility if George W. Bush isn't reelected to a third term."

That was my point--Congress and the general public both have to believe in the program enough to adopt it, so that it doesn't come to be seen as the vanity boondoggle of a disgraced dictator. A Rube Goldberg plan involving numerous launches, dockings, and orbital assemblies per mission, not to mention untested technologies as showstoppers, would be a great big "Cut Me" sign to the budget vultures. Most people in the space community would realize what a joke it was, that NASA could never accomplish it, and Congress would never fund it, so the activists would become demoralized.

"Or in space, or in a warehouse. There's no reason everything has to be on the launch pad, no matter how many times you say so."

So you think it would make even more sense to not merely have them waiting to launch if needed, but actually send duplicates of every single module into space, effectively doubling the already elephantine costs and complexities. At that point, you might as well be advocating launching simultaneous redundant missions, which is every bit as impossible with this funding as anything else you've suggested.

If the replacements are kept in warehouses, then you'd have to forget about using them as replacements for failed modules in active missions and just send up a completely new mission. And once you come to that conclusion, you've lost the only conceivable purpose of doing things that way.

"Why? Max Hunter used to talk about how he launched Thors with a crew of 10, none of whom ranked higher than Sergeant."

This sounds like one of those "Back in my day, we didn't need no seatbelts" kind of things, and you have to remember you're talking about a sawed-off Atlas booster that could only deliver its payload to Moscow from launch sites in Europe. It didn't matter that most of the early test launches failed, because the damn thing was cheap and only needed to be functional enough to present a credible deterrent.

"Doubling the number of launches means costs go down, not up."

Unit costs go down, not absolute costs or total overhead. I explained this.

"If launch costs go down, NASA can spend less of its fixed budget on launches and more on other things (like stuff to put on top of the rocket)."

You seem to be losing the thread of logic here. The cost of launches only goes down if NASA commits to buying vastly more of them, which means spending MORE of its fixed budget on launches. Economies of scale work by increases in total income allowing decreases in unit price, which only benefits the consumer if the increased income comes from a rise in the number of buyers. If you are the only customer of a business, and you drive down their costs by spending more, there is no benefit to you. There isn't even a marginal benefit, because companies only follow increased revenue with reduced prices because that maximizes profit. And the reduction only lasts as long as the increased spending, so the price can never benefit a monopsony.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 16, 2006 05:17 AM

Brian S (or appropriately: BS):"personally, I'd redirect $100 billion per year from the Pentagon"

Brilliant move in the middle of a war.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 16, 2006 05:20 AM

"As I understand it, the VSE was sold as a path to space development and colonisation. "

Can you please provide a citation?

Posted by Jim Naylor at August 16, 2006 07:06 AM

"Brian S (or appropriately: BS)"

Is the name-calling necessary? Are you eight years old? I assume not, so why not behave like an adult?

Posted by Jim Naylor at August 16, 2006 07:08 AM

Most of the arguments against orbital refuelling and assembly seem bogus once more. Many people I have met instinctively oppose it without thinking and keep coming up with more and more weirder reasons.

You can divide the moon stack (without fuel) to three parts: EDS,CEV,LSAM. Every one is less than 25t when launched. Add in fuel, and you're go.
The EDS could be an empty upper stage of a rocket, just refueled for the TLI, thereby avoiding the cargo size problem (if it was significant anyway).

There are many key advantages to orbital refuelling, like flexibility (you're not tied to one launcher), pushing existing launcher prices down and being a market for new, cheaper vehicles, reliability through redundancy, possibility for international co-operation etc etc.

Posted by mz at August 16, 2006 10:48 AM

> Comparing vertical rocket launches to horizontal jet flight, runway
> landings to orbital dockings, is to ignore their fundamental differences
> and the emergent properties of scale in their similarities.

Right. Runway landings are subject to weather and atmospheric phenomenon that orbital operations don't have to deal with.

Since you think orbital docking is so hard, please tell me how many Shuttle and Soyuz missions have failed to dock to ISS.

Never happened. You've created a bogeyman.

> "The military test pilots at Edwards AFB were not big fans of spam in the can."

> They supported beating the Russians to the Moon,

Not much. Just because you wear a military uniform doesn't mean you're stupid. It was obvious even back then that launching cannon balls on artillery rockets would never be more than a stunt. Remember The Right Stuff? "Your program smacks of panic, and these guys don't respond to that."

> and no such imperative exists this time around.

Well, then, you'd better start looking for ways to cut costs, instead of digging in your heels and insisting on the most expensive architecture.

> The idea that you can just take whatever hardware is available and
> make it do what you want is a popular fiction among frontier advocates,
> but unfortunately it just doesn't hold true in space.

You mean NASA engineers like Jim Chamberlin and astronauts like Pete Conrad didn't know what they were talking about? Conrad proved it could be done when he docked with an Agena and used it to boost into high orbit. With respect to your insinuation, how much time do you have in space?

> Russian cosmonauts, those ultimate space pragmatists, will say
> exactly the same thing--

I doubt that very much. Otherwise, the Russian Space Agency would not be marketing lunar flights through Space Adventures.

> Gemini was a testbed for Apollo technologies, and could never itself have
> been a Lunar spacecraft without turning it into something like Apollo.

Oh? Please tell us exactly what errors Jim Chamberlin, Pete Conrad, McDonell Douglas, etc. made. Details, please. With math, preferably.

> A Rube Goldberg plan involving numerous launches, dockings, and
> orbital assemblies per mission, not to mention untested technologies as
> showstoppers, would be a great big "Cut Me" sign to the budget vultures.

There's nothing untested about orbital rendezvous and docking. Running around in circles, waving your hands does not prove anything.

Doesn't Ares depend on "untested" rendezvous and docking to connect the command module to the lunar lander?

> So you think it would make even more sense to not merely have them
> waiting to launch if needed, but actually send duplicates of every
> single module into space,

Sure, if it saved money. You seem to have an innate opposition to launching things into space. Yet, you still expect Congress to allocate over a hundred billion to your program, so you can launch almost nothing? Curious.

> effectively doubling the already elephantine costs and complexities.

You've offered no evidence that it would double costs. You're pulling things out of thin air. The "elephantine costs and complexities" would be smaller than the dinosaurian costs and complexities of developing new launchers for Apollo on Steroids.

> At that point, you might as well be advocating launching simultaneous redundant
> missions, which is every bit as impossible with this funding as anything else
> you've suggested.

Everything seems to be impossible in your world, Brian. People who have done the math would disagree with you. It is *quite* possible to launch several Delta or Altas rockets simultaneously, or nearly simultaneously, for the cost of one Ares V.

