It's disconcerting, to say the least, to hear media talking heads discussing the finer points of whether "assassination" by remote control drones is morally ok. For one thing, it hardly qualifies as anything other than taking out the enemy by whatever means work best. Al Qaeda declared war. It's an "unconventional" war, but who follow the rules for a conventional war? As long as they haven't surrendered, you have to annhiliate them. So far as I know, no one is talking surrender, bellying up to a table and signing papers.
If changing technology (remote control drones) do the job, and you save your own, then it's just smarter warfare. Catapults were superceded by cannons one day a long time ago. I wonder if anyone dwelt on moral aspects of that transition.
I'm not a war person, but humanity will continue to try to solve problems ( and make massive mischief for personal gain) by this means until The Great Awakening. That might be when all the independent parties around the world that do good decide to band together in a force powerful enough to overcome the Titans. Maybe that's in our future.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
AMERICA FOR SALE
The September article, “How We Got Here and Where We Are Headed” broad-brushed the politico-economic history of the nation since the 1930’s and identified options for rescuing the nation from an inevitable downward trend if we stick with a consumption based economy.
An article in the September issue of LeMonde diplomatique (www.Lemonddiplomatique.com),authored by Robert W.McChesney and John Nichols, provides devastating insight into the unprecedented tilt toward ownership of the government that has resulted from unlimited funding of candidates, as well as complicity of corporate media. The title and first four paragraphs of the article follow:
US democracy sold out - No media checks on election ad campaigns
Le Monde diplomatique (France) - Thursday, September 1, 2011
Author: Robert W McChesney and John Nichols
Karl Rove used media appearances at the close of the 2010 midterm campaign to dismiss President Obama’s complaints that Republican consultants, led by the former White House political czar, were distorting Senate and House races with hundreds of millions of dollars from multinational corporations and billionaire conservatives. “Obama looks weirdly disconnected - and slightly obsessive - when he talks so much about the Chamber of Commerce, Ed Gillespie and me,” Rove mused. “The president has already wasted one-quarter of the campaign’s final four weeks on this sideshow.”
The “sideshow” was the most important story of the most expensive midterm election in American history: the radical transformation of politics by a money-and-media election complex that now defines more than any candidate or party - and is as much of a threat to democracy as the military-industrial complex. This is not the next chapter in the old money and politics debate. This is the redefinition of politics by new and equally important factors - the freeing of corporations to spend any amount on electioneering and the collapse of substantive print and broadcast reporting on campaigns. In combination they have created a “new normal”, in which consultants dealing in dollars unprecedented in American history use “independent” expenditures to tip the balance of elections in favour of their clients. Unchecked by even rudimentary campaign finance regulation, unchallenged by a journalism sufficient to identify and expose abuses of the electoral process, and abetted by commercial broadcasters who this year pocketed $3bn in political ad revenues, the complex was a nearly unbeatable force in 2010.
Of 53 competitive House districts where Rove and his compatriots backed Republicans with “independent” expenditures that exceeded those made on behalf of Democrats - often by more than $1m per district, according to Public Citizen - the Republicans won 51. Roughly three-quarters of all GOP House gains came in districts where independent expenditures by groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Rove’s American Crossroads gave Republican candidates, some of them virtual unknowns, the advantage. The money is powerful but that power is supercharged because of the decay, and disappearance, of independent journalism at the state and regional levels, where elections are decided.
Campaign narratives used to be created by reporters who pulled together the multiple threads of an election season to give voters perspective. Now that narrative is driven by millions of commercials, most negative. The narrative comes from broadcast and cable TV stations, as it has for some time, but it is now produced and paid for by economic elites that seek to define not just the results of an election but the scope and character of government. To neglect the complex or to imagine that progressive forces can compete within it will make the 2012 election look like 2010 on steroids. Determined and dramatic responses are the only options if we hope to maintain anything more than the remnants of a functioning democracy.
(I can forward entire article to anyone interested - hujsaked@aol.com )
An article in the September issue of LeMonde diplomatique (www.Lemonddiplomatique.com),authored by Robert W.McChesney and John Nichols, provides devastating insight into the unprecedented tilt toward ownership of the government that has resulted from unlimited funding of candidates, as well as complicity of corporate media. The title and first four paragraphs of the article follow:
US democracy sold out - No media checks on election ad campaigns
Le Monde diplomatique (France) - Thursday, September 1, 2011
Author: Robert W McChesney and John Nichols
Karl Rove used media appearances at the close of the 2010 midterm campaign to dismiss President Obama’s complaints that Republican consultants, led by the former White House political czar, were distorting Senate and House races with hundreds of millions of dollars from multinational corporations and billionaire conservatives. “Obama looks weirdly disconnected - and slightly obsessive - when he talks so much about the Chamber of Commerce, Ed Gillespie and me,” Rove mused. “The president has already wasted one-quarter of the campaign’s final four weeks on this sideshow.”
