Kyle Brady: Blog » NASA

Big Government Is Absolutely Necessary [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:05:36 +0000

It’s become fashionable over the last few decades for Republicans, and otherwise conservatives, to proclaim that Big Government is unnecessary, a waste of taxpayers’ money, and generally bad – President Obama’s release of the FY2011 Budget was no exception to such cries of foul against the spending of money by the federal government; however, those who proclaim government spending to have such attributes have missed the central point that such spending is not only not evil, but necessary.

While it may be understandable that significant protests will rise out of announcing a federal budget for a year that numbers in the trillions of dollars in the midst of the Great Recession and record deficit spending, those with complaints should not only remember that President Obama inherited many of the reasons to spend such exorbitant amounts, but that federal spending is the tool that has kept America moving forward. More importantly, federal financial support is the sword that many Republicans/conservatives have fallen upon by proclaiming its evil and then accepting, or even demanding, kickbacks as motivation to pass legislation – Senator Ben Nelson’s recent healthcare reform behavior is a prime example.

Federal spending is what launched American astronauts to the Moon, saw the success of World Wars I and II, built the national highway/interstate system, partially funds the ever-popular Medicare and Social Security programs, subsidizes public education, defends the nation, finances longterm scientific research programs, and considerably more – the federal government is arguably responsible for America being one of the leaders of the world in technology and innovation, as well as allowing the nation to remain a singular entity. For those that believe the intervention, or simple existence, of the federal government is intrusive and unnecessary, a question looms large: would America still be an independent entity encompassing the majority of a continent as a federation of states into a large nation? Or would states have long ago imposed their own border restrictions, broken from the union, or been conquered by other nations? The latter is the likely answer, especially during the earlier years of republic.

NASA has received a budget expansion, so long as the Constellation and its associated endeavors program is terminated, and this has caused an outcry from Congress on both sides of the ideological dividing line – especially from those representing states with substantial interest in the funding of space, irrespective of the definition of “expansion”. Many of these selfsame Congressmen are those that eschew government spending and federal involvement in a state’s business, in which there is substantial irony, or, perhaps, a revelation of corruption and two-faced behavior.

It is absolutely necessary for the federal government to spend money on a large scale, lest they lose control and let the United States degenerate into a chaotic mishmash of nation-states that have no interest in each other. In an era where states are essentially broke and choose to cut funding to education and other important programs, rather than pet projects or their own salaries, federal intervention is more important than ever, and the Obama Administration realizes this.

The most important point, however, is that federal spending is managed intelligently and delivered on an as-needed basis – there is no room, both now or in the future, for wasteful spending and pet projects that should be funded by other means, including the military industrial complex. For the nation to climb out of the massive hole of debt, taxes must be raised on those that can afford it, such as investment bankers, and spending must be trimmed to the minimum amount necessary to continue to exist as a nation and advance its interests. The cycle of tax cuts, corporate loopholes, and increasing debt must be stopped before it’s too late, but not at the expense of the people, their health, their livelihood, or their safety – Big Government is absolutely necessary, but it must be guided by individuals with the requisite knowledge to steer it in the proper direction.

“The Privatization of Space Transport” [Self]

Kyle Brady — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:00:32 +0000

New column at Technotainment Revelations on True/Slant:

For as long as space has been explored by humans, NASA has existed at its very center as the de facto agency for transportation, innovation, and exploration, but its mission has changed, and it is no longer what it used to be; however, this is a boon to both private industry and the future of humanity.

Go check it out.

In Support Of Additional Funding For NASA [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:05:33 +0000

NASA exists at the very core of the worldwide science experience, and yet it faces budgetary and bureaucratic constraints that effectively prevent the agency from achieving its goals in a full and timely manner. Even while discussions of its future persist at the Federal level, not the least of which is the fundamental and questionable viability of the Constellation program, NASA continues to make unprecedented gains in all manners of science: data on the state of Earth’s glaciers has been retrieved through NASA’s ICESat, water has likely been found on Mars via a NASA orbiter, and water has also been found on the Moon courtesy of an instrument on an Indian lunar probe – not to mention the countless payloads of commercial, government, and private equipment launched into orbit by NASA on a regular basis.