> If the replacements are kept in warehouses, then you'd have to forget
> about using them as replacements for failed modules in active missions

Laugh. :-) So, I guess it's a ridiculous idea for Federal Express to have a warehouse full of high-tech equipment, ready to overnight to anyone who might need it? That could never work, could it?

There's a whole world that's doing things outside of NASA, Brian. You should look at it before declaring anything NASA doesn't do "impossible." (Or, in the case of orbital rendezvous and docking, something NASA does all the time.)

> Unit costs go down, not absolute costs or total overhead. I explained this.

No, you didn't explain anything. All you've done is say it's impossible to do what has been done often in the past and wave your hands about costs without any numbers to back it up.

The $30-billion development cost for Ares I and V would buy a *lot* of rocket launches.

> You seem to be losing the thread of logic here. The cost of launches
> only goes down if NASA commits to buying vastly more of them, which
> means spending MORE of its fixed budget on launches.

No, Brian, because EACH of YOUR Ares V launches costs TEN TO TWENTY TIMES more than a Delta or Atlas. Not all launches are created equal.

> Economies of scale work by increases in total income

Sorry, no. The learning curve is based on the number of items produced or operations performed, not total income. Mainframes didn't get cheap faster than microcomputers, just because mainframe companies had more total income.

> If you are the only customer of a business, and you drive down their costs
> by spending more, there is no benefit to you.

Brian, you're embarassing yourself. NASA is *not* the only customer for Delta and Atlas.

Posted by Edward Wright at August 16, 2006 12:09 PM

Every single US ICBM now only has a single warhead. MIRVs on ICBMs were given up with one of the SALT or START treaties.

Given that there is no popular (and hence political) demand to spend $100 billion a year on NASA, they'll have to do the best with the funding that's available. That means not spending billions to reinvent technology whenever existing technology will do the job. The original article mentioned young engineers studying propellant valves developed for Apollo. If that valve design does the intended job and is producable today, I'd be more than a little pissed if NASA spend money developing a new valve when the old one worked.

Back in the 1960s when NASA's funding (adjusted for inflation) was roughly twice the current level, their unofficial motto was "Waste anything but time." As an aerospace geek, that's cool. As a taxpayer, that sucks. Forcing NASA to work within budget constraints makes them have to use the funding they get much more wisely than they did back then. Building a single heavy lift booster with the capacity to send missions to the moon (much less Mars) in a single shot would cost many billion dollars for R&D, only to have a handful of launches over the operational lifespan. When you amortize the R&D costs over the projected flight rate, it's hard to make a viable case for a heavy lifter.

Increasing the flight rate for any given booster can result in some significant savings but only up to a point. As an example, if your current factories can turn out 5 boosters a year working a single shift, then you might be able to turn out 15 or so boosters per year by going to 3 shifts (assuming your supplier pipeline can do the same). You'd have the real challenge of finding and training good people to work those other shifts but you wouldn't have to spend a lot of money on expanding your plants and tools. You'd also need more people to process those boosters for launch (and perhaps additional buildings to do the processing). You might need to build new launch pads (not cheap) and increase the number of crews available to perform the launches. Going for a still higher production rate would require building new factories and buying a lot of expensive tools, easily adding several hundred million dollars to the project.

The EELV programs were designed for a much higher flight rate than we're currently seeing. Without hard numbers, I suspect you could lower the per launch cost substancially by increasing the flight rate.

Posted by Larry J at August 16, 2006 12:29 PM

Cecil says: "Brilliant move in the middle of a war."

The noun is "occupation," the adjective "failed," and a laughably low priority beside the objectives of Orion. Bring the troops home, turn NASA into the third largest US government agency, and start giving people something to hope for again. Let Joe Bob in Trailerton, Alabama see a future for himself in space or the space industry instead of guzzling Pabst and thinking his only option is to become an imperial enforcer for Republicans. Let the world know our quality as mankind expands outward in American ships, as the technology of our far-sighted investments floods the world with prosperity, and be the most prolific settlers of the new frontier rather than conquerors and murderers of other people on this oasis.

mz says: "The EDS could be an empty upper stage of a rocket, just refueled for the TLI, thereby avoiding the cargo size problem (if it was significant anyway)."

What current rocket's upper stage is powerful enough for TLI of the combined EDS-CEV-LSAM mass? The most powerful upper stages in operation can only place about 13,000 kg in GTO from LEO.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 16, 2006 03:55 PM

Hmmm

Joe Bob in Trailerton, Alabama

Me thinks that this is a typical classist remark by a lib who "feels" for the common man.

I really hate this kind of crap. I am from Alabama, have a better education than you do, and in any intellectual endeavour would probably run circles around you.

A$$hole

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 16, 2006 04:20 PM

The S-IVB, second stage of Saturn IB and third stage of Saturn V, the "EDS" of Apollo, weighed only about 13 tonnes empty. There will be similarities this time around too with the Ares V and Ares I upper stages.
A Stick vehicle could deliver its own upperstage empty to orbit easily if needed.
Also one might be able to stretch and possibly add engines to current upper stages (I mean second stages here) of EELV:s. They only have to fly to LEO, empty. I was not thinking about current "kick stages" or what they're called.

Also I don't know if it's that hard to make a big volume payload for the EELV:s, with all the aerodynamic issues.

Posted by mz at August 16, 2006 05:28 PM

"Runway landings are subject to weather and atmospheric phenomenon that orbital operations don't have to deal with."

Orbital mechanics is much more complex than managing ground speed, pitch, yaw, and descent, and is also highly counter-intuitive. Increasing velocity along the orbit doesn't take you to your target faster, it places you above your target and the target gets further away; decreasing it sets you below your target and means you pass beneath it. And even that is a vast oversimplification of what occurs in orbit, as the DART spacecraft amply demonstrated.

"Since you think orbital docking is so hard, please tell me how many Shuttle and Soyuz missions have failed to dock to ISS."

Shuttle and Soyuz are docked manually by the crew, after laborious mission planning and precision launches place them in the general area of ISS, and I shouldn't have to remind you what happened to Mir.

"It was obvious even back then that launching cannon balls on artillery rockets would never be more than a stunt."

A common piety in the space advocate community, but unsupported by the engineering facts. Ground-launched rockets will likely be the only manned access to orbit until space elevator technology becomes feasible. Spaceplanes, "rockoons," and other air-launched suborbital alternatives just aren't scalable in any meaningful time frame, and may be inherently limited.

"Well, then, you'd better start looking for ways to cut costs, instead of digging in your heels and insisting on the most expensive architecture."