The “sideshow” was the most important story of the most expensive midterm election in American history: the radical transformation of politics by a money-and-media election complex that now defines more than any candidate or party - and is as much of a threat to democracy as the military-industrial complex. This is not the next chapter in the old money and politics debate. This is the redefinition of politics by new and equally important factors - the freeing of corporations to spend any amount on electioneering and the collapse of substantive print and broadcast reporting on campaigns. In combination they have created a “new normal”, in which consultants dealing in dollars unprecedented in American history use “independent” expenditures to tip the balance of elections in favour of their clients. Unchecked by even rudimentary campaign finance regulation, unchallenged by a journalism sufficient to identify and expose abuses of the electoral process, and abetted by commercial broadcasters who this year pocketed $3bn in political ad revenues, the complex was a nearly unbeatable force in 2010.
Of 53 competitive House districts where Rove and his compatriots backed Republicans with “independent” expenditures that exceeded those made on behalf of Democrats - often by more than $1m per district, according to Public Citizen - the Republicans won 51. Roughly three-quarters of all GOP House gains came in districts where independent expenditures by groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Rove’s American Crossroads gave Republican candidates, some of them virtual unknowns, the advantage. The money is powerful but that power is supercharged because of the decay, and disappearance, of independent journalism at the state and regional levels, where elections are decided.
Campaign narratives used to be created by reporters who pulled together the multiple threads of an election season to give voters perspective. Now that narrative is driven by millions of commercials, most negative. The narrative comes from broadcast and cable TV stations, as it has for some time, but it is now produced and paid for by economic elites that seek to define not just the results of an election but the scope and character of government. To neglect the complex or to imagine that progressive forces can compete within it will make the 2012 election look like 2010 on steroids. Determined and dramatic responses are the only options if we hope to maintain anything more than the remnants of a functioning democracy.
(I can forward entire article to anyone interested - hujsaked@aol.com )
Thursday, September 22, 2011
FAMOUS QUOTES
What do Grover Norquist and Karl Marx have in common?
Karl Marx - 1875
"Freedom consists of converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it."
Grover Norquist- 2000's
"I don't want to abolish the government. I simply want to reduce it in size to where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Karl Marx - 1875
"Freedom consists of converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it."
Grover Norquist- 2000's
"I don't want to abolish the government. I simply want to reduce it in size to where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Monday, September 19, 2011
CONVERSATION (Flash Fiction)
We sat side by side on canvas covered recliners on the front porch. It was late afternoon. The sun had already dropped behind the pines, beyond the ancient apple orchard, no longer bearing fruit. Another hour before the first high pitched call of the Whip-poor-will.
Shaster sat to my left, looking desirable in her blue shorts and size thirty-eight white satin halter, one shoe off, the other hanging on a toe. Her attention was locked into Laura Bedside’s latest blockbuster novel, “A Fly in Her Ointment.” I was left to my own peripatetic thoughts.
Ointment........ Oinkment. I wonder if that’s what they call pig balm?
I was in a mood for conversation.
“Did you know that pigs won’t eat orange peels?
“hmmmmm?
“No really, it’s true. You can feed them a ton of garbage and they always toss the orange peels aside.
“Well, I’ll just put that away in my vast store of important facts.”
Shaster kept on reading. I wanted conversation. I poured a glass of ice water and handed it to her.
“Did you know that every glass of water you drink contains 8000 molecules of everyone who ever died?
“Yecch!" Shaster sipped and put the glass down.
“It’s true. Well, you have to assume uniform distribution, which probably doesn’t happen. We’re mostly water, you know. Maybe only four thousand molecules.”
“Until this minute I was thirsty.”
Shaster looked like she could have drunk the whole glass of icewater. She didn’t look up from her book. Her hair was up.....cooler that way. There were tiny beads of perspiration on her forehead.
This wasn’t going well. I can usually get her attention.
“There’s something else. It’s important.”
“In this weather, nothing is important.” It was the hottest day of the summer.
“The world is going to explode.”
“Oh great. Where will we go?”
“Really, it’s going to blow into a gazillion pieces. Never be the same again.”
“Is this for real?” Shaster finally lifted her eyes from Laura Bedside’s pages.
“It’s only a theory at present...... well, to tell you the truth, it’s only my theory.”
“Oh. Then I can relax. You don’t exactly have a popular following with your theories.”
“Here’s how it goes..... You’re aware, of course, that Earth has a molten iron core. The reality is that it isn’t pure iron. There are heavier components, radioactive...... thorium, uranium. The theory goes that over millions of years these heavier molecules will migrate to the very center. One day, when everything is there in sufficient concentration and under the existing temperatures and pressures at the very center, Kablooey! Everything flies apart.
“I can see you have everything figured out.” Should we start packing?”
I stood up and stretched.
The first Whip-poor-will’s shrill cry brought a faint, distant response.
“Would you like a martini?”
Shaster looked up at me. “Thought you’d never ask.”
