This blog, like many others, has gone Green. Solidarity with those living a world away, who I have never met and likely never will, today marching and facing down oppression. My best to them, Free American to many Iranians fighting for Freedom.
If you're reading this blog odds are you know about the events of the past week. If not take a few minutes and read back through a week of Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, which summarizes it far better than I ever could. So, knowing what's going on you're likely wondering: can they do it? Can the "Green Movement" topple the government Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Can change their government and they bring real reform to Iran? Can protesters on the street topple a regime which boats religious, military, militia, police, and "Revolutionary Guard" forces?
Well, it's happened before. In 1978-79 the Islamic Revolution toppled the previous Iranian regime, a fairly half-assed monarchy propped up by Western allies. That's well known, what some seem to forget is that it started much like the early days of the Green movement, with angry protesters. The guerrilla attacks, fractionating power structure, and the famous hostage-taking were all latter events of the IR. In the early days, it was protests against policies of the Shah's government, then protests against the crackdowns against the earlier protests, then paralyzing strikes and protests which incapacitated the regime.
But there have been other protests in the 30 years since, and the government hasn't fallen. Clearly, it takes a special circumstance. Does that exist now? Will these crowds keep growing until they wash the Ayatolla's crew out of power, dissipate into irrelevance, or be crushed in a bloody mess?
Theory: The Green Movement will succeed in ending the current Iranian Regime.
It's tough to quantify what makes a successful revolt, rebellion, coup d’état, uprising, whatever. Coups with seemingly substantial military backing have failed, rabbles with all the military bearing of an angry line cook have succeeded. What it takes is a certain x-factor, something that keeps people going: legitimacy in the eyes of the people. If the people see a cause as just, it will go a long way.
The Green movement has a large support base which sees it as legitimate, and just as importantly sees the government opposing it as illegitimate of late. The fairly blatant election fraud was bad enough, but the vicious attacks by the Baseej militia and Khamenei's "shut up and do as you're told" reaction to the opposition's pleas for a fair hearing have only painted the regime as desperate and power-hungry. The Greens, in contrast, have gone to great lengths to show that they do not seek bloodshed, and only want their grievances addressed. In addition to crowds marching in the hundreds of thousands, millions more Iranians reportedly believe the Regime stole the election and haven't been dissuaded of this.
At this point, the Greens are somewhat in control of the final outcome, while the Khamenei regime is in control of what happens right now. As the more righteously motivated group, the Greens can bestow legitimacy on this government or the next. The government can either keep things peaceful and work toward compromise, or set off a bloodbath. A bloodbath would forever rob this regime of legitimacy and probably damn it to a tumultuous and bloody decline, despite having been in power for over 30 years they'll appear the usurpers. If they seek compromise, they can seek to incorporate enough Greens into their regime to secure the government's standing with the people, but they'll be sacrificing their unilateral control to do so. There's also a good chance they'll collapse in on themselves before it happens.
So, whatever the specific outcome, the current regime is doomed. They can negotiate in hopes of surviving in partnership with the Greens, they can start a violent crackdown which will only make their decline slower and bloodier, or they can be ousted. But they really can't win, the Green Movement will be the end of the current regime.
I hope that violence doesn't come, and compromise or at least peaceful transition are attained. Unfortunately, I fear the blood will flow.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Theory: Ares V is critical for NASA's future, and must move forward.
Wednesday? Yeah, I know, but I missed May entirely due to an excruciatingly long road trip and a (fruitless) spate of interviews.
Hat tip to newpapyrus over at Daily Kos, who inspired me to finally get this post together after chewing on it for about a week.
NASA's current Manned Space Program looks much like it has for the last 30 years:
Yep, the Space Shuttles. Oh sure we have a Space Station now, but it's an international outpost reliant on the Shuttle and international partners' spacecraft to keep resupplied. To launch someone into space, right now we have the Shuttles. And the Shuttles are no longer getting the job done. Never designed to do anything but, well, shuttle people and cargo from the Earth to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), they've proven costly and inefficient at even that. Paying for Shuttles has meant the death of programs beyond LEO, and the Shuttles' own shortfalls have meant the deaths of 2 whole Shuttle crews.
