Speaking of not being impressed, Dean Barnett isn’t with James Baker and what is rumored to be his upcoming surrender plan. Me, neither.
There’s so much that James Baker doesn
“The Jews Didn’t Vote For Us”
Speaking of not being impressed, Dean Barnett isn’t with James Baker and what is rumored to be his upcoming surrender plan. Me, neither.
There’s so much that James Baker doesn
“The Jews Didn’t Vote For Us”
Speaking of not being impressed, Dean Barnett isn’t with James Baker and what is rumored to be his upcoming surrender plan. Me, neither.
There’s so much that James Baker doesn
Not Impressed
That’s what Orson Scott Card is with Gary Trudeau and his comparisons between George Bush and Bill Clinton:
“The second president [Clinton] lies about hooking up with an intern.”
Aw, yeah, that’s nothing. Now, if Clinton had sent her dirty messages by IM or email, then he should have not just been impeached, but convicted and thrown out of office. But actually getting her to perform sexual acts on him, and then lying about it — heck, who doesn’t do that with underage sex partners who are in an almost infinitely subservient relationship with the most powerful man on earth?
And the lying — never mind that it was under oath in a court proceeding. Never mind that the lie was not to protect national security in any way, but merely to obstruct his opponent in a personal lawsuit based on previous sexual misconduct. It just doesn’t matter because it’s kind of charming that Clinton’s insatiable sexual appetite could not be controlled even when he was in the White House.
Because that just makes him a “babe hound,” to quote Trudeau’s comic strip. And the Left finds “babe hounds” rather charming. Unless they’re Republicans, in which case they must be hounded from office immediately.
This is the moral universe of Garry Trudeau — and of thousands, perhaps millions of others who subscribe to the Smarty-Pants school of moral reasoning. President Bush, whose actions have obviously been motivated solely by the desire to protect America from a genuine danger from bloodthirsty enemies, is worthy of impeachment for the crimes of (a) not always being right, (b) doing what other presidents have done, and (c) having national media figures hate him so badly that they will happily believe any vile rumor his enemies spread about.
And lest the lefty wingnuts howl about this last, they should read the whole thing, in which their hateful loony rants are preemptively demolished.
Lunar Enterprise
I haven’t read it yet, but Jack Schmitt’s new book
[Update a few minutes later]
Unfortunate typo of Dr./Senator Schmitt’s name has been fixed…
Not The End Of The World
A conversation with Bjorn Lomborg.
DDT is not dangerous to humans, but it is dangerous to some animals. So if you’re in a rich country where you have malaria under control, clearly you should ban DDT or severely restrict its use.
But our concern about DDT in the early 70s basically meant that most of the developing world restricted their use as well. That was probably an immensely bad judgement because yes, it harms animals like birds, but it also saves human lives. These actions undoubtedly led to many millions of lives lost. So that is one example of where we need to be very careful about what we do.
But I think we are doing a little bit the same thing with climate change discussions right now. We have spent so much time over the last 10 years trying to do something about climate change. We have a treaty that will essentially do nothing whatsoever about climate change and it will still end up costing us quite a bit. And you’ve got to ask yourself, couldn’t we have spent that amount of time and effort and consideration on addressing some of the issues in the world where we could have done an enormous amount of good?
Now We’re Just Haggling Over The Price
Jon Goff has some more good posts up on exploration (and particularly lunar) architectures. Here’s a key point that undercuts NASA’s rationale for HLVs:
Why doesn’t NASA land enough stuff to support 4 people for 6 months on a single lander? Or 6 people for a year? Because it would require much too big of a lander, which would cost too much to develop, and way too much to operate. By making the lander smaller, and less capable, but using LSR, ESAS provides a much cheaper approach than trying to do a Battlestar Galactica scale lunar lander. However, you could see where that logic goes…
And Doug Stanley more or less admitted it. He said that had the 4 people for 7 days edict not been “blessed” by Mike Griffin as one of the ground rules, that EELV based architectures would have traded a lot better compared to the chosen ESAS architecture. And he’s right. All the numbers I’ve run show that you could probably do a reasonable 2-man lunar architecture using st0ck, or nearly st0ck EELVs (or EELV equivalents like Falcon IX if it becomes available).
They admit the need for assembly on the moon, because they know that (as Jon notes) it’s completely unrealistic to get a full-up base to the surface with a single launch of any vehicle short of Sea Dragon (come to think of it, that’s one HLV that I could get behind, because it’s innovative and wouldn’t necessarily cost that much). Now admittedly, it is easier to do assembly in a gravity field (though in some ways, it’s harder as well, since with weight, you need cranes, etc.). But it’s not so much easier that they should have ruled out doing orbital assembly, something that we need to learn to do anyway, and that they will have to do for Mars, even with Ares V.
Again, as Jon points out, the entire architecture, and justification for an expensive (in both development and operations) heavy lifter is based on an arbitrary requirement–four crew for seven days. Remove that constraint, and the trade space blossoms tremendously. But it apparently doesn’t satisfy political imperatives, whatever their source.