Why, then, is Congress so reluctant to fund NASA appropriately?

While the proposed $17.7 billion budget for 2010 seems as if it should be more than sufficient, consider that the recent relocation of the space shuttle from California to Florida cost an estimated $2 million – but the adjusted budget of NASA during the 1960's, an era of less scientific importance and technological complexity, was almost double that of modern times. In addition to its manned spaceflight program, with an estimated pricetag of $5 billion, NASA also allocates resources to the International Space Station, the robotic-for-now exploration of the solar system and beyond, scientific instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope, various research and development endeavors, and considerably more.

As an agency that is historically over-tasked and under-funded, the last few years have not assisted in alleviating any pressure: NASA is now looking at returning to the Moon, establishing a “moonbase”, and proceeding to Mars, all tentatively accomplished within the next fifty years. But a larger budget shouldn’t be necessary, according to many Congressmen, because they cannot see the direct benefits to the American people.

Perhaps Congress, along with the rest of America and the world-at-large, should be reminded of what practical purpose NASA has for the average person: GPS, microwaves, satellite communication, CAD tools, medical imaging techniques, special fabrics used in various fields, plastics, and substantially more are all direct results of NASA research and development programs. These breakthroughs exist as practical, everyday items that an average individual uses, but such a list is entirely ignorant of the extensive research being done on extraterrestrial life, the nature of space-time itself, and various other groundbreaking arenas.

The human race would be exploring, and likely colonizing, the galaxy at this very moment, if it were not for the scientific breakdown seen during the Dark Ages – at least according to most scientists, technologists, and space enthusiasts. But regardless of whether this axiom is true or not, the message relates well to the modern predicament of NASA: how can significant progress continue to be made by the agency without funding proportional to their goals, mandates, and hopes? The era of space exploration and investigation is more important now than ever, despite the inability of many within government to understand why.

Without a funding increase that amounts to more than a small pittance, NASA can not and will not live up to the expectations of those in power, which will then be used as a excuse to further choke the final frontier of the United States. There is hope, however, among those which would be expected most likely to oppose the support of NASA, and the growth of the Federal Government by extension: Southern Republicans. Between the Democratic Congressmen that believe in the pursuit of knowledge and the Republicans that wish to fill the pockets of their financiers, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration may very well live to see a day of significant budget increases – ideally closer to that seen in the 1960’s than in recent years.

The future of science, the military, and humanity itself could easily depend on the financial strengths of the go-to agency for science, space, and experimentation. It would therefore seem to be in the best interest of the United States Congress to fund them properly, along with all related and necessary endeavors.

Space Shuttle External Tanks – Ignored Resources? [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:27:53 +0000

Yesterday I came across a NASA report on the "utilization of the external tanks of the space transportation system" from 1983 [local copy here], and it's surprisingly interesting. I was curious enough to start reading the 172 page document, which appears to have been produced on a typewriter and scanned at a much later date, and have slogged through somewhere around the first 50 pages. I'm planning on finishing the whole thing, it will just take some time.

But there's an important point to be made from this document: NASA appears to be wasting potentially valuable resources for unknown reasons, a practice that has occurred for over two decades now. This discovery (if it is actually a discovery) comes to my attention when a Presidential review of NASA is looming and the much-lauded (by NASA's top officials) "new" generation of rocket delivery is actually the focus of much skepticism and rising internal complaints.

The Gist

The gist of the paper, so far as I understand it (which is hopefully at a fairly high level), is that since the space shuttle has been in operation, materials have been wasted on each launch: the external fuel tank (the giant orange cylinder, known as "ET") is released as the shuttle leaves Earth, gets partially disintegrated by reentry heat, and lands in the Indian Ocean or Pacific Ocean, depending on launch path. Every launch.