This all in mind, then-President George W. Bush launched what we know today as Project Constellation, a program to move NASA's manned space efforts from the LEO-only Shuttles to a system which could at minimum take over the cargo and crew-launching from them and then take on new missions to the Moon and potentially Mars. Constellation consists of an updated version of the classic Apollo spacecraft know as Orion to carry crew, a small crew-only rocket to launch it, and a Cargo launcher meant to loft big payloads like a moon ship which the crew would meet in space. To save money and leverage existing knowledge, both rockets would use updates on technology which the Shuttle has used for years.
The crew rocket Ares I is actively in development and actively under fire. While not a bad idea on paper, the rocket's been dogged by problems popping up under scrutiny. But NASA's fate isn't tied all that closely to Ares I. There are plenty of potential substitutes, notably the Atlas V and Delta IV EELVs used by the United States Air Force. There's even an unlikely long-shot in the form of Falcon 9, a privately-developed launcher. If Ares I dies, Orion or something similar can still be flown.
But the cargo rocket is another matter. Called Ares V, it's a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle designed to put an amazing four hundred thousand pounds into orbit. There has never been another rocket as capable as Ares V, and NASA needs it to succeed in the future.
Theory: Ares V is critical for NASA's future, and must move forward.
There are calls for the cancellation of Ares V, stemming from the high cost of designing it, of renovating infrastructure to support it, and from the time it will take to put together. These calls are wrong.
Saturn was the primary Launch architecture of NASA for less than 15 years. STS has been the primary launch architecture for more than 30. Lets be realistic: NASA's next big rocket may be IT for the next 40-50 years. We'll be stuck with what we have, there likely won't be money to design a new one for a long, long time. We need a Booster which can carry NASA for that amount of time, which can carry the payloads of tomorrow. That is Ares V.
The very infrastructure improvement costs being cited in Ares-V bashing are a selling point to me. Infrastructure improvement spending in FL and LA, in particular, are MASSIVE selling points. We're in a time of economic trouble, and the best thing the Government can do when spending money is make sure it's spending money which creates jobs quickly now, and secure jobs going forward. New Crawlers? Pad enhancements? More staff and tooling for Michoud? Yes, please! Ares V gives a shot of new jobs to bring it into service, and then will need a stable workforce to sustain it for decades.
Time is an illusion, and arguments that another heavy lifter could beat Ares V to the pad are seeing things. Ares V has a huge amount of support from the industry and uses evolved forms of existing hardware which will be developed together to create the booster. That's a smart plan. Attempting to re-arrange existing parts in a new way to save time (like DIRECT) isn't likely to save the time you'd think, a heavy-lift booster isn't Fantastic Contraption creation, you can't just rearrange parts and expect them to automatically work the way you want. Similarly, doing something nutty like an EELV with half a dozen cores is just asking for trouble.
Having mentioned DIRECT, a word on it. NO. DIRECT makes big claims about small costs and large launch numbers, but so did the Shuttle program back in the early days. I find their cost, time, and capacity projections too fantastic to be credible, and even if they hit "most" instead of "all" their targets it means a huge blow compared to having Ares V. The Maximum-lift Jupiter is proposed to top out at half the current baseline Ares V's OVER FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS to LEO. Respectable, but limited in comparison. 2 launches will ALWAYS cost more than one, not to mention the penalty of having to carry fuel and hardware for orbital rendezvous (negatively impacting mass to be used on the actual mission). Sure, you can put up whatever shiny launch frequency projections you want, but I'll counter with the history that has shown (with shuttle and the fairly frequent Apollo launches before that) NASA simply doesn't sustain that kind of schedule.
DIRECT in a vaccum isn't a bad architecture, and if flag-platning onthe Moon were NASA's only goal it could be arguable more cost effective. But for putting big habitats in orbit and on The Moon, for putting really big science packages in orbit and on The Moon, and most imporantly for going BEYOND The Moon, Ares V is the way.