Edward Hujsak
More flash fiction:
www.Alongstoryshort.net
Shaster sat to my left, looking desirable in her blue shorts and size thirty-eight white satin halter, one shoe off, the other hanging on a toe. Her attention was locked into Laura Bedside’s latest blockbuster novel, “A Fly in Her Ointment.” I was left to my own peripatetic thoughts.
Ointment........ Oinkment. I wonder if that’s what they call pig balm?
I was in a mood for conversation.
“Did you know that pigs won’t eat orange peels?
“hmmmmm?
“No really, it’s true. You can feed them a ton of garbage and they always toss the orange peels aside.
“Well, I’ll just put that away in my vast store of important facts.”
Shaster kept on reading. I wanted conversation. I poured a glass of ice water and handed it to her.
“Did you know that every glass of water you drink contains 8000 molecules of everyone who ever died?
“Yecch!" Shaster sipped and put the glass down.
“It’s true. Well, you have to assume uniform distribution, which probably doesn’t happen. We’re mostly water, you know. Maybe only four thousand molecules.”
“Until this minute I was thirsty.”
Shaster looked like she could have drunk the whole glass of icewater. She didn’t look up from her book. Her hair was up.....cooler that way. There were tiny beads of perspiration on her forehead.
This wasn’t going well. I can usually get her attention.
“There’s something else. It’s important.”
“In this weather, nothing is important.” It was the hottest day of the summer.
“The world is going to explode.”
“Oh great. Where will we go?”
“Really, it’s going to blow into a gazillion pieces. Never be the same again.”
“Is this for real?” Shaster finally lifted her eyes from Laura Bedside’s pages.
“It’s only a theory at present...... well, to tell you the truth, it’s only my theory.”
“Oh. Then I can relax. You don’t exactly have a popular following with your theories.”
“Here’s how it goes..... You’re aware, of course, that Earth has a molten iron core. The reality is that it isn’t pure iron. There are heavier components, radioactive...... thorium, uranium. The theory goes that over millions of years these heavier molecules will migrate to the very center. One day, when everything is there in sufficient concentration and under the existing temperatures and pressures at the very center, Kablooey! Everything flies apart.
“I can see you have everything figured out.” Should we start packing?”
I stood up and stretched.
The first Whip-poor-will’s shrill cry brought a faint, distant response.
“Would you like a martini?”
Shaster looked up at me. “Thought you’d never ask.”
Edward Hujsak
More flash fiction:
www.Alongstoryshort.net
Saturday, September 17, 2011
MISSION FIRST, THEN HEAVY LIFT
On September 14 Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator, announced NASA plans to build a heavy lift space launch vehicle. The proposed design had been discussed at length with members of Congress. Geo-political pressures led to configuring the rocket largely out of space shuttle parts, which amounts to single-sourcing the project, ignoring the high costs that occurred in that system. Funding for the project is projected at $2B per year until first flight in 2017. Most troubling about this initiative is that it does not have a mission. Current NASA thoughts for this rocket include such ventures as a manned asteroid mission, return to the moon and journey to Mars. For over forty years, the United States has never had more than two or three astronauts on extended orbital stay. Unless something changes, it is clear that will continue for decades into the future. This has to change if the pace of human exploration and exploitation of space opportunities is to grow meaningfully.
The following op-ed appears in the September 19 issue of Space News.
MISSION FIRST, THEN HEAVY LIFT
by Edward Hujsak
Any rational follower of aerospace activities can’t help but be baffled at current discussions between NASA and members of Congress, centered on design and subsequent funding of a heavy lift launch vehicle - an inversion of accepted, normal practice and unlikely to lead anywhere. As a “make work” program, the initiative is borderline irresponsible. There is no defined mission for a heavy lift launch vehicle, as yet, much less an approved, funded mission. Therefore, even if a heavy lift program were to be started, it would be an easy target for cancellation during budget negotiations since there is no mission for it. The idea that “We will build it and they will come,” is risky at best, especially when billions of dollars are involved.
Normal practice is to begin with a proposed mission. Every member of the Congressional Space Committees knows this. The President should have known this when in his April 15, 2010 speech to aerospace workers in Florida, he called for development of an advanced heavy lift rocket. A mission concept can come from anywhere, from the President, from Agency heads or their staffs and even from a low echelon engineer/visionary who metaphorically flutters his butterfly wings with an idea, eventually to become a storm half a world away.
With the identification, description, and approval of a mission, the next step is to provide fund ing for requirements definition, preliminary designs and planning. This is the point at which the
proposed launch system emerges, whether existing or a new design, and where the first credible projections of incremental and total cost are revealed. If the mission requires a heavy lifter, com- petition, not Congressional direction, will determine how the rocket will be built.
In a new, ambitious mission that could call for heavy lift capability, serious consideration should be given to avoid what has historically characterized manned space ventures as “Been there, done that.” The term describes lunar exploration, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and looming ahead, because its replication is unlikely, the ISS. In the latter case there is opportunity to do something that has legs far into the future.