Imagine, for a second, the cost that this adds up to: the ET has to be replaced every launch - resulting in $X spent on retrieval and replacement for all missions, and X is not a trivial number.

What if the ET were instead launched into space itself, rather than falling back to earth, and repurposed? The tanks would still have to be replaced for each mission, but they would have a second life after being drained of most of their fuel.

The Options

The paper presents a number of options that the ETs could be used for, but the most important ones are:

raw materials for space-based construction projects

enclosures for assorted projects

safe havens for astronauts

fuel/gas storage units

As the report mentions, the fuel tank would have to be flushed or cleaned before use, so let's ignore that fact and look at the options instead.

Raw Materiel

Everything used in space has to be lugged up via some method, and it's usually via rocket payloads. This is expensive, and turns out to be even more so when you have to carry alot upstairs for your project... they charge by weight.

However, if there were raw materials already available for purchase in space, assuming at a lower cost than launching your own, this could be highly useful. ETs are made of an aluminum/lithium alloy, and carry both liquid hydrogen fuel and liquid oxygen oxidizer. According to the report, anywhere from 10% to 25% of these liquids-turned-mostly-gases remain after engine shutoff (depending on the launch path), and could be turned into liquids again with some effort.

This means that aluminum-lithium would be available for purchase, as well as liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. NASA could have a revenue stream from any number of contractors immediately, in addition to the obligatory entrepreneurs that would be interested.

Project Enclosures

Because it's original purpose is as a fuel tank, the ETs are rather spacious and rugged, clocking in at 46.9m long and 8.4m in diameter, with an empty weight of 26,500kg. That' s just under 2,600 cubic meters of space. As a reference, my "one bedroom, one bathroom, full kitchen, living room, and dining room" apartment is ~1835 cubic meters.

Which means that the fuel tank of the shuttle has more space than I live in.

Anyways, the point is that there's alot of room, and it's built strong enough to be usable in orbit. The report adds that attitudinal thrusters could easily be fixed on the external surface of the tank, creating maneuverability and stability. The empty tank could house experiments, act as "orbital storage", or have any number of other uses.

Safe Havens

This is the point that the report pushes the most: the empty ET could be used as a "safe haven" for astronauts in orbit, or be used as easily-added-after-some-quick-modification structures for the basis of a space station or the ISS.

When would a safe haven be necessary? If there was a solar storm approaching, and an astronaut was vulnerable in naked space, this might be an option. Others situations could include space debris, damaged spacecraft, damaged space stations, and alien attacks.

The authors of the report seem to be most interested in the use of ETs as modules for a space station. With their large size, they could be used either as the structural basis for a space station to be built on (like a pier holds boats tied to it), or as actual modules for a space station itself.

This is an interesting proposal, and suggests that the large cost of assembling the space station modules here on Earth, and their subsequent launch, could have been significantly cut if the tanks were used in any sort of fashion. As modern consumers are no doubt aware, "some assembly required" would be branded on each module, but it would cost less and allow for a larger project scope.

Fuel/Gas Storage Units

As I mentioned previously, a non-trivial amount of fuel remains after launch, which could be accumulated via transfer to a collection container, resulting in an energy store for use in space operations. The report acknowledges that such a transfer would require a special device, and would not in itself be an easy process, but could nonetheless be achieved with enough initial preparation.

The tanks could also be used to store other assorted gases or fuel, sort of as an orbital gas station.

Need hydrogen? Just fill 'er on up at SpaceGas Depot!

Potentiality vs. Drawbacks

Only a few options have been listed here, and the report goes into much more detail - I suggest reading it. But such activities don't come without certain drawbacks, limitations, and potential problems, which the report also covers in large detail.

I find it interesting, however, that NASA is ignoring such a large potential resource, which would both benefit their own projects and missions, as well as double as a means of income. The saying goes that "if it weren't for the Dark Ages, we'd be colonizing space today" - the same applies to NASA.

With a little more creativity, a product they already have/use could be the driving force in expanding humanity's foothold in space.

Even if it's only in Earth's orbit.