I will say that I agree Ares V has one shortcoming: it's currently not planned to be man-rated. The theory is that it will be the big-lifter, but smaller, lower-cost rockets will launch the crew to meet their craft in orbit. Fine for small crews, but someday we might want to put crews up which are in the double figures, and Ares V could do that if we plan ahead. So go for it, man rate it or at least plan for a man-rated Ares V-B
NASA should be going for innovation and breaking new ground, rather than trying shoestring itself to orbit with existing tech (and ultimately saving neither time nor money). Sure, it costs money, but this is NASA and this is what they're supposed to be doing. Want to build a bare-bones, off the shelf, just-barely heavy launch vehicle? Get a private company to do it. THEY can work in a profitable way. As government entity, NASA shouldn't be expected to worry about that. NASA should be aiming higher. Admittedly, Ares V isn't warp drive. But it is innovation, and it is Critical for NASA's future.
Hat tip to newpapyrus over at Daily Kos, who inspired me to finally get this post together after chewing on it for about a week.
NASA's current Manned Space Program looks much like it has for the last 30 years:
Yep, the Space Shuttles. Oh sure we have a Space Station now, but it's an international outpost reliant on the Shuttle and international partners' spacecraft to keep resupplied. To launch someone into space, right now we have the Shuttles. And the Shuttles are no longer getting the job done. Never designed to do anything but, well, shuttle people and cargo from the Earth to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), they've proven costly and inefficient at even that. Paying for Shuttles has meant the death of programs beyond LEO, and the Shuttles' own shortfalls have meant the deaths of 2 whole Shuttle crews.
This all in mind, then-President George W. Bush launched what we know today as Project Constellation, a program to move NASA's manned space efforts from the LEO-only Shuttles to a system which could at minimum take over the cargo and crew-launching from them and then take on new missions to the Moon and potentially Mars. Constellation consists of an updated version of the classic Apollo spacecraft know as Orion to carry crew, a small crew-only rocket to launch it, and a Cargo launcher meant to loft big payloads like a moon ship which the crew would meet in space. To save money and leverage existing knowledge, both rockets would use updates on technology which the Shuttle has used for years.
The crew rocket Ares I is actively in development and actively under fire. While not a bad idea on paper, the rocket's been dogged by problems popping up under scrutiny. But NASA's fate isn't tied all that closely to Ares I. There are plenty of potential substitutes, notably the Atlas V and Delta IV EELVs used by the United States Air Force. There's even an unlikely long-shot in the form of Falcon 9, a privately-developed launcher. If Ares I dies, Orion or something similar can still be flown.
But the cargo rocket is another matter. Called Ares V, it's a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle designed to put an amazing four hundred thousand pounds into orbit. There has never been another rocket as capable as Ares V, and NASA needs it to succeed in the future.
Theory: Ares V is critical for NASA's future, and must move forward.
There are calls for the cancellation of Ares V, stemming from the high cost of designing it, of renovating infrastructure to support it, and from the time it will take to put together. These calls are wrong.
Saturn was the primary Launch architecture of NASA for less than 15 years. STS has been the primary launch architecture for more than 30. Lets be realistic: NASA's next big rocket may be IT for the next 40-50 years. We'll be stuck with what we have, there likely won't be money to design a new one for a long, long time. We need a Booster which can carry NASA for that amount of time, which can carry the payloads of tomorrow. That is Ares V.
The very infrastructure improvement costs being cited in Ares-V bashing are a selling point to me. Infrastructure improvement spending in FL and LA, in particular, are MASSIVE selling points. We're in a time of economic trouble, and the best thing the Government can do when spending money is make sure it's spending money which creates jobs quickly now, and secure jobs going forward. New Crawlers? Pad enhancements? More staff and tooling for Michoud? Yes, please! Ares V gives a shot of new jobs to bring it into service, and then will need a stable workforce to sustain it for decades.