Although the life of the ISS is variously projected ten and twenty years into the future, the truth is that the system has turned vulnerable. The original system was an active symbiosis between Shuttle and spacecraft. Half of that duality has been retired, leaving the station in the awkward situation of dependency on Russian launch vehicles for personnel and supplies transfer. Recent loss of a resupply flight clearly illustrates the fragility of the remaining system.
United States space planners need to move sensibly and soberly to ensure that ISS and manned operations in Earth orbit do not again end up a “been there done that” phenomenon. The end of ISS could mean another 20 or 30 year hiatus before manned operations are resumed.
Coincidentally, the only sensible mission on the horizon that can both justify development of a heavy lifter and set the stage for more ambitious exploration missions than are now possible, is to extend and grow manned presence in near space in a seamless transition to an already tested, more flexible and more economical system than ISS.
NASA pointed the way in the Post-Apollo years when in 1973 the Skylab orbital workshop was launched. Even though damaged in flight, the station was host to three different pairs of astro- nauts for 28 days, 59 days, and 84 days successively. Though there was a strong contingent within NASA to continue with the program, NASA elected instead to undertake development of the Space Shuttle with a companion “Spacelab” shrunken to fit inside the cargo bay. Spacelab was built and in the years between 1983 and 1993 seven dedicated missions (two were German) were flown. Total time in orbit - 59 days. In contrast, Skylab was manned for 171 days. Eventually, Spacelab morphed into the modules on the United States section of the ISS. Current US space presence is not much different from Skylab, which was designed for 3 astronauts. Even now, it is not much of a stretch to “unshrink” Spacelab and resurface the original Skylab concept.
By now it should be evident that it is going to be slow going if the United States is unable to field more than two or three astronauts, one mission at a time. This can be changed.
Skylab pointed the way to the possibility of turnkey space stations that can serve various
requirements, including scientific research, industrial research, manufacturing and processing, military missions, and even safe, robust tourist destinations.
In concept, turnkey stations would consist of a standard bus that provides services, with inter-
face capability to a variety of applications modules. The approach would enable offering launch and orbital services to nations around the world that otherwise would never have any hope of launching one hundred ton payloads for their own research purposes. The system, were it to be put into place, would have the following main benefits:
*Seamless transition from expiring ISS into more modern, flexible systems via turnkey stations. *A huge new business base, populating low Earth orbit with multiple, productive workstations. *Uniform, safe global control over large objects going into space as well as large-mass reentry safety.
*Availability of heavy lift, which will open the gates to a variety of ambitious missions - Lunar Base, Mars exploration, Asteroid landing Deep Space exploration, Space Power prototype, per- haps even the first interstellar probe.
In this ambitious, but readily achievable manned space scenario a new mantra will become obvious for future space undertakings: Because we can.
The following op-ed appears in the September 19 issue of Space News.
MISSION FIRST, THEN HEAVY LIFT
by Edward Hujsak
Any rational follower of aerospace activities can’t help but be baffled at current discussions between NASA and members of Congress, centered on design and subsequent funding of a heavy lift launch vehicle - an inversion of accepted, normal practice and unlikely to lead anywhere. As a “make work” program, the initiative is borderline irresponsible. There is no defined mission for a heavy lift launch vehicle, as yet, much less an approved, funded mission. Therefore, even if a heavy lift program were to be started, it would be an easy target for cancellation during budget negotiations since there is no mission for it. The idea that “We will build it and they will come,” is risky at best, especially when billions of dollars are involved.
Normal practice is to begin with a proposed mission. Every member of the Congressional Space Committees knows this. The President should have known this when in his April 15, 2010 speech to aerospace workers in Florida, he called for development of an advanced heavy lift rocket. A mission concept can come from anywhere, from the President, from Agency heads or their staffs and even from a low echelon engineer/visionary who metaphorically flutters his butterfly wings with an idea, eventually to become a storm half a world away.
With the identification, description, and approval of a mission, the next step is to provide fund ing for requirements definition, preliminary designs and planning. This is the point at which the
proposed launch system emerges, whether existing or a new design, and where the first credible projections of incremental and total cost are revealed. If the mission requires a heavy lifter, com- petition, not Congressional direction, will determine how the rocket will be built.
In a new, ambitious mission that could call for heavy lift capability, serious consideration should be given to avoid what has historically characterized manned space ventures as “Been there, done that.” The term describes lunar exploration, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and looming ahead, because its replication is unlikely, the ISS. In the latter case there is opportunity to do something that has legs far into the future.
Although the life of the ISS is variously projected ten and twenty years into the future, the truth is that the system has turned vulnerable. The original system was an active symbiosis between Shuttle and spacecraft. Half of that duality has been retired, leaving the station in the awkward situation of dependency on Russian launch vehicles for personnel and supplies transfer. Recent loss of a resupply flight clearly illustrates the fragility of the remaining system.