Excuse me, your plan is to quintuple the number of launches for (at best) a 50% reduction in per launch costs; rely on technology that doesn't exist and has never even been studied with real hardware experiments; somehow get a TLI stage into orbit on available rockets (most likely in pieces needing to be assembled); and then follow with an orgy of dockings when NASA still hasn't worked out the fine points of docking software even for small, simple craft whose only purpose is docking tests. Apollo on Steroids might as well be Apollo on Foodstamps by comparison.

"Conrad proved it could be done when he docked with an Agena and used it to boost into high orbit."

He sent the Gemini-Agena (~7,000 kg) 1/30th of the way to GEO.

"Otherwise, the Russian Space Agency would not be marketing lunar flights through Space Adventures."

They're not. Space Adventures is marketing lunar orbital flights on the chance they may become feasible with upgrades to Soyuz, but Russia hasn't committed to any such flights or claimed to presently have the architecture for them. If Soyuz could have gone around the Moon for $100 million, don't you think the Soviet Union would have done that?

"There's nothing untested about orbital rendezvous and docking."

I was referring (quite obviously, IMHO) to the orbital refueling depot.

"Sure, if it saved money."

In what zip code of the Twilight Zone does building and launching twice as much hardware on twice as many flights for the same mission save money?

"Yet, you still expect Congress to allocate over a hundred billion to your program, so you can launch almost nothing?"

No, I don't expect that at all. The $100 billion figure was a statement of what I would do if I could dictate the space program, and as I said, the number of launches would be massive--but so would the number of missions. But I am not Il Duce of NASA, there will never be that level of funding, we have to play the hand we're dealt, and your scenario is totally impossible under the circumstances.

"Everything seems to be impossible in your world, Brian."

No, just what you're suggesting, and only with this level of funding. Compare the evidence of sea shipping to your assumptions: Do companies send dozens of smaller boats with their goods and collect cargo with the same destination only at the harbor, or do they build gargantuan container ships worth more than the GDP of a small country? I agree with Mike Griffin; we should never have retired the Saturn V.

"It is *quite* possible to launch several Delta or Altas rockets simultaneously, or nearly simultaneously, for the cost of one Ares V."

Who is saying this?

"Laugh. :-) So, I guess it's a ridiculous idea for Federal Express to have a warehouse full of high-tech equipment, ready to overnight to anyone who might need it?"

Now you're comparing a GED holder forklifting a crate into a cargo plane to rocket payload integration and launch preparations? Some perspective, if you please.

"The $30-billion development cost for Ares I and V would buy a *lot* of rocket launches."

I agree with criticism of the Block 1, but the Ares V is essential for scaling up to Mars. Not everything can be built out of Legos on orbit--we need the ability to lift huge chunks of hardware.

"No, Brian, because EACH of YOUR Ares V launches costs TEN TO TWENTY TIMES more than a Delta or Atlas."

While delivering five times the payload and, without on-orbit refueling or mission redundancy, requiring 1/4 to 1/5 the number of launches. In other words, costs might be about the same while delivering orders of magnitude fewer complexities and lift capability for much larger hardware. The development costs might be steep, but then coming up with a workable refueling depot and modular, Mars-scalable mission design wouldn't be cheap either.

"The learning curve is based on the number of items produced or operations performed, not total income."

The number of items produced or operations performed depends on demand, and the profit-maximizing prices at that level of buying can only shift lower if the number of purchases increases, all else being equal.

"Brian, you're embarassing yourself. NASA is *not* the only customer for Delta and Atlas."

For Delta IV Heavy and equivalent Atlas V? For all intents and purposes, the government is the only customer. If they stopped buying those rockets, the manufacturers would be forced to discontinue them. The number of flights is so low they had to form the United Launch Alliance to keep their respective launchers in service.

And since you're of the opinion that more launches on smaller rockets is better than fewer on larger, why stop at Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V? There are smaller, cheaper rockets than those, and maybe they could become even cheaper with hundreds of flights instead of Delta and Atlas with dozens. Let's launch a thousand Redstones, conduct hundreds of dockings, and call the mission Frankenstein 1.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 16, 2006 08:09 PM

"If that valve design does the intended job and is producable today, I'd be more than a little pissed if NASA spend money developing a new valve when the old one worked."

Yes, I agree absolutely. But there seems to be two sides to the criticism of Orion as presently configured: (1)They're trying to reinvent the wheel, and (2)they're NOT trying to reinvent the wheel. Some are against basing the program on lessons learned from Apollo and would prefer a more advanced architecture, while others seem to think Apollo was itself too complex. I think the key to understanding the Ares architecture is that it's meant, ultimately, as the roots of the Mars program, not as the perfect solution to Lunar exploration. And that seems perfectly sensible to me; even if we could get to the Moon more cheaply, which is questionable, why not get experience and built hardware with the technology we're going to need for Mars?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 16, 2006 08:35 PM

"I am from Alabama, have a better education than you do, and in any intellectual endeavour would probably run circles around you."

If you were smarter than I, you would have recognized I wasn't talking about you. The point is to give underprivileged people better opportunities than the military, to give them a real future with more to show for their pains than a medal, a prosthetic limb, and PTSD. I think space, with the proper level of investment, can do that for a lot of people, and give American society a sense of purpose again--return to being a nation that achieves and inspires others rather than destroying and belittling them. Anyway, I admit there is some justice to your irritation; it's mostly Texas that pisses me off, not the traditional South.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 16, 2006 09:02 PM

Brian

You simply don't get how offensive you are. Your comment is the equivalent of, "well I know you are black and ok but I am talking about you but all of the n word people, you know what I mean."

You have no concept of what people out there in the real world beyond your stupid concepts are like.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at August 16, 2006 09:48 PM

Furthermore I am from a military family who's male members served honorably in the military for decades. I am the first person in my family to have a college degree in over a hundred years so yes you are talking about my family, my community, and the coal and steel region that I am from.

I say again, you kno NOTHING about that region to make the classist statement that you made, and yes you are an A$$hole.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at August 16, 2006 09:52 PM

> Orbital mechanics is much more complex than managing ground speed, pitch,
> yaw, and descent, and is also highly counter-intuitive. Increasing velocity
> along the orbit doesn't take you to your target faster,

Those "complex" calculations are easily accomplished with today's microcomputers, Brian.

> Excuse me, your plan is to quintuple the number of launches for (at best)
> a 50% reduction in per launch costs; rely on technology that doesn't exist
> and has never even been studied with real hardware experiments;

No, the technology for building Delta and Atlas exists. I have no idea why you think it doesn't.

> somehow get a TLI stage into orbit on available rockets (most
> likely in pieces needing to be assembled); and then follow with an orgy
> of dockings when NASA still hasn't worked out the fine points of docking
> software even for small, simple craft whose only purpose is docking tests.