Time is an illusion, and arguments that another heavy lifter could beat Ares V to the pad are seeing things. Ares V has a huge amount of support from the industry and uses evolved forms of existing hardware which will be developed together to create the booster. That's a smart plan. Attempting to re-arrange existing parts in a new way to save time (like DIRECT) isn't likely to save the time you'd think, a heavy-lift booster isn't Fantastic Contraption creation, you can't just rearrange parts and expect them to automatically work the way you want. Similarly, doing something nutty like an EELV with half a dozen cores is just asking for trouble.
Having mentioned DIRECT, a word on it. NO. DIRECT makes big claims about small costs and large launch numbers, but so did the Shuttle program back in the early days. I find their cost, time, and capacity projections too fantastic to be credible, and even if they hit "most" instead of "all" their targets it means a huge blow compared to having Ares V. The Maximum-lift Jupiter is proposed to top out at half the current baseline Ares V's OVER FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS to LEO. Respectable, but limited in comparison. 2 launches will ALWAYS cost more than one, not to mention the penalty of having to carry fuel and hardware for orbital rendezvous (negatively impacting mass to be used on the actual mission). Sure, you can put up whatever shiny launch frequency projections you want, but I'll counter with the history that has shown (with shuttle and the fairly frequent Apollo launches before that) NASA simply doesn't sustain that kind of schedule.
DIRECT in a vaccum isn't a bad architecture, and if flag-platning onthe Moon were NASA's only goal it could be arguable more cost effective. But for putting big habitats in orbit and on The Moon, for putting really big science packages in orbit and on The Moon, and most imporantly for going BEYOND The Moon, Ares V is the way.
I will say that I agree Ares V has one shortcoming: it's currently not planned to be man-rated. The theory is that it will be the big-lifter, but smaller, lower-cost rockets will launch the crew to meet their craft in orbit. Fine for small crews, but someday we might want to put crews up which are in the double figures, and Ares V could do that if we plan ahead. So go for it, man rate it or at least plan for a man-rated Ares V-B
NASA should be going for innovation and breaking new ground, rather than trying shoestring itself to orbit with existing tech (and ultimately saving neither time nor money). Sure, it costs money, but this is NASA and this is what they're supposed to be doing. Want to build a bare-bones, off the shelf, just-barely heavy launch vehicle? Get a private company to do it. THEY can work in a profitable way. As government entity, NASA shouldn't be expected to worry about that. NASA should be aiming higher. Admittedly, Ares V isn't warp drive. But it is innovation, and it is Critical for NASA's future.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Theory: The LCS will evolve from 2 hulls for the same role to 2 hulls for 2 roles
Part Two of my LCS thoughts. A related post on Littoral Groups/Networks may follow, but I want to take that from a perspective of Roles/Missions rather than Platforms/Programs.
The current Littoral Combat Ship program has produced two hulls: Lockheed's LCS-1 with a steel semi-planing monohull, and General Dynamic's LCS-2 with an aluminum trimaran. Both fill the same basic physical requirements: sufficient space for the LCS Mission Modules*, Small Boats, and Aviation in a hull weighing about 3000 tons and capable of "40+" knots. And, insanely enough, they seem to so far be capable of hitting those marks. Costs and delays are getting plenty of press, and with good reason, but a more fundamental problem is what those specs mean.
LCS is intended to downselect to a single hulll, either LM's or GD's, and press forward with one hull meant to be an anti-pirate/insurgent patrol boat, a Unmanned Vehicle mothership, a mine/sub-hunter, a host for VBSS teams, and a small aviation platform. And that's before the USMC, which has expressed an interest in creating an LCS module, gets involved. Many of the above missions can be performed by the same hull, even performed well by using a single platform intelligently. But all of them?
It looks to me that as LCS moves forward with their early prototypes and the Navy gains experience working those missions, we'll see a move away from the single-hull idea. Instead, the 2 hulls may well grow apart, as they migrate to different ends of the Littoral Spectrum.