United States space planners need to move sensibly and soberly to ensure that ISS and manned operations in Earth orbit do not again end up a “been there done that” phenomenon. The end of ISS could mean another 20 or 30 year hiatus before manned operations are resumed.
Coincidentally, the only sensible mission on the horizon that can both justify development of a heavy lifter and set the stage for more ambitious exploration missions than are now possible, is to extend and grow manned presence in near space in a seamless transition to an already tested, more flexible and more economical system than ISS.
NASA pointed the way in the Post-Apollo years when in 1973 the Skylab orbital workshop was launched. Even though damaged in flight, the station was host to three different pairs of astro- nauts for 28 days, 59 days, and 84 days successively. Though there was a strong contingent within NASA to continue with the program, NASA elected instead to undertake development of the Space Shuttle with a companion “Spacelab” shrunken to fit inside the cargo bay. Spacelab was built and in the years between 1983 and 1993 seven dedicated missions (two were German) were flown. Total time in orbit - 59 days. In contrast, Skylab was manned for 171 days. Eventually, Spacelab morphed into the modules on the United States section of the ISS. Current US space presence is not much different from Skylab, which was designed for 3 astronauts. Even now, it is not much of a stretch to “unshrink” Spacelab and resurface the original Skylab concept.
By now it should be evident that it is going to be slow going if the United States is unable to field more than two or three astronauts, one mission at a time. This can be changed.
Skylab pointed the way to the possibility of turnkey space stations that can serve various
requirements, including scientific research, industrial research, manufacturing and processing, military missions, and even safe, robust tourist destinations.
In concept, turnkey stations would consist of a standard bus that provides services, with inter-
face capability to a variety of applications modules. The approach would enable offering launch and orbital services to nations around the world that otherwise would never have any hope of launching one hundred ton payloads for their own research purposes. The system, were it to be put into place, would have the following main benefits:
*Seamless transition from expiring ISS into more modern, flexible systems via turnkey stations. *A huge new business base, populating low Earth orbit with multiple, productive workstations. *Uniform, safe global control over large objects going into space as well as large-mass reentry safety.
*Availability of heavy lift, which will open the gates to a variety of ambitious missions - Lunar Base, Mars exploration, Asteroid landing Deep Space exploration, Space Power prototype, per- haps even the first interstellar probe.
In this ambitious, but readily achievable manned space scenario a new mantra will become obvious for future space undertakings: Because we can.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
ENGINEERS IN POLITICS
It did not come as good news from my Alma Mater that the University is building a new business school. There is already a sufficient number of business schools, and also there are too many very smart youngsters, armed with software and computers not available just a few years ago, who view the business school as the launching platform into a world of big bucks, where money is churned around the clock, produces nothing of value, places economies at risk, and where the system is always ripe for invention of a new financial instrument that makes a few very wealthy and leaves the rest without shirts.
I would rather see the University, and other Universities as well, institute programs that encourage engineers to enter public service in elected offices at mid-career for a half dozen years. The programs would educate them on how one would prepare to seamlessly accomplish a transition so that entry would be no great burden and provide overviews on how things get done, once in office. Growing populations, dwindling resources and climate change all signal a call for application of systems engineering to help provide solutions that ensure quality of life on this planet. Legislative bodies, particularly the US Congress, need engineers to help set things straight. This means practicing engineers, not whoever happens to hold an engineering degree. There are presently only six degreed engineers in Congress, none of whom has any particular credentials in the field. Representative Joe Barton from Texas, for example, who holds a degree in industrial engineering from Texas A&M, had brief, inconsequential employment before moving into politics. As a skeptic of climate change and infamously apologizing to BP after the Gulf oil spill, he hardly fills the bill. It is sad that scientific testimony before congressional committees has little prospect of being absorbed by the conferees, much less stir subsequent reflection and action on the information proffered.
The growing complexity of a world with a population exceeding 6 billion people cries out for engineering to take part in government; people who understand cause and effect; people who understand short term and long term consequences of legislation; people who understand statistical analyses, recognize which are important and what they point to; and indeed people who keep up with the scientific community and can coach those in government who come endowed with little more than connect-the dots mentality; and lastly, people who realize that consumption based economies must ultimately come to an end, replaced by sustainable behavior as way of life.
I would rather see the University, and other Universities as well, institute programs that encourage engineers to enter public service in elected offices at mid-career for a half dozen years. The programs would educate them on how one would prepare to seamlessly accomplish a transition so that entry would be no great burden and provide overviews on how things get done, once in office. Growing populations, dwindling resources and climate change all signal a call for application of systems engineering to help provide solutions that ensure quality of life on this planet. Legislative bodies, particularly the US Congress, need engineers to help set things straight. This means practicing engineers, not whoever happens to hold an engineering degree. There are presently only six degreed engineers in Congress, none of whom has any particular credentials in the field. Representative Joe Barton from Texas, for example, who holds a degree in industrial engineering from Texas A&M, had brief, inconsequential employment before moving into politics. As a skeptic of climate change and infamously apologizing to BP after the Gulf oil spill, he hardly fills the bill. It is sad that scientific testimony before congressional committees has little prospect of being absorbed by the conferees, much less stir subsequent reflection and action on the information proffered.
