Author Topic: May 18 Senate Hearing - Contributions of Space to National Imperatives  (Read 47711 times)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Asked to by Sen. Boozeman to justify HLV (essentially), Elliott Pulham of the Space Foundation overs quite an odd reply, in my view.  The only thing he mentions is that Ariane V will launch JWST.  So what?  Ariane V is not what anybody would call an HLV.

The more I think about this, the weirder it seems.  I suppose that in his question, Sen. Boozeman did not define "heavy lift" (and it may well not have been defined at any point during the hearing).  That left Mr. Pulham free to use his own definition and still provide the answer that Sen. Boozeman probably wanted to hear.  I wonder if Sen. Boozeman later said to himself, "Wait a minute, do the Europeans already have an HLV?"

I'd be interested in anybody else's guesses as to what was going on.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
I'd be interested in anybody else's guesses as to what was going on.

Is 'Heavy Lift' going to suddenly be redefined as 25t+ IMLEO? In that case, America already has one and could easily have three (Delta-IVH, Atlas-VH and Falcon Heavy). ???

I wonder if there have been some crossed wires and they were thinking of the Ariane-5-ECB.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Listening to the replay.

00:35  GAH!  Sen. Hutchison goes on yet again about AMS (particle spectrometer carried to ISS by STS-134) as research into energy sources; in fact it is fundamental particle astrophysics research, as far removed from practical energy production as anything done at CERN or FermiLab.   She seems determined not to be confused by the facts.



And you seem determined to forget that the purpose of AMS is to identify the existence of and attempt to characterize the UNKNOWN phenomena of Dark Matter and dark Energy; things that have only been largely theorized about to date. Until it is in fact observed and its behavior understood, no one--certainly not you--can predict what it may or may not be able to be "harnessed" to do, if anything. Therefore, as Dr. Ting told a group of Senators six years ago when discussing AMS--a discussion which, by the way led directly to the efforts by Senator Hutchison to ensure AMS would be flown by including language in the 2008 NASA Authorization bill to mandate that mission--efforts without which it would NOT have been manifested and would NOT be on orbit today--the question of what it may discover, and what those discoveries will reveal about what its implications or potential uses may be, can not be predicted at his point. So I suggest you stop foaming at the mouth with the kind of "contempt prior to investigation" that seems to characterize so much of what you have to say.


See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13462926

19 May 2011 Last updated at 21:27 GMT

New method 'confirms dark energy'
By Paul Rincon Science reporter, BBC News

19 May 2011

"First results from a major astronomical survey using a cutting-edge technique appear to have confirmed the existence of mysterious dark energy."

And "While dark energy makes up about 74% of the Universe, dark matter - which does not reflect or emit detectable light - accounts for 22%. Ordinary matter - gas, stars, planets and galaxies - makes up just 4% of the cosmos."

Many things seen and unseen to think about...

Cheers! :)
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
I'd be interested in anybody else's guesses as to what was going on.

Is 'Heavy Lift' going to suddenly be redefined as 25t+ IMLEO? In that case, America already has one and could easily have three (Delta-IVH, Atlas-VH and Falcon Heavy). ???

I wonder if there have been some crossed wires and they were thinking of the Ariane-5-ECB.
Usually the the definition is IMLEO:
Small                    < 2mT
Medium              2mT to 10mT
Mid-heavy            10mT to 20mt (some define as 25mT)
Heavy                20mT (see above) to 50mT
Super-heavy       >50mT

In fact, the 20mT as threshold for heavy is taken from the Agustine Report. So yes. The Europeans already have a HLV. America has Delta IV, Atlas V (never ordered, but available) and a super heavy in development Falcon Heavy (albeit by the bare minimum). The russians have Proton-K now and two in development (Angara A5 and A7 and Rus-M). Even the Chinese have the LM-5 in development.
Now, going over 100mT should have a special name. Like in ultra heavy or such.

Offline Periander

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13462926

19 May 2011 Last updated at 21:27 GMT

New method 'confirms dark energy'
By Paul Rincon Science reporter, BBC News

19 May 2011

"First results from a major astronomical survey using a cutting-edge technique appear to have confirmed the existence of mysterious dark energy."

And "While dark energy makes up about 74% of the Universe, dark matter - which does not reflect or emit detectable light - accounts for 22%. Ordinary matter - gas, stars, planets and galaxies - makes up just 4% of the cosmos."

Many things seen and unseen to think about...

Cheers! :)

An interesting article that has nothing to do with AMS, ISS, HSF or this thread.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
I believe AMS is very worthwhile as pure science, and I appreciate Sen. Hutchison's important efforts on its behalf.  If she supported it principally in the belief that it is a promising avenue leading toward better energy sources in the foreseeable future, then, as others have just point out, she supported it for the wrong reasons.  That said, I'm sure that many of the good things that happen happen for the wrong reasons; they're still good things.