Theory: The LCS will evolve from 2 hulls for the same role to 2 hulls for 2 roles
Lets look at one of the critical conflicts of the current one-hull concept: The balance between Size, Speed, Cost, Crew conflict. To fit the electronics, the Boats, the Modules, Aviation, and the FUEL, the hull needs a fairly large amount of dedicated space. To adequately crew the ship, modules, helicopters, and boats, a fairly sizable amount of berthing space is required. To power the ship's electronics and allow it to reach 40+ knots carrying all the above, requires large and expensive power plants and an expensive specialized hullform. Putting that all together to proper Navy standards has meant cost overruns and potential shortfalls. The prototypes' range and speed may be lower than hoped, their ability to carry the Mission Modules is subject to debate, and observers have noted that the hulls may be severely undermanned for their intended missions.
Now, lets see where the various LCS missions group together. I consider the VBSS, Insurgent/Pirate Patrol, Brown-Water MIW, Small-UxV hosting, and potential USMC missions to be highly compatible. They don't need helicopters, they don't need a ton of module space. All they need is a fast, agile, and durable hull, weapons suitable to defend against small craft, and good onboard sensors. The Blue/Green MIW, ASW, and Aviation missions are likewise very compatible. They all need a ton of space for robots, equipment, sophisticated sensors, helicopters, fuel, and crew, but don't need the high sprint speed or brown-water ability.
As the Navy tests their prototypes and learns how to work in the Littorals again, I think the above "clusters" will begin to stand out. When chasing fast boats or operating in the extreme littorals, the speed of LCS1/2 will be lauded while the size and overly lightweight construction will not. While operating as a mothership, launching and recovered unmanned systems and helicopters, their size will be welcomed but the compromises for speed lamented.
At some point, the idea of a downselect will die. At first, we'll still have 2 over-lapping designs. But if the lessons learned from the early hulls are applied intelligently, we'll see them diverge. One will grow smaller, lighter, and lose the focus on work associated with the MIW/ASW Mission Modules. The other will loose the high speed requirement and embrace the larger crew and space needed to be a Mothership. Eventually, when the follow-on program occurs years down the road, the 2 LCS hulls will be 2 distinct classes with only heritage in common.
*The Mission Modules are currently:
MIW: A mine-hunting suite using UUVs and Helicopter-borne sensors. Includes EOD detachment
ASW: A sub-hunting suite also using UUVS and Helos. Includes Towed Array and Torpedos
AsuW: A weapons suite of small missiles and cannon tailored to fight small boats, plus UxVs to hunt them
The current Littoral Combat Ship program has produced two hulls: Lockheed's LCS-1 with a steel semi-planing monohull, and General Dynamic's LCS-2 with an aluminum trimaran. Both fill the same basic physical requirements: sufficient space for the LCS Mission Modules*, Small Boats, and Aviation in a hull weighing about 3000 tons and capable of "40+" knots. And, insanely enough, they seem to so far be capable of hitting those marks. Costs and delays are getting plenty of press, and with good reason, but a more fundamental problem is what those specs mean.
LCS is intended to downselect to a single hulll, either LM's or GD's, and press forward with one hull meant to be an anti-pirate/insurgent patrol boat, a Unmanned Vehicle mothership, a mine/sub-hunter, a host for VBSS teams, and a small aviation platform. And that's before the USMC, which has expressed an interest in creating an LCS module, gets involved. Many of the above missions can be performed by the same hull, even performed well by using a single platform intelligently. But all of them?
It looks to me that as LCS moves forward with their early prototypes and the Navy gains experience working those missions, we'll see a move away from the single-hull idea. Instead, the 2 hulls may well grow apart, as they migrate to different ends of the Littoral Spectrum.