Now We’re Just Haggling Over The Price
Jon Goff has some more good posts up on exploration (and particularly lunar) architectures. Here’s a key point that undercuts NASA’s rationale for HLVs:
Why doesn’t NASA land enough stuff to support 4 people for 6 months on a single lander? Or 6 people for a year? Because it would require much too big of a lander, which would cost too much to develop, and way too much to operate. By making the lander smaller, and less capable, but using LSR, ESAS provides a much cheaper approach than trying to do a Battlestar Galactica scale lunar lander. However, you could see where that logic goes…
And Doug Stanley more or less admitted it. He said that had the 4 people for 7 days edict not been “blessed” by Mike Griffin as one of the ground rules, that EELV based architectures would have traded a lot better compared to the chosen ESAS architecture. And he’s right. All the numbers I’ve run show that you could probably do a reasonable 2-man lunar architecture using st0ck, or nearly st0ck EELVs (or EELV equivalents like Falcon IX if it becomes available).
They admit the need for assembly on the moon, because they know that (as Jon notes) it’s completely unrealistic to get a full-up base to the surface with a single launch of any vehicle short of Sea Dragon (come to think of it, that’s one HLV that I could get behind, because it’s innovative and wouldn’t necessarily cost that much). Now admittedly, it is easier to do assembly in a gravity field (though in some ways, it’s harder as well, since with weight, you need cranes, etc.). But it’s not so much easier that they should have ruled out doing orbital assembly, something that we need to learn to do anyway, and that they will have to do for Mars, even with Ares V.
Again, as Jon points out, the entire architecture, and justification for an expensive (in both development and operations) heavy lifter is based on an arbitrary requirement–four crew for seven days. Remove that constraint, and the trade space blossoms tremendously. But it apparently doesn’t satisfy political imperatives, whatever their source.
Now We’re Just Haggling Over The Price
Jon Goff has some more good posts up on exploration (and particularly lunar) architectures. Here’s a key point that undercuts NASA’s rationale for HLVs:
Why doesn’t NASA land enough stuff to support 4 people for 6 months on a single lander? Or 6 people for a year? Because it would require much too big of a lander, which would cost too much to develop, and way too much to operate. By making the lander smaller, and less capable, but using LSR, ESAS provides a much cheaper approach than trying to do a Battlestar Galactica scale lunar lander. However, you could see where that logic goes…
And Doug Stanley more or less admitted it. He said that had the 4 people for 7 days edict not been “blessed” by Mike Griffin as one of the ground rules, that EELV based architectures would have traded a lot better compared to the chosen ESAS architecture. And he’s right. All the numbers I’ve run show that you could probably do a reasonable 2-man lunar architecture using st0ck, or nearly st0ck EELVs (or EELV equivalents like Falcon IX if it becomes available).
They admit the need for assembly on the moon, because they know that (as Jon notes) it’s completely unrealistic to get a full-up base to the surface with a single launch of any vehicle short of Sea Dragon (come to think of it, that’s one HLV that I could get behind, because it’s innovative and wouldn’t necessarily cost that much). Now admittedly, it is easier to do assembly in a gravity field (though in some ways, it’s harder as well, since with weight, you need cranes, etc.). But it’s not so much easier that they should have ruled out doing orbital assembly, something that we need to learn to do anyway, and that they will have to do for Mars, even with Ares V.
Again, as Jon points out, the entire architecture, and justification for an expensive (in both development and operations) heavy lifter is based on an arbitrary requirement–four crew for seven days. Remove that constraint, and the trade space blossoms tremendously. But it apparently doesn’t satisfy political imperatives, whatever their source.
Silk Purses From Sow’s Ears
When NASA first proposed a single-SRB-based launcher, one of the issues that jumped out immediately to many familiar with vehicle design and Shuttle design was roll control. As designed for the Shuttle, there are two SRBs, both of which can gimbal the engines. This allows roll control of the Shuttle stack by gimbaling them in opposite directions. But when there’s only one, the engine gimbal provides pitch and yaw control, but there’s no way for it to control roll.
There are two potential solutions to this–to modify the SRB itself to add roll-control thrusters, or to incorporate them into the new upper stage. The latter has the disadvantage of oversizing the roll-control system for the period after stage separation, which adds weight and affects performance, but it simplifies design by requiring only one system.
In any event, the concept seems to be in trouble. Now this certainly isn’t a show stopper, and issues like this are inevitable in the development of a new launch vehicle, but it’s just one more demonstration of the fact that deriving a new launcher from existing pieces isn’t as easy as has been advertised by many, both within and out of the agency.
[Late morning update]
Gary Hudson emails one other option:
There is a third possibility: let it roll. Depending on the rate and duration, it may not be a problem. Some current vehicles do this (Taurus, for one) and we are planning a subset of it for the AirLaunch QuickReach. In our case, we have a Stage Two roll thruster but its purpose is to limit the rate, not hold a specific roll attitude. Makes for a much small thruster. It is later used as part of the normally smaller sized Stage Two attitude control subsystem.