So I suggest you stop foaming at the mouth with the kind of "contempt prior to investigation" that seems to characterize so much of what you have to say.

May I suggest that a constructive path would be to explain to Sen. Hutchison or her staff how nebulous AMS's connection to energy production is.  Given your privileged role in the corridors of power, perhaps you or your colleagues would even be in a position to do so.  I'm glad Sen. Hutchison has supported AMS, but her continuing apparent misunderstanding of it serves none of herself, the Committee, the State of Texas nor the country well.

You characterize my behavior as "foaming at the mouth."  My post above certainly reflects frustration, but I think that's hardly an unreasonable reaction when an one of the country's key policy makers in science and technology repeatedly demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the subject.  I'd also note that to hold public office in a free country is to be subject to criticism.

EDIT:  Grammar.

She's a politician!  Postulating nebulous connections in order to justify spending huge gobs of money is what they do.

Even when they believe a thing is justified in and of itself,  they still have to spin it to counter arguments from those who don't subscribe to the same world view.

Besides, no Research is truly 'pure'. I doubt Rutherford was thinking of nuclear reactors and solar panels.


See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13462926

19 May 2011 Last updated at 21:27 GMT

New method 'confirms dark energy'
By Paul Rincon Science reporter, BBC News

19 May 2011

"First results from a major astronomical survey using a cutting-edge technique appear to have confirmed the existence of mysterious dark energy."

And "While dark energy makes up about 74% of the Universe, dark matter - which does not reflect or emit detectable light - accounts for 22%. Ordinary matter - gas, stars, planets and galaxies - makes up just 4% of the cosmos."

Many things seen and unseen to think about...

Cheers! :)

An interesting article that has nothing to do with AMS, ISS, HSF or this thread.

ISS = the National Laboratory to do Space Research and our current main focus for HSF

AMS = Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, a very important and expensive experimental tool for the ISS

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Magnetic_Spectrometer   
"The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, also designated AMS-02, is a particle physics experiment module that is mounted on the International Space Station. It is designed to search for various types of unusual matter by measuring cosmic rays. Its experiments will help researchers study the formation of the Universe and search for evidence of dark matter as well as investigate antimatter."

Bold added by me.


antimatter = a possible new source of energy, not today or tommorrow, but down the road a bit... Not everyone may agree with that idea, but HSF supporters should at least be doing some thinking about the possibilities.

Not all the research done at the ISS has to have an immediate use. Pure research often has long-term value.

And on 05/02/2011  Antihydrogen Trapped For 1000 Seconds
At: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26709/?p1=Blogs

If the long-term storage of antihydrogen is indeed doable, it is going to be possible to devise antihydrogen powered spacecraft to quickly transport humans to the Moon, Mars, and Ceres. To HSF enthusiasts knowing a lot more about antimatter is important because someday it is likely to be a game changer and a new source of energy for spaceflights that could be included in Contributions of Space to National Imperatives.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAN-II_(spacecraft)

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/ican.htm

Cheers!


Edited.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2011 10:20 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
new source of energy

Not a source: a storage mechanism.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2011 08:56 am by madscientist197 »
John

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
new source of energy

Not a source: a storage mechanism.

Sorry, no. Quite possibly a source. We simply don't know enough about it right now to be sure either way. I would bet a source, but I quit betting in 1968 and I also would be in the grave for a century or two or three before I could collect on the bet anyways.

Cheers!  ;)
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
new source of energy

Not a source: a storage mechanism.

Sorry, no. Quite possibly a source.

Until you can point me to an antimatter mine or something in our very neighborhood, madscientist is right.

The only appreciable amounts of antimatter we will have will be produced by ourselves and it takes more energy to produce than is actually released by annihilation.

It's pretty clear Hutchison doesn't have a good grasp on this and these attempts to cover for her are really weak IMO.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2011 11:42 am by ugordan »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Not everyone may agree with that idea, but HSF supporters should at least be doing some thinking about the possibilities.


AMS is not a justification for HSF or ISS research.  AMS and HSF are totally independent.  There is no interaction between AMS and the ISS crew.  The ISS was just a convenient place to put ISS.   AMS would be better served as a freeflyer. 

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
I really, really tire of the intense disrespect shown on so many threads towards the members of Congress in general. While certainly true that none of them are well versed in everything, what they all do well is forge consensus among members of Congress with widely differing views so that legislation can move forward. They each have staff, *highly* intelligent and knowledgeable staff, to advise them on the specifics of the matters before them. To bemoan the fact that the members of the committees that oversee NASA are not personal experts on all things NASA, as if NASA was the only thing they did, displays a profound lack of knowledge on just what the members of Congress actually do. Continuing from there to demean those same members of Congress for that lack of personal expertise only adds insult to injury and further displays an untoward immaturity unbecoming an adult.