Theory: The LCS will evolve from 2 hulls for the same role to 2 hulls for 2 roles
Lets look at one of the critical conflicts of the current one-hull concept: The balance between Size, Speed, Cost, Crew conflict. To fit the electronics, the Boats, the Modules, Aviation, and the FUEL, the hull needs a fairly large amount of dedicated space. To adequately crew the ship, modules, helicopters, and boats, a fairly sizable amount of berthing space is required. To power the ship's electronics and allow it to reach 40+ knots carrying all the above, requires large and expensive power plants and an expensive specialized hullform. Putting that all together to proper Navy standards has meant cost overruns and potential shortfalls. The prototypes' range and speed may be lower than hoped, their ability to carry the Mission Modules is subject to debate, and observers have noted that the hulls may be severely undermanned for their intended missions.
Now, lets see where the various LCS missions group together. I consider the VBSS, Insurgent/Pirate Patrol, Brown-Water MIW, Small-UxV hosting, and potential USMC missions to be highly compatible. They don't need helicopters, they don't need a ton of module space. All they need is a fast, agile, and durable hull, weapons suitable to defend against small craft, and good onboard sensors. The Blue/Green MIW, ASW, and Aviation missions are likewise very compatible. They all need a ton of space for robots, equipment, sophisticated sensors, helicopters, fuel, and crew, but don't need the high sprint speed or brown-water ability.
As the Navy tests their prototypes and learns how to work in the Littorals again, I think the above "clusters" will begin to stand out. When chasing fast boats or operating in the extreme littorals, the speed of LCS1/2 will be lauded while the size and overly lightweight construction will not. While operating as a mothership, launching and recovered unmanned systems and helicopters, their size will be welcomed but the compromises for speed lamented.
At some point, the idea of a downselect will die. At first, we'll still have 2 over-lapping designs. But if the lessons learned from the early hulls are applied intelligently, we'll see them diverge. One will grow smaller, lighter, and lose the focus on work associated with the MIW/ASW Mission Modules. The other will loose the high speed requirement and embrace the larger crew and space needed to be a Mothership. Eventually, when the follow-on program occurs years down the road, the 2 LCS hulls will be 2 distinct classes with only heritage in common.
*The Mission Modules are currently:
MIW: A mine-hunting suite using UUVs and Helicopter-borne sensors. Includes EOD detachment
ASW: A sub-hunting suite also using UUVS and Helos. Includes Towed Array and Torpedos
AsuW: A weapons suite of small missiles and cannon tailored to fight small boats, plus UxVs to hunt them
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Theory: Use the program we have to build the ships we need.
This is Part One of a 2-part LCS posts. Part One is essentially how I think we should move forward, Part Two attempts to forecast the outcome of taking such a route.
One of the more distressing trends I've noticed in Naval Analysis and Blogging of late is the immediate degeneration of the LCS discussion into a discussion of what to do "when LCS is cancelled." I've got news for you, if some part of that discussion doesn't include the words "add 3-5 years of discussion and budget-wrangling before a decision is arrived at" you haven't been paying enough attention of late. Worse, the calls for LCS cancellation most often have less to do with the idea of a Littoral Combatant program (which most support in some form) and more with the fact that they don't like either of the LCS prototypes which have been built so far. There's plenty not to like about the LCS prototypes, and it's (very) unlikely everything wrong gets corrected quickly, but they are in the water, and LCS is a program building and testing ships right now.
I think part of the debate shaking out this way is due to a perception that the LCS hulls are the Alpha and Omega of the LCS program, and the specific success or failure of LCS-1 and LCS-2 are the success or failure of the US Navy's LCS program. I disagree, in the current age of Spiral Development and ships built in incremental "flights" I'm fairly sure we can accept the prototypes AS prototypes and move on with the program to build the littoral hull(s) we want.
Theory: Use the program we have to build the ships we need.
With the stipulation that they're less than ideal, in fact probably far from ideal, going ahead by building the LCS in batches/flights and developing from one to the next we keep the industry in business and give the Navy a chance to learn by doing. We currently, we're trying mainly putting the Littoral Combatant missions either with a abbreviated batch of small gunboats or with 9,000-ton AEGIS Battleships (to use the Galrahn rating system). We're learning nothing solid about creating, training, or maintaining a Littoral fleet this way, and may in fact be learning the wrong lessons. With LCS putting hulls in the water we can learn those lessons and apply them to follow-on Flights as well as to decisions about logistics, littoral fleet organization, etc. Without, we have to guess.