The growing complexity of a world with a population exceeding 6 billion people cries out for engineering to take part in government; people who understand cause and effect; people who understand short term and long term consequences of legislation; people who understand statistical analyses, recognize which are important and what they point to; and indeed people who keep up with the scientific community and can coach those in government who come endowed with little more than connect-the dots mentality; and lastly, people who realize that consumption based economies must ultimately come to an end, replaced by sustainable behavior as way of life.
Monday, September 12, 2011
THE CASE FOR BALLISTIC ARC TRANSPORTATION
This revised article was originally published in October of 1988 in "Space Flight," a monthly publication of the British Interplanetary Society, It contained predictions and ideas that still hold true. At that time the Department of Defense had undertaken development of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). Contracts were awarded to Boeing and Lockheed-Martin for development of the Delta IV and Atlas V, with versions of each for launching a range of payload weights. Goals of more reliable systems, simplified operations and a cost savings of 25% were published, To a large extent these goals were achieved, so the user community benefits. Whether there are cost savings is subject to question. There are indications that costs have escalated.
The several startups mentioned - Kistler, Kelley Aerospace, Beal Aerospace Technologies, Pioneer Rocketplane, Rotary Rocket and others have ceased operations, some going into bankruptcy. One company, not in business at the time, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), under the leadership of Elon Musk has successfully produced rocket engines and launched its Falcon 9 model with two flights at this writing. This company offers flights at half or less than the cost of launching Atlas V or Delta IV. Although this is cause for optimism in this expensive business, in the aggregate, the cost of launching U.S. payloads will not be affected materially. There are not that many payloads and there exists a surplus of launch capability internationally. Payloads allocated to the more economical vehicle will increase the cost of Atlas V and Delta IV due to lowered production within the same cost structure. But no sane agency would make the mistake of placing all its launches with a single low cost producer.
So how does one achieve low launch costs across the board? And by that I mean really low. A 50,000 pound shipment by aircraft half-way around the world, passenger or freight, can be had for less than a half million dollars and still make a profit. Contrast that with 50,000 lbs to Earth orbit via space shuttle at nearly a billion dollars. The energy cost difference is trivial.
The solution lies in introducing a new terrestrial transport paradigm, which is transcontinental travel on ballistic arcs. Truth to tell, Earth is designed for ballistic travel. Why endure the rigors of flight for eighteen or more hours with engines running all the way when the same can be achieved in an hour with engines running for only a few minutes?
How to do this can be separated into two approaches that have undergone considerable study. The first method seeks high performance and runway takeoff and landing ability by taking on most of its oxygen during flight through the atmosphere and liquefying it for rocket propulsion after the craft has ascended above the atmosphere. An early study titled Aerospaceplane simply liquefied air, accepting the performance penalty that resulted from high nitrogen content. That study lost direction when Grumman's Alexander Kardovsky introduced an alternative approach employing supersonic ramjets (scramjets) and shortly after, funding, which amounted to about $5 million, was cut off.
The history of the next investigation, the National Aero Space Plane, or NASP provides an interesting window into how an ambitious program can get started, how it progresses, and in many cases how the results end up on the shelf with little or no hardware produced. A secret project called Copper Canyon was initiated in 1982 at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). At about the same time the British Government was funding Alan Bond's HOTOL concept, a single - stage-to-orbit (SSTO) air breathing launch vehicle. HOTOL funding was terminated in 1987. Subsequently Bond, in his company Reaction Engines Ltd. undertook new ideas on how to build an air-breathing engine. His Sabre engine is purported to yield higher performance than HOTOL. Bond's company presently promotes the SKYLON space launch vehicle, powered by the Sabre engine as a concept for a vehicle with orbital lift capability. It is designed for lifting freight and passengers to orbit, but could conceivably also fly intercontinental on ballistic arcs without the thermal problems encountered by hypersonic scramjet craft.
The U.S. program ran until 1985 under a contract awarded to Rockwell International. Other companies contributed to the study, which had the objective of reaching orbit with a single stage, applying air-breathing technology. The work was terminated early in 1986 when, in his State of the Union message, President Reagan called for development of "a new Orient Express that could, by the end of the decade, take off from Dulles Airport, accelerate to 25 times the speed of sound, attaining low Earth orbit or fly to Tokyo in two hours." This is the first time that something close to intercontinental ballistic travel was considered. The program was called NASP and was funded by both NASA and the Department of Defense. Though initially headed by Rockwell International, Rockwell and the other companies involved, including McDonnell- Douglas and General Dynamics eventually banded together to jointly tackle the formidable technical problems. General Dynamics and Marquadt worked on schemes for liquefying air and enriching it for rocket propulsion, needed to take the craft into orbit. The work continued until 1993 when the program was terminated due to budget and technical concerns.