The NASA report is obviously property of NASA (even the locally hosted copy), and some of the details on the shuttle and the ETs are courtesy of Wikipedia.

Why Congress Needs a Reboot [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:48:46 +0000

I'm sure you've heard of all the in-fighting and bullshit that's been going on in the last week or so over in D.C.

But it gets better.

I don't personally agree with another huge check cut by the government to give people money, because this is something that will solve itself fairly quickly if people stop being stupid, but the whole process has truly frustrated me.

Take a look at what got "cut" from the bill, courtesty of CNN.

My first question is: WHY ARE THOSE IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Congress loves to add "pork" to bills, which has always annoyed me, and this seems to be no exception. Even when they're crying about the cost of the bill, they add stuff to it. This makes sense. If I ever meet a Congressman, I'm going to, in a totally nonviolent way, slap him silly because what's more important?

"Fixing" America so we can continue as a great nation

Lining your own pockets and those of your supporting groups

I'm pretty sure it's #1, although many Congressional shinyheads may disagree.

My second question is: If they cut ALL THIS, what ELSE is in there?

I'd like to know what percentage of "pork" got cut from the bill, and, probably more importantly, what's left. Are we spending $100m to give NASCAR 10 years to improve fuel efficiency? Or maybe $33m to give oil companies tax breaks?

Something tells me that what they cut was either "the lesser of two evils" or things that were too outlandish to pass anyways, for the most part (we'll get to the exceptions in a second).

My third question is: Excuse me, but I thought this was an economic stimulus package?

Maybe I'm misguided, but when I heard "economic stimulus package", I assumed that meant giving money to small businesses to smooth things over, sending checks out to individuals that pay taxes (like Bush's did), and helping to foster a new era of growth in what will be the next generation of "driving forces" for the economy.

But this is apparently not what Congress is concerned with. They're concerned with giving money to organizations that probably already have it, tax breaks to those who needs it less than your average American, and a whole litany of more crap.

My fourth question is: Why did some of these get cut, you dumb motherfuckers?

In a time where space exploration and development is more crucial then ever, NASA gets budget cuts. And when someone (God save the Queen!) adds some pork to this bill that actually might be useful, like giving NASA a "bonus" that would trickle down to it's contractors and subcontractors... it gets cut.

And the NASA earmark isn't the only one. There's a few, so let me list them for you:

NASA

Broadband

NIST

Aeronautics

Exploration

Cross Agency Support

School Construction

Higher Education Construction

Don't those sound like things you'd like to have money sent to? Put that list together and you end up with:

more money for science and space, NASA included

a government that works together slightly better

money for a better education system, which in turn would generate "tomorrow's" American businesses

broadband growth that not only creates better access, but would institute Net Neutrality clauses (not mentioned in CNN)

The total cost of those specific items cut comes to $22.15b. Now that sounds like alot of money, but when you consider it would have been part of a $950b package, it comes to only 2% of the cost of the package.

Two percent that could have made a real difference in both the economy and America's waning intelligence in certain sectors of the country.

My fifth, and final question, is: What the hell?

What it really comes down to is whether or not this money is going to be spent ever so wisely as the bank bailout was (search Google for "banks, bailout, planes" or "banks, bailout, bonuses" for more details). Because if this has all the intelligence that the bank bailout had, we're fucked as a country.

We can't afford to keep propping up failing industries and throwing money at those who already have it. America is already massively in debt, and none of this is helping. Like I said previously, I'm completely at odds with the idea of bailouts and stimulus packages, because people need to learn to fend for themselves [see "The End of Democracy" for why].

But if Congress is going to ignore the voices of those of us smart enough to know it's a bad idea, then they need to do it right. Because we'll only have one chance at "fixing" this... if America hasn't turned around, with no more epic failures of industry, by the end of Obama's first term of office, we may never recover.

Something tells me America will cease to be a single, united, and unified country when the money runs out and the supplies run low. There's already talk about fractures in the country.

Those can quickly become fault lines when the conditions are right.