Ah, I begin to see your point. You think everything in space must be done by entirely by software, instead of human beings???

Sorry, Brian, but I don't belong to the "unmanned" spaceflight club. If you want to soak the taxpayers for many billions of dollars just to eliminate humans in space, ESAS is a good start -- but I'm on the other side.

>> "Conrad proved it could be done when he docked with an Agena and used it
>> to boost into high orbit."

> He sent the Gemini-Agena (~7,000 kg) 1/30th of the way to GEO.

Which has nothing to do with the complexity of the rendezvous equations, which you think are an insurmountable obstacle. Do you have any more non sequitars?

> If Soyuz could have gone around the Moon for $100 million, don't you
> think the Soviet Union would have done that?

They did. Look up "Zond."

>> "There's nothing untested about orbital rendezvous and docking."

> I was referring (quite obviously, IMHO) to the orbital refueling depot.

That would come as another surprise to the Russians. They've been refueling space stations for years.

> In what zip code of the Twilight Zone does building and launching twice
> as much hardware on twice as many flights for the same mission save money?

Is that what passes for a logical argument in raving anti-militaryland? The number of flights is not the only determiner of cost. The cost per flight also matters. That's not a hard concept, is it?

>> "Yet, you still expect Congress to allocate over a hundred billion to
>> your program, so you can launch almost nothing?"

> No, I don't expect that at all. The $100 billion figure was a statement
> of what I would do if I could dictate the space program,

No, it was a statement of the cost of ESAS through the first lunar mission. $106 billion to be exact.

>> "It is *quite* possible to launch several Delta or Altas rockets
>> simultaneously, or nearly simultaneously, for the cost of one Ares V."

> Who is saying this?

Anyone who can do math, Brian. One Ares V = ~$2 billion. One Delta or Atlas = $70-$200 million. $2B/$200M = 10. It isn't rocket science.

> Now you're comparing a GED holder forklifting a crate into a cargo plane
> to rocket payload integration and launch preparations? Some perspective,
> if you please.

I have a great deal of perspective. You assume just because NASA does something, that's the way God intended it. Jet aircraft are every bit as complex as rockets, but they are designed to be maintained by high school graduates and flown by history majors. They don't use an army of PhDs.

>> "No, Brian, because EACH of YOUR Ares V launches costs TEN TO TWENTY
>> TIMES more than a Delta or Atlas."

> While delivering five times the payload and, without on-orbit refueling
> or mission redundancy, requiring 1/4 to 1/5 the number of launches. In
> other words, costs might be about the same

Only in some strange universe where 10/5 equals one!

The mind boggles.

>> "Brian, you're embarassing yourself. NASA is *not* the only customer for Delta and Atlas."

> For Delta IV Heavy and equivalent Atlas V?

Nope. In fact, NASA has never bought a Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V Heavy. Not that I said anything about Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V Heavy, anyway.

> And since you're of the opinion that more launches on smaller rockets is
> better than fewer on larger, why stop at Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V? There
> are smaller, cheaper rockets than those

How should I know? I never said that -- you did. Are you through beating your wife, Brian?

Posted by Edward Wright at August 16, 2006 09:57 PM

"You simply don't get how offensive you are."

That's right, I don't.

"Your comment is the equivalent of, "well I know you are black and ok but I am talking about you but all of the n word people, you know what I mean.""

Did I use the word "redneck" at any point in my remarks? Did I make references to Deliverance, slavery, chain gangs, Klan rallies, or sweaty fat cops with mirrored sunglasses? No, all I did was vaguely associate the state *for example* with two cultural elements pertaining to a broad segment of the region's population--trailers and Pabst.

"You have no concept of what people out there in the real world beyond your stupid concepts are like."

Actually I do, and it's the truth of the observations that should offend you if your pride isn't purely defensive. This is hardly the first time a Southerner has taken umbrage at something I've said, and I know exactly where their indignation comes from. There's always a ne'er-do-well basket-case in every successful family, whom everyone is afraid to invite to Thanksgiving dinner, and who spends the time they're not screwing things up getting angry with others for assuming they will. In the context of American society, that would be the South.

So there's your "people concept" with a cherry on top, and it has nothing to do with your silly "classism" straw man. States like Oregon, New York, California, etc, have a working class like anywhere else, but they have real opportunities because those states have real economies and real cultures--not just a cult of perpetual umbrage and hypocrisy like the South. And if you want to take that as a personal affront, then you're merely providing another example of my point. Frankly, I'm the one who should be offended.

"Furthermore I am from a military family who's male members served honorably in the military for decades."

If you say so, but all I'm saying is people should have better, more meaningful opportunities.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 02:31 AM

Well schucks I'm just a simple ole' boy from Dallas, TX. But I do know that besides Fleriduh, Texas gets whole heapin hand full of that ESAS money. So thnx for that vote of confidence in the Ares, Brian. Us Texas folks sure do like to peel those easy greenbacks off a pigs bottom. At least when were not to busy ropin steers or bathing our hillbilly beards in oirl. I bet being a smarty pants rocket astronautical and all I'd be able to make enough money to buy me a new tooth.

Posted by Josh Reiter at August 17, 2006 02:47 AM

Wow, Brian. I didn't realize that, among your other character flaws, you were such a bigot.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 17, 2006 05:03 AM

"Well schucks I'm just a simple ole' boy from Dallas, TX."

Then you know what I'm talking about.

"But I do know that besides Fleriduh, Texas gets whole heapin hand full of that ESAS money."

Texas only became involved in the space program because of Lyndon Johnson, but I suppose it's worth the trouble if it keeps some Texans working for constructive programs instead of military contractors.

"So thnx for that vote of confidence in the Ares, Brian."

I gave none. Block I is a mistake, but there are no feasible alternatives to the Ares V for Project Orion.

"Us Texas folks sure do like to peel those easy greenbacks off a pigs bottom."

But that goes without saying. Petty greed has always been at the heart of the Lone Star state, easily trumping any other values that might transiently be associated with it--even capitalism.

"At least when were not to busy ropin steers or bathing our hillbilly beards in oirl."

The steers, stetsons, and boots are fine. It's the "Christofascism," rapacious corporate power, and brutal amorality that gets people riled up about Texas. One might have hoped being involved with such a noble undertaking as NASA would have leavened the culture with some humanistic perspective, but I guess you can't win them all.

"I bet being a smarty pants rocket astronautical and all I'd be able to make enough money to buy me a new tooth."

Wrong set of stereotypes. You should be talking about riding mowers, trucks with lighted running boards, giant belt buckles, food poisoning, mullets, Jesus, and biker mustaches. Oh, and women with big hair who wear too much makeup, beat their children, and wear jeans pulled up just beneath their bosoms (is that a cowgirl thing?).