From an Industry point of view, sitting around waiting for another program of record is, shall we say, less than appealing. In particular, calling the LCS a failure and cancelling it is going to create a firestorm among its supporters in Congress, who will fight fiercely to protect the jobs and money associated with LCS. Then as a new program is started there will be a whole new round of jockeying to prevent the money flowing out until sufficient diligence is done, jobs are protected, blowhards speeches about Pork are made, and assurances made that this time "we'll get it right." Meanwhile the shipyards are left waiting, and re-start costs to get them back into the swing on military contracts pile up.
There's another side to staying with LCS and developing rather than a clean-sheet or existing design: there is no more unity on what needs to come after LCS than there was in the lead-up TO LCS, likely there is less. Talk to 50 Naval Analysts (or maybe just naval blog commentors) and you'll hear everything from thousands of swarming speedboats to FAC-Ms to a European -style frigate. I'm a fan of healthy debate, but the debate right now consists of spamming .PDFs of various ship designs or congressional testimony back and forth, not as likely to produce a superior design as it sounds. What the debate needs is reports coming from the hulls in the water and the crews serving on them, US Navy and/or USCG crews.
Notice that nowhere in this post do I defend the LCS prototypes as "fine" or any variation on that theme. The key here is to learn as LCS progresses and apply those lessons to the hulls LCS builds going forward. But this can be done and the results can be quite good, can be the Littoral combatants that we need in the fleet. And by building the fleet from lessons learned, rather than throwing another dart at the board, we avoid having to return to all this again when "what we should do when LCS is cancelled" falls flat on its face.
One of the more distressing trends I've noticed in Naval Analysis and Blogging of late is the immediate degeneration of the LCS discussion into a discussion of what to do "when LCS is cancelled." I've got news for you, if some part of that discussion doesn't include the words "add 3-5 years of discussion and budget-wrangling before a decision is arrived at" you haven't been paying enough attention of late. Worse, the calls for LCS cancellation most often have less to do with the idea of a Littoral Combatant program (which most support in some form) and more with the fact that they don't like either of the LCS prototypes which have been built so far. There's plenty not to like about the LCS prototypes, and it's (very) unlikely everything wrong gets corrected quickly, but they are in the water, and LCS is a program building and testing ships right now.
I think part of the debate shaking out this way is due to a perception that the LCS hulls are the Alpha and Omega of the LCS program, and the specific success or failure of LCS-1 and LCS-2 are the success or failure of the US Navy's LCS program. I disagree, in the current age of Spiral Development and ships built in incremental "flights" I'm fairly sure we can accept the prototypes AS prototypes and move on with the program to build the littoral hull(s) we want.
Theory: Use the program we have to build the ships we need.
With the stipulation that they're less than ideal, in fact probably far from ideal, going ahead by building the LCS in batches/flights and developing from one to the next we keep the industry in business and give the Navy a chance to learn by doing. We currently, we're trying mainly putting the Littoral Combatant missions either with a abbreviated batch of small gunboats or with 9,000-ton AEGIS Battleships (to use the Galrahn rating system). We're learning nothing solid about creating, training, or maintaining a Littoral fleet this way, and may in fact be learning the wrong lessons. With LCS putting hulls in the water we can learn those lessons and apply them to follow-on Flights as well as to decisions about logistics, littoral fleet organization, etc. Without, we have to guess.
From an Industry point of view, sitting around waiting for another program of record is, shall we say, less than appealing. In particular, calling the LCS a failure and cancelling it is going to create a firestorm among its supporters in Congress, who will fight fiercely to protect the jobs and money associated with LCS. Then as a new program is started there will be a whole new round of jockeying to prevent the money flowing out until sufficient diligence is done, jobs are protected, blowhards speeches about Pork are made, and assurances made that this time "we'll get it right." Meanwhile the shipyards are left waiting, and re-start costs to get them back into the swing on military contracts pile up.