Serving our nation and serving our human spaceflight program does not require that each member of Congress involved be an expert in the fields under consideration. It does require that they each personally acknowledge that to themselves, that their staffs are well informed and that they make efficient use of their staffs. I can tell you from personal experience that the members of Congress involved in NASA's affairs all have well informed staff and that they all make very efficient use of their staff. Having said that, it is not surprising that a member may occasionally misuse a technical term, like Senator Huchinson did, because the vast majority of them are not technical people. They are politicians, not engineers. But like good engineers, good politicians defer to those whose knowledge base exceeds their own on any given subject. That is exactly what the members of Congress who oversee NASA do.

By the way, the term "politician" is not a dirty word, as some of you seem to treat it. Political life is an honored profession, and exceedingly more difficult to navigate than most of you can even begin to imagine in your wildest dreams. I dare say that the majority of you would not survive the experience if you tried.

Now, to showing a little respect:

They are *not* "congress critters".
They are "Representative", or "Senator", or "Legislator", or "Mr.", or "Mrs." or "Miss" or "Ms".
They are *not* "congress critters".

Beginning with this post, every time I see anyone refer to a member of Congress as a "congress critter", I will push the "Report to Moderator" button and report the person for using personally insulting language on the forum.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
congress critter is a socially excepted term

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Usually the the definition is IMLEO:
Small                    < 2mT
Medium              2mT to 10mT
Mid-heavy            10mT to 20mt (some define as 25mT)
Heavy                20mT (see above) to 50mT
Super-heavy       >50mT

This is an example of becoming so used to substandard performance over time that the substandard becomes the new norm.

Back in the day when we were doing lunar missions with the Saturn, there was only 1 definition of "Heavy Lift" and it was accepted around the world. No matter where one went, in the circles of launch vehicle experts, "heavy lift" was 100 tons or more to orbit. I know, because I was there.

The only variable was just what the orbit was. But regardless of the exact orbit, 100 tons is what was consistently referred to as heavy lift.

BTW, this is not a slam at anyone. I'm just pointing out how much things have changed over the years. But I will remind everyone that as recently as 2005, Administrator Griffin himself referred to heavy lift as a lift performance in excess of 100 tons to orbit.

« Last Edit: 05/21/2011 01:09 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
congress critter is a socially excepted term

No it isn't.
It's a socially insulting term.
No member of Congress would appreciate you referring to them as a congress critter.
If you doubt me, then the next time you meet one, try referring to him or her with that term to their face and observe their reaction.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2011 12:50 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Integrator

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
congress critter is a socially excepted term

That's exactly what clongton is saying - "excepted".
 ;)

INTEGRATOR
"Daddy, does that rocket carry people?"
"No buddy, just satellites."
"Why not?"
   --- 5 year old son of jjnodice,  21.01.2011

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Not everyone may agree with that idea, but HSF supporters should at least be doing some thinking about the possibilities.


AMS is not a justification for HSF or ISS research.  AMS and HSF are totally independent.  There is no interaction between AMS and the ISS crew.  The ISS was just a convenient place to put ISS.   AMS would be better served as a freeflyer. 

Bold added by me. Who was willing to spend the extra money for a "freeflyer" mission? Who pays for any repair mission to fix a loose wire on such an AMS "freeflyer"? Loose wire on the long-term AMS mission at the ISS, not a big problem is it? Ooops! I forgot. You think robots are better than humans. You might be wrong about that Jim. A robot cannot do what you do.  ;)

Cheers!

Edited.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2011 01:01 pm by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Who was willing to spend the extra money for a "freeflyer" mission?

And just what makes you think it's the free-flyer that would need extra money when the bottom line is drawn, as opposed to flying it to ISS on a shuttle??

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

1.  Who was willing to spend the extra money for a "freeflyer" mission? 2.Who pays for any repair mission to fix a loose wire on such an AMS "freeflyer"?



1.  The money saved by not flying it on the shuttle

2.  False argument.   AMS is not design for EVA repair.  AMS has no EVA replaceable hardware.   AMS is no different that other spacecraft like GLAST, Swift, SIRTF, Herschel, etc.  There is nothing special about AMS that it needs to be on the ISS.

Martian, just stop posting about topics you don't know about and save us from your nonsensical ramblings.  You are doing your case any help and I am sure SLS proponents agree.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
The benefits I see in using the ISS for the AMS is long term usage potential if they decide to keep the ISS up there for another 15-20 years plus MMOD protection. The ISS has been known to duck and dive to avoid big bits and there is the rest of the ISS to hit for small bits.

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
I did not see anyone comment on this:  http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=37124

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1