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 05:47 AM

"Wow, Brian. I didn't realize that, among your other character flaws, you were such a bigot."

Your Freudian Projector is out of focus, Rand. Shouldn't you be mocking some hideous war crime or fantasizing about Armageddon right about now? The enemies in your head will become emboldened if they sense weakness, so you better get back to talking up global conflagration.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 06:00 AM

If you say so, but all I'm saying is people should have better, more meaningful opportunities.

*************

Who are you to say that the military is not a very meaningful opportunity? I know many brillant folks in the military who have given their lives and their careers to defending this country. That is one of the most meaningful careers that I can think of.

You just keep digging this one deeper and deeper.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 17, 2006 12:48 PM

**********

Actually you did. The n word or redneck by any other equivalent name is still the same thing. You continue in your mental imagery with the other equivalents so all you do is to continue to confirm your bigotry.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 17, 2006 01:04 PM

For aircraft analogies to the "It's just like Apollo, see?" VSE stories, consider the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program. It's really really _really_ not the same plane at all as the F/A-18A/B/C/D - lots bigger, different capabilities, lots more range, lower top speed, and so on - but it basically looks the same. Unless you park an older Hornet next to a Super Hornet, the average congressional funding committee member would not be able to tell one from the other. The U.S. Navy sold the program to Congress as a "minor upgrade", and then had the contractor go build a 120% scale model of the existing Hornet to replace the Tomcat.

Consider this strategy's success the next time you see NASA-originated stories along the lines of "we're not inventing rocket science here - we're re-using the proven technologies that worked in Apollo!"

The STS was billed by NASA as the next great technological leap forward, the new bleeding edge by the steely eyed rocket men who won the race to the moon - and even then they needed to join forces with DOD, which grew the vehicle, and so on. It's pretty clear NASA has concluded that STS nearly killed off NASA, and they are pitching VSE as "Gee, Congressman, we're just going back to what we know worked great in Apollo. See, it even looks the same! Doesn't that deserve your vote?"

Setting aside the real technical merits of reusing proven engineering, if it doesn't play in DC, it's nothing more than yet another shelved design exercise.

Posted by Mike at August 17, 2006 07:03 PM

Brian et al, a person I respect once said "which would you rather have to pull a plow, an ox or a flock of chickens". You might want to check into how that one turned out.

Most of the cost of current launches is in personnel. For a government agency or someone in their employ, this is essentially a sunk cost. Whether you launch once or 100 times, the largest part of the cost is the same. So launch often if you have a lot of mass.

I mean, really, all this talk about the complexity of docking/etc is amazingly dumb! OK, how did we get to the moon last time? We sent up a big rocket with 2 separate parts, and then assembled them in orbit - in the seventies!

Posted by David Summers at August 17, 2006 08:45 PM

"Who are you to say that the military is not a very meaningful opportunity?"

Who I am has nothing to do with the truth value of my conclusions. This is another of those irksome things about the South, this extreme overemphasis on authority over moral reasoning and fact. The appropriate question is why I think space is a more meaningful opportunity than the military, so if that was what you meant, you're welcome to ask and I'll gladly answer.

"I know many brillant folks in the military who have given their lives and their careers to defending this country."

I'm acquainted with a few myself, but I know of far more who killed and died for politics or other people's money. And then there are the vast majority of military servicemembers, past and present, who were simply cogs in the runaway train of the military industrial complex, then moved on to real jobs with a constructive purpose.

"That is one of the most meaningful careers that I can think of."

It shouldn't even be a career. The army of a free republic is supposed to consist of its citizens, not Roman-style professional legions, and they are to be called up only when that republic is under attack. We needed this monstrous machine during the Cold War to hold off the Soviet Union in Europe, but as Eisenhower warned, there would be a heavy price if we were not vigilant--and we are paying that price today for being seduced by hegemony when we could have retired in peace. Large, expensive standing armies consisting of career soldiers have always been the handmaidens of Empire, and that is precisely what we are reaping; tyranny at home, tyranny abroad.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 10:16 PM

OK, how did we get to the moon last time? We sent up a big rocket with 2 separate parts, and then assembled them in orbit - in the seventies!

Only, we didn't really did we, sure, the CM and LEM docked, but its a reach to compare that to what is being discussed here. With multiple redundant systems, on realtively small payloads (certainly smaller than the Apollo "assembly" modules), with the probable need for fuel transfer and pumping of liquids from fuel dumps of some kind.

We've not actually done most of that, at least not a scale like this, and its going to be something you'd want to test pretty exhaustively in LEO before betting a trip on it. Even with lower cost access, that technology proving is going to be pretty expensive. If you can actually get it working as we expect. Our actual in orbit, in vacuum, in freefall assembly experience as a species isn't particularly vast.

Posted by Daveon at August 18, 2006 01:26 AM

************

Oh hogwash.

Our military is less than half the size it was in the 1980's. During those golden Ike years you talk about the defense budget was 50% of the federal budget. Now I would argue that the rest of the budget is much too high but that is another discussion.

You simply cannot have a nation in the modern age without some form of professional military and the vast majority of the folks that go into the military today aren't lifers. The ones that are that I have intereacted with are some of the smartest and most upstanding people that I know.

The biggest military problem that I see is the revolving door where general officers retire and then move into senior leadership positions at defense contractors that they are mostly incompetent to assme due to the differences in culture.

Still you just don't get it and continue to slander the dedicated people who defend our country just as you continue to reveal your bigotry toward a section of the country that does not conform to your value system.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at August 18, 2006 05:54 AM

"Actually you did. The n word or redneck by any other equivalent name is still the same thing."

Pabst and trailer parks have nothing to do with rednecks, they're just standard fixtures in underprivileged parts of middle America. Secondly, the term redneck describes a lifestyle and personality type, not an ethnic group, economic class, or racial category, so spare me your ridiculous attempt to equate it with racism. Thirdly, rednecks usually aren't poor--they tend to be middle class, have a fetish for clownishly oversized things, and take immense pleasure mucking around in pseudo-patriotic travesty (e.g., exaggerated American flag motifs, Toby Keith music). Futhermore, rednecks are ignorant by choice, not for lack of opportunities, and see the military as just another way of expressing what they consider "manhood"--all other rhetoric only intended to make themselves feel important.

Such people have nothing to do with the folks I'm discussing here, the working-class kids growing up in places where they're pressured to join by family expectations and lack of options. There's so much talent going to waste, and I think those people most of all would be inspired by bringing the promise of space into their communities--if only the funding existed.

"You continue in your mental imagery with the other equivalents so all you do is to continue to confirm your bigotry."