In the ensuing years investigations concentrated on scramjet technology, first in a NASA program with the X-43A, a kayak sized craft designed to reach Mach 10. Three were built and tested. All were intended for just one flight. X-43 A was followed by an Air Force program called the X-51, aiming to demonstrate scramjet performance up to Mach 6. Five were built. The most recent flight was June 15, 2011, which ended prematurely.
In an integrated system like NASP it is difficult to distinguish what is engine and what is aircraft. The configuration is driven in a large part by the dual need to provide the lift requirements for the vehicle and air entry into the inlets over a broad range of speeds, altitudes and temperatures. In the end, such flight vehicles are little more than flying heat exchangers. In this age, when leaks in air conditioning systems in automobiles are not uncommon, the technology required for success may be hard come by.
But hypersonic travel via scramjet is not ballistic arc travel. Ballistic arc travel involves coasting over most of the flight path, actually entering space for a brief time (Lots of people will be space travellers). Scramjet powered hypersonic aircraft will likely only find military application.
The second method for ballistic transportation is under rocket power alone. Among various concepts that have been studied, the Lockheed-Martin VentureStar SSTO reusable launch vehicle stands out, mainly because of the considerable funding that went into studies - $922 million under contracts with NASA and $357 million spent by the contractor. This was to be a vertically launched craft that lands on a runway. The program initially called for development of a reduced size vehicle, the X-33, which was to operate as a sub-orbital demonstrator. In June of 1966 NASA awarded Lockheed-Martin a contract to develop the X-33, the work to be accomplished in Lockheed's Skunk Works in Palmdale, California. To strive for the light weight needed for an SSTO, research went into development of carbon composite propellant tanks for liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen containment, which ran into considerable difficulty. Also , the choice of engine, the linear Aerospike, which historically has little more going for it than an attractive geometry, was a regrettable choice for propulsion. After five years of work the program was cancelled due to what were termed technical difficulties. Some research work was conducted in the ensuing years that showed success in constructing carbon composite tanks for both propellants.
Still, VentureStar stands as a concept that can accomplish both transport to orbit and ballistic arc intercontinental travel. The reality is that single-stage-to-orbit with the best available propellants, hydrogen and oxygen, is not feasible with current materials. We will have to wait for molecular scientists to come up with materials of construction several times stronger than what is currently available. Nevertheless, it seems useful to return to the concept, apply more conservative design, and concede that a little boost will be required to make it work.
This suggests a need for what might be called a stub booster, a high thrust, short run rocket that returns to its launch area. The million pound thrust engine that NASA intends to develop could serve for propulsion.
That in turn suggests how VentureStar can function both for orbital applications and international travel. Stub boosters could be located near air terminals at major destinations. It suggests also military applications where it is necessary to transport troops and materials much more rapidly than now possible.
Most importantly, there will be created a transport base that has a usage far beyond what any future orbital activity projects, which will result in dramatic reduction in cost not otherwise achievable.
by Edward Hujsak
www.reactionengines.co.uk
The several startups mentioned - Kistler, Kelley Aerospace, Beal Aerospace Technologies, Pioneer Rocketplane, Rotary Rocket and others have ceased operations, some going into bankruptcy. One company, not in business at the time, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), under the leadership of Elon Musk has successfully produced rocket engines and launched its Falcon 9 model with two flights at this writing. This company offers flights at half or less than the cost of launching Atlas V or Delta IV. Although this is cause for optimism in this expensive business, in the aggregate, the cost of launching U.S. payloads will not be affected materially. There are not that many payloads and there exists a surplus of launch capability internationally. Payloads allocated to the more economical vehicle will increase the cost of Atlas V and Delta IV due to lowered production within the same cost structure. But no sane agency would make the mistake of placing all its launches with a single low cost producer.
So how does one achieve low launch costs across the board? And by that I mean really low. A 50,000 pound shipment by aircraft half-way around the world, passenger or freight, can be had for less than a half million dollars and still make a profit. Contrast that with 50,000 lbs to Earth orbit via space shuttle at nearly a billion dollars. The energy cost difference is trivial.
The solution lies in introducing a new terrestrial transport paradigm, which is transcontinental travel on ballistic arcs. Truth to tell, Earth is designed for ballistic travel. Why endure the rigors of flight for eighteen or more hours with engines running all the way when the same can be achieved in an hour with engines running for only a few minutes?
How to do this can be separated into two approaches that have undergone considerable study. The first method seeks high performance and runway takeoff and landing ability by taking on most of its oxygen during flight through the atmosphere and liquefying it for rocket propulsion after the craft has ascended above the atmosphere. An early study titled Aerospaceplane simply liquefied air, accepting the performance penalty that resulted from high nitrogen content. That study lost direction when Grumman's Alexander Kardovsky introduced an alternative approach employing supersonic ramjets (scramjets) and shortly after, funding, which amounted to about $5 million, was cut off.