Oh stop it, you're only reinforcing the stereotype of the umbrageous Southerner. You want to strike a blow for Alabama pride, stop puffing up in indignation every time you think your quarter of the country isn't receiving the proper respect. Nobody from Massachusetts or California acts like that when rednecks insult their state, because they don't have to. Think about that.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 18, 2006 06:14 AM

This has drifted way off topic, but Brian once again reveals his ignorance and bigotry, in that he doesn't even know what a "redneck" is, but feels free to sling it as a derogatory term. It is in fact a "race," and a culture. It is the people who settled western Pennsylvania and Appalachia in the seventeenth century (and later, after the Civil War, the American west), who were originally from the borderlands between Scotland and England, and were sent first to Ulster, and then to America. They are also known as Scots-Irish. The term "redneck" came over with them from England. It refers to the red collars that many Presbyterians wore in the region.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 18, 2006 06:28 AM

"but Brian once again reveals his ignorance and bigotry, in that he doesn't even know what a "redneck" is"

I know what redneck means when I say it, and explained as much, which is perfectly reasonable for a slang term. As for you, I'd suggest you work on those reading comprehension skills.

"It is in fact a "race," and a culture."

Once again, Rand, seizing on trivia because you can't contribute intelligent thoughts. The term has no likely connection to the Presbyterian collar, any more than bowling pins do; it originated from the sunburns that farmers of Northern European descent often had in the summer heat of the Southern states, and over time became associated with their surliness, sleaze, contempt, and exaggerated machismo.

Did you have any thoughts about my actual point, namely space investment as an opportunity provider for small communities, or are you content to play with your navel lint and fixate on the meanings of slang terms?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 18, 2006 07:58 AM

************

Hmmm

Those same people, especially here in Huntsville Alabama, are the ones that built the Moon Rocket the last time we went to the Moon.

Of course many very poor people join the military because it provides options and a paychect and education. From what I have seen all of my life as well, most of these folks join because they want to do something with their lives will gaining an education. People here do have options. Your argument is about 5 decades obsolete. College loans are easy to get and unemployment here in Alabama is a full percentage point BELOW the national average, essentially full employment. These are basket weaving jobs as Alabama has seen the largest increase in automotive jobs of any area of the Nation due to the influx of manufacturing plants from Merceedes, Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda.

Yet we still have a strong military tradition here. The Alabama national guard is the largest in the nation troop wise and right now 20% of it is deployed to Iraq. I know several people who are civilian contractors there as well.

So, no you are full of crap with a 1950's bigoted view of the south in general and my state in particular. Especially the "working class" stupidity. I guess the non working class has more options? My mother never made more than $10k a year in her life and my step father was a coal miner and yet here I am, with a degree, patents, and three companies that I hold significant interest in.

So stuff your bigotry right back up the shoot where it belongs.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at August 18, 2006 07:59 AM

...it originated from the sunburns that farmers of Northern European descent often had in the summer heat of the Southern states, and over time became associated with their surliness, sleaze, contempt, and exaggerated machismo.

Once again, this is an ignorant myth about the origins of the word, which go back to seventeenth-century England (read Albion's Seed, by Fischer). It's what I've come to expect from you--to continue to revel and marinate in your ignorance, even when someone makes the futile attempt to educate you.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 18, 2006 08:20 AM

"Those same people, especially here in Huntsville Alabama, are the ones that built the Moon Rocket the last time we went to the Moon."

No, actually they aren't. NASA built the MSFC facilities, and then personnel largely moved there from other states to be part of the program. And while Marshall obviously provides some degree of local economic benefit, that doesn't remotely approach what I'm talking about.

Besides which, the Center system is an outmoded, feudalistic, and counterproductive architecture that's already hampering progress on a number of fronts, so I wouldn't look to MSFC for any quantum leaps in the Alabama space industry. All they do is provide facilities for the latest LockBoeGrumm fiasco, and the economic benefits are usually ephemeral and trivial.

"Of course many very poor people join the military because it provides options and a paychect and education."

They shouldn't have to join the military to get those things. If the only chance someone has at a college education or job training is the military, then our country is spending too little on the former and too much on the latter.

"College loans are easy to get"

They're neither easy nor comprehensive under most circumstances. And forget about technical training for a job or junior college for those who need more preparation--they're basically on their own to pay for that, meaning they can't devote the same time and effort as they otherwise might, which is why the overwhelming majority never finish two-year programs.

"So, no you are full of crap with a 1950's bigoted view of the south in general and my state in particular."

Oh blow it out your ass. I was in Alabama three years ago for over a week, drove through several other Gulf Coast states as well, and what I saw in most parts of the South (including AL) were neglected, underdeveloped economies. People don't have to be living in dirt-floored shacks for that to be a noticeable problem, nor for it to be obvious when an economy rests on marginal local businesses and single-employer company towns. Maybe you're content with that--I wouldn't presume to guess--but I think it a uniquely Southern attitude to get offended when someone envisions things being better. An attitude that doesn't work very well in a spacefaring society, so I recommend you find a better way to feel good about Alabama--for instance, actually doing something to improve it.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 19, 2006 06:41 AM

Brian

*********************
Hmm, that did not stop my mother who worked as a cashier in a Bargain Tow, went to nursing school, took care of her mother, and raised me all at the same time in the 1960's when by any measure educational loans and grants were far harder to obtain.

Today those grants and loans are far easier to get. I used to set on a scholarship review committe at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and we gave grants to those who were working the hardest and who had the most on their table all the time. I ran a student small satellite program and recruited undergrads and graduate students from all over the country and paid at least a portion of their education as well as stipends.

You simply don't know what you are talking about.

We just call's em like we see em and you are a bigot, a classist, and think that your way of thinking is the only one that is legitmate. I could pick out many problems in whatever area you live in that are as bad or worse than here.

This is why your type has such a hard time winning elections, you look down in disdain and pity at those ignorant ones who are not as enlightened as you and your ilk are. This is a cultural snobbishness that you simply don't have the intellectual tools within you to overcome and it puts people off.

Yes the south is still underdeveloped as compared with some areas, that first effort at regime change of the U.S. government left this area with a per capita income 1/5 of what it was before the war and even 150 years later that disparity is still not completely erased.

It is funny that you rail with such passion about regime change in Iraq when you have no problem with the U.S. government overthrowing a government legitimately elected after declaring its independence from the U.S. here. That regime may have been loathsome as well but did millions of people have to suffer (black and white) for a over a century afterward? Where was the U.S. exit strategy then? How about the rebuilding effort?

Funny the logical contradictions that your position puts you in.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 19, 2006 10:10 AM

Addendum

As far as economic development goes, the state of Alabama pumps about 8 million barrels of oil a year and a lot of natural gas. A portion of the royalties earned goes into an economic development fund to attract new business to the state. This fund has brought tens of billions of dollars worth of new industry to the state, including the Merceedes plant, Hyundai, Toyota, and Honda, top tier international corporations with lots of high paying jobs.

Recently the state docks received $100M dollars to build a containerized handling facility that will process almost 900,000 containers a year, moving Mobile into the #5 port in terms of cargo handled per year for the whole nation.

As far as I am concerned I do my part and a lot of folks know it here and around the country. Funny when I google your name nothing shows up.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 19, 2006 10:14 AM

"Hmm, that did not stop my mother who worked as a cashier in a Bargain Tow, went to nursing school, took care of her mother, and raised me all at the same time in the 1960's when by any measure educational loans and grants were far harder to obtain."

What is it with conservatives and anecdotal thinking? Someone gets a PhD from Harvard while raising twenty kids and recovering from leukemia, and you think people who can't do that are somehow defective? Graduation rates from two-year programs are abysmal because financial support for them is abysmal, and even if all tuition and book expenses were paid, there are no comparable loan programs to support themselves while they learn like university students have. More is demanded of people forced to take the two-year route than those who can go straight to university, and the result is wasted talent when most of them find they just don't have time.

"I used to set on a scholarship review committe at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and we gave grants to those who were working the hardest and who had the most on their table all the time."

Fine, but I'm not talking about spectacular overachievers, I'm talking about students who could make a solid contribution but are ultimately turned away by arbitrary financial aid policies. How is it a university student can get loans for all their living expenses, but a two-year student pursuing what is supposed to be equivalent to lower-division education can't even get supplementary loans? Banks aren't going to hand thousands of dollars to an 18-year-old with a GED, no credit history, no assets, and a minimum wage part-time job so he can go to community college.

Earlier you accused me of "classism," but your myopia on this suggests looking in the mirror. Someone like that may not go on to become an aerospace engineer (or then again, they might), but they very well may have real talents that could be of benefit to the economy if they have equal opportunities to pursue them.

"I could pick out many problems in whatever area you live in that are as bad or worse than here."

Possibly, albeit the problems would be different, and I would debate solutions rather than getting all huffy and defensive. That's one of the many good things about where I live and other places like it: If someone says "things could be better," we reply "tell us how." Tell a Southerner their lot could be better, they say "Go screw yourself." Nice attitude, Dennis.

"It is funny that you rail with such passion about regime change in Iraq when you have no problem with the U.S. government overthrowing a government legitimately elected after declaring its independence from the U.S. here."

Could you possibly throw more Southern stereotypes on the pile? Umbrageous, defensive, appealing to authority over reason, and now bitching about a war that ended a century and a half ago. I'm not going to take the bait, Dennis--the rest of America and the educated world knows who the bad guys were in that one, and few will argue the outcome was other than it should have been. Maybe if the South lived up to its pseudo-patriotic rhetoric and finally integrated into the United States, these rhetorical battles wouldn't constantly be rehashed.

"That regime may have been loathsome as well but did millions of people have to suffer (black and white) for a over a century afterward?"

The only people holding (white) Southerners back were themselves, and that's still the case. State governments don't invest in infrastructure, don't have forward-thinking social or educational policies, and (based on your reactions) I doubt they would dare to advocate any sort of change lest they be seen as insulting Southern pride. The politicians are elected solely to keep taxes low, and that's about all they do when not demagoguing religious issues.

"As far as economic development goes, the state of Alabama pumps about 8 million barrels of oil a year and a lot of natural gas."

Fine, but raw industry is supposed to serve as fertilizer for commerce, not a substitute for it. Southern oil producers mostly sell their oil to other states instead of growing domestic sectors around it like plastics, composites, lubricants, and others.

"A portion of the royalties earned goes into an economic development fund to attract new business to the state."

The best way to attract business is to already have it, and especially having it in the framework of a multilayered economy. You don't get that by bribing giant companies to relocate into a vacuum, but rather by having world-class education available to a maximum number of people, and a culture that emphasizes creativity, innovation, and accomplishment. The royalties would be far better spent on educational programs, small business loans, and research grants.

"This fund has brought tens of billions of dollars worth of new industry to the state, including the Merceedes plant, Hyundai, Toyota, and Honda, top tier international corporations with lots of high paying jobs."

How many of those companies have their corporate headquarters in Alabama? How many cents of extra per-unit cost would it take for those manufacturers to shutter their plants, leaving entire towns in the lurch? The only way to have a thriving, robust, multilayered economy is to grow one from the ground up, because the benefits of "attracting" business are usually ephemeral and weakly rooted. If the money that comes from Toyota et al isn't invested in that kind of growth, it's essentially a waste of time.

"moving Mobile into the #5 port in terms of cargo handled per year for the whole nation."

Great. How much of the cargo coming through it do you think is actually destined for Alabama? Being a throughway, like having raw industry, is only useful if it provides capital for the rise of domestic commercial sectors. Otherwise you'll have just gone in circles when some other port in the region becomes more attractive--same with automotive plants, same with raw materials.

"Funny when I google your name nothing shows up."

Funny--you still think ideas can be judged by who comes up with them. If Elon Musk showed up and agreed with my points, would you genuflect and beg forgiveness for doubting me? I should hope not, although your reliance on authority over merit doesn't make it that hard to imagine. If I were just some technician at Raytheon, would it matter? Or a junior in astrophysics at UC Berkeley? Or a grad student pursuing a doctorate in condensed matter physics at MIT? Or a tenured astronomy teacher at a local community college in New Hampshire? Whether I'm nobody, going to be somebody, or worth more than your entire city, my ideas make sense--and that's more than some people can ever hope for (coughRANDcough).

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 19, 2006 09:08 PM

What is it with conservatives and anecdotal thinking?

*******

Its called a counter point. Even one counter example extinguishes your generalization about how hard it is for folks in my part of the country to get college loans, help, or just hard work. You make excuses and then launch into a long winded tirade. Geez.

+++++++++++++++

I'm talking about students who could make a solid contribution but are ultimately turned away by arbitrary financial aid policies. How is it a university student can get loans for all their living expenses, but a two-year student pursuing what is supposed to be equivalent to lower-division education can't even get supplementary loans?