The history of the next investigation, the National Aero Space Plane, or NASP provides an interesting window into how an ambitious program can get started, how it progresses, and in many cases how the results end up on the shelf with little or no hardware produced. A secret project called Copper Canyon was initiated in 1982 at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). At about the same time the British Government was funding Alan Bond's HOTOL concept, a single - stage-to-orbit (SSTO) air breathing launch vehicle. HOTOL funding was terminated in 1987. Subsequently Bond, in his company Reaction Engines Ltd. undertook new ideas on how to build an air-breathing engine. His Sabre engine is purported to yield higher performance than HOTOL. Bond's company presently promotes the SKYLON space launch vehicle, powered by the Sabre engine as a concept for a vehicle with orbital lift capability. It is designed for lifting freight and passengers to orbit, but could conceivably also fly intercontinental on ballistic arcs without the thermal problems encountered by hypersonic scramjet craft.
The U.S. program ran until 1985 under a contract awarded to Rockwell International. Other companies contributed to the study, which had the objective of reaching orbit with a single stage, applying air-breathing technology. The work was terminated early in 1986 when, in his State of the Union message, President Reagan called for development of "a new Orient Express that could, by the end of the decade, take off from Dulles Airport, accelerate to 25 times the speed of sound, attaining low Earth orbit or fly to Tokyo in two hours." This is the first time that something close to intercontinental ballistic travel was considered. The program was called NASP and was funded by both NASA and the Department of Defense. Though initially headed by Rockwell International, Rockwell and the other companies involved, including McDonnell- Douglas and General Dynamics eventually banded together to jointly tackle the formidable technical problems. General Dynamics and Marquadt worked on schemes for liquefying air and enriching it for rocket propulsion, needed to take the craft into orbit. The work continued until 1993 when the program was terminated due to budget and technical concerns.
In the ensuing years investigations concentrated on scramjet technology, first in a NASA program with the X-43A, a kayak sized craft designed to reach Mach 10. Three were built and tested. All were intended for just one flight. X-43 A was followed by an Air Force program called the X-51, aiming to demonstrate scramjet performance up to Mach 6. Five were built. The most recent flight was June 15, 2011, which ended prematurely.
In an integrated system like NASP it is difficult to distinguish what is engine and what is aircraft. The configuration is driven in a large part by the dual need to provide the lift requirements for the vehicle and air entry into the inlets over a broad range of speeds, altitudes and temperatures. In the end, such flight vehicles are little more than flying heat exchangers. In this age, when leaks in air conditioning systems in automobiles are not uncommon, the technology required for success may be hard come by.
But hypersonic travel via scramjet is not ballistic arc travel. Ballistic arc travel involves coasting over most of the flight path, actually entering space for a brief time (Lots of people will be space travellers). Scramjet powered hypersonic aircraft will likely only find military application.
The second method for ballistic transportation is under rocket power alone. Among various concepts that have been studied, the Lockheed-Martin VentureStar SSTO reusable launch vehicle stands out, mainly because of the considerable funding that went into studies - $922 million under contracts with NASA and $357 million spent by the contractor. This was to be a vertically launched craft that lands on a runway. The program initially called for development of a reduced size vehicle, the X-33, which was to operate as a sub-orbital demonstrator. In June of 1966 NASA awarded Lockheed-Martin a contract to develop the X-33, the work to be accomplished in Lockheed's Skunk Works in Palmdale, California. To strive for the light weight needed for an SSTO, research went into development of carbon composite propellant tanks for liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen containment, which ran into considerable difficulty. Also , the choice of engine, the linear Aerospike, which historically has little more going for it than an attractive geometry, was a regrettable choice for propulsion. After five years of work the program was cancelled due to what were termed technical difficulties. Some research work was conducted in the ensuing years that showed success in constructing carbon composite tanks for both propellants.
Still, VentureStar stands as a concept that can accomplish both transport to orbit and ballistic arc intercontinental travel. The reality is that single-stage-to-orbit with the best available propellants, hydrogen and oxygen, is not feasible with current materials. We will have to wait for molecular scientists to come up with materials of construction several times stronger than what is currently available. Nevertheless, it seems useful to return to the concept, apply more conservative design, and concede that a little boost will be required to make it work.
This suggests a need for what might be called a stub booster, a high thrust, short run rocket that returns to its launch area. The million pound thrust engine that NASA intends to develop could serve for propulsion.
That in turn suggests how VentureStar can function both for orbital applications and international travel. Stub boosters could be located near air terminals at major destinations. It suggests also military applications where it is necessary to transport troops and materials much more rapidly than now possible.
Most importantly, there will be created a transport base that has a usage far beyond what any future orbital activity projects, which will result in dramatic reduction in cost not otherwise achievable.
by Edward Hujsak
www.reactionengines.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)