********************

Arbitrary financial aid policies? They are pretty straight forward from what my experience is. I could not get the subsidized loans so I got the higher interest unsubsidzed ones. After I got to the university I got a campus job and eventually a full time staff position that paid my tuition. If you want to go to college in this country there is no way that you can't get that funded. Heck my wife's young artist friend just figured out how to pay for her art graduate school. As for two year schools, the rules are pretty much the same. I went to Moorpark Jr. College in California with no problems and with financial aid and I know a lot of kids in Alabama that go to the Jr. College for the first two years in order to take advantage of the lower tuition, while the credits are transferrable to the UA system.

You simply don't know what you are talking about.

++++++++++++++++++
Tell a Southerner their lot could be better, they say "Go screw yourself." Nice attitude, Dennis

********************************

No its like No $hit sherlock we are not as stupid as you think that we are. Now get lost before I practice with my .45 on your rear end. :)

It was you that brought up the poverty here and guess what, it was that war that caused it. In 1860 Mississippi was called the breadbasket of America and the per capita income in South Carolina was higher than in New York. Funny what happens when your cities are burned, your crops destroyed, your livestock taken by an invading army. We joke here in Alabama about all of the historical markets that talk about this or that building, rebuilt after the war after Union troops accidentally burned it. Those must have been the biggest klutzes in the universe.

World class education. Hmmm If you look, my school, the University of Alabama in Huntsville consistently ranks as a top school in engineering and science in the country. UAH is one of the top ten research schools in the nation. The University of Alabama in Birmingham is in the top five medical teaching universities in the nation. It has one of the top open heart surgery institutes in the world. Auburn University (with the exception of the football players) is a very highly regarded university academically.

The former Chancellor of the university of Alabama system (Philip Austin) is now the head of the University of Connectiut. High temperature superconductivity was discovered at UAH almost 20 years ago. Dr. John Christie of the Global Hydrology Center at UAH is one of the most highly regarded atmospheric scientist in the world and he and his partner Dr. McNiter almost single handedly poked several holes in the IPCC climate model that dramatically changed the way that we look at anthromorphoric global warming.

Yea our secondary school system needs improving and it is. We went from the perennial 49th to the middle of the educational pack and have one of the hardest high school exit exams in the nation.

So you are again, completely and absolutely wrong.

You challanged me to do something. I do, every day. A short google proves it. When I throw the challange back at you you you start talking about Elon Musk. I don't give a rats patootie who agrees with your position, you, and they would still be wrong.

All you are is an armchair quarterback who comes here with your preconceived notions and when you are challanged you don't know how to deal with it and all of your responses are just flat wrong.

What have YOU done to make the world better, and posting in blogs does not count.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 19, 2006 09:52 PM

"Its called a counter point."

No, it's called an anecdote. The fact that Uncle Jethro crashed his pickup at 100 mph without a seatbelt and came away scratchless is not a counterpoint to the importance of seatbelts.

"Even one counter example extinguishes your generalization about how hard it is for folks in my part of the country"

If you think anecdotes trump statistical facts, then I don't how you even got into college, let alone taught at one. Apparently you think the answer to a problem is finding one example of someone for whom it wasn't a problem at all, and therefore no solution is necessary.

Cancer? Well, see, my Aunt Betty-Jean went into spontaneous remission without any treatment, so there's no need for oncology research. Trouble funding a two-year education? Why, my cousin Peggy Sue got an AA while raising thirty kids with cerebral palsy, working six full-time jobs, and did it all by herself, so there shouldn't be any trouble--and if there is, it's your own fault, and you don't deserve an education.

MEANWHILE, you blame the South's ongoing economic shortcomings on a war that happened nearly 150 years ago, because apparently that's not enough time to recover from the interruption of a preindustrial economy even with Reconstruction and decades of attempted investment. West Germany could recover from *total annihilation* of a highly advanced economy within two decades, but because the Union burned Massa's Big House and let his slaves run off to the North, the next six generations of Southerners couldn't figure out how to build an economy? The level of hypocrisy and lack of reflection that comes out of the South is just unbelievable.

For a hundred years after the Civil War, the rich land owners in the South used race to keep the masses focusing their resentment on people who had nothing to do with their problems, and now they're doing the same thing with religion. Prosperity or its absence comes from culture, not outside investment or outside interference--and even when outsiders naively tried to help, you folks just spat on them.

"I went to Moorpark Jr. College in California with no problems and with financial aid and I know a lot of kids in Alabama that go to the Jr. College for the first two years in order to take advantage of the lower tuition, while the credits are transferrable to the UA system."

Junior college financial aid only applies to tuition in most cases, and possibly the cost of books if extreme need can be demonstrated, but there are no loans, grants, or scholarships to help out with living expenses while students pursue a two-year degree. They have to "fit in" classes while they work full-time to support themselves, and that's why most people never complete two-year programs.

"No its like No $hit sherlock we are not as stupid as you think that we are."

And yet here you are blaming the Civil War for the lack of advanced economies in the South. There weren't any before the war either, but don't let that get in your way.

"In 1860 Mississippi was called the breadbasket of America"

Yes, slaves are hard workers. Too bad their masters turned out not to be when deprived of the free lunch slavery provided them.

"and the per capita income in South Carolina was higher than in New York."

New York was flooded with Irish immigrants, and I doubt slaves were included in whatever figure you're looking at.

"World class education. Hmmm If you look, my school, the University of Alabama in Huntsville consistently ranks as a top school in engineering and science in the country."

You have a rather loose definition of "top," but nobody's denying it's nice school. I'm saying education has to be a part of the culture to be truly successful, which means being pervasive and accessible from the ground up. Having an august university is neither here nor there if it's not a cultural engine, like the way Harvard is to Massachusetts, Columbia to New York, or Berkeley/Stanford and UCLA/USC to California. They create the climate of education that feeds the technical schools like Caltech, Cornell, MIT, Rensselaer, etc, who in turn generate the innovative industries.

"We went from the perennial 49th to the middle of the educational pack and have one of the hardest high school exit exams in the nation."

Exam fixation is another can of worms that needs examining (heh heh), but for now I'd just say "nothing succeeds like success." Find out why Massachusetts schools are so damn good, and copy them shamelessly--even if it entails higher taxes and profligate spending (it does).

"You challanged me to do something. I do, every day."

Then what are you complaining about? My advice is perfectly in line with your actions, and should only therefore be considered an affirmation of support for them.

"What have YOU done to make the world better, and posting in blogs does not count."

I contribute time, money, and organizational skills to various space-related nonprofits, invest in potentially beneficial technologies, and I solve problems for people. Occasionally I get articles published pseudonymously in trade publications, suggesting changes to a physical product, process, or policy framework, or envisioning new ones. Sometimes my suggestions show up in real applications, but there's no way to know if I inspired them or just came to a parallel conclusion. There have been a few citations of my work by others.

THAT is what I do for fun.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 20, 2006 02:31 AM

Post a comment