There's another side to staying with LCS and developing rather than a clean-sheet or existing design: there is no more unity on what needs to come after LCS than there was in the lead-up TO LCS, likely there is less. Talk to 50 Naval Analysts (or maybe just naval blog commentors) and you'll hear everything from thousands of swarming speedboats to FAC-Ms to a European -style frigate. I'm a fan of healthy debate, but the debate right now consists of spamming .PDFs of various ship designs or congressional testimony back and forth, not as likely to produce a superior design as it sounds. What the debate needs is reports coming from the hulls in the water and the crews serving on them, US Navy and/or USCG crews.
Notice that nowhere in this post do I defend the LCS prototypes as "fine" or any variation on that theme. The key here is to learn as LCS progresses and apply those lessons to the hulls LCS builds going forward. But this can be done and the results can be quite good, can be the Littoral combatants that we need in the fleet. And by building the fleet from lessons learned, rather than throwing another dart at the board, we avoid having to return to all this again when "what we should do when LCS is cancelled" falls flat on its face.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Theory: It's time to "waste" $300 Million USD to save a grand old gal
I'm somewhere between amused and distressed by Conservatives claiming President Obama has broken a vow to eliminate all Earmarks from federal spending. Amused, because it was John McCain, not Barack Obama who declared all Earmarks evil. Distressed, because as Candidate Obama pointed out: Earmark reform is vital, but Earmarks themselves aren't the problem. Good money on good programs is a GOOD THING. Job Creation/retention is a GOOD THING especially in a Recession. And unfortunately, getting the (for example) Honorable D-Bag from Alabama to vote in favor of any funding for any other state appearing in the main budget is at it's least a chore. Barring an outbreak of selflessness in the Congress, Earmarks for good programs are still needed.
So, we've established that Earmarks are not inherently evil and will do good. So, I want to put one in. Yeah, that's right. John Q. Nobody from Nowhere Special USA wants to put an Earmark in. Not a cheap one either, but if it makes you feel better it's not a grant to Me, Myself, and I Associates. In fact, I'm willing to bet a good number of fellow Americans would co-sign on this Earmark today, and perhaps a very large number once they've heard the background on it. So here goes.
Theory: It's time to "waste" $300 Million USD to save a Grand Old Gal
Moored at Pier 82 in South Philly for the past 13 years, a majestic site sits slowly deteriorating. The SS United States, pride of America's Postwar shipbuilding industry, holder of the Eastbound Blue Riband once and Westbound to this day, largest Ocean liner ever constructed in the US, fastest Ocean Liner ever. And she needs our help.
The "Big U" cannot be replaced, she's a completely unique and completely American piece of history. That she's even survived to this day is nearly a miracle. Her smaller predecessor, SS America, had a similar life. After Liners gave way to Cruisers, she bounced around in uncertainty until being destroyed in the Canary Islands. Her contemporary, SS Independence, was snuck out of the country recently by her owners and may be scrapped at nearly any time. Such dismal fates await SS United States if she is left to twist. Norwegian Cruise Lines, which most recently purchased her, appears to have done so under the false pretenses of restoring her. Tim Colton postulates with some authority that she was a ploy to win NCL political support for bringing more foreign-built ships to service in the US. In the current economic climate, they're likely to sign off on the first deal that crosses their desk with no thought to the ship.
So, I want to waste $300 Million USD to buy SS United States from NCL and restore her to a preservable condition. Preserved, she'd be America's Ship once again. I don't think running her again is practical nor prudent, too much risk would be associated with operating her, not the least of which would be some future Administration deciding to sell her and starting the whole circus again. Park her in Washington DC, on the waterfront which the District is trying to revitalize. Make her a Destination, fit her out to teach Americans that we a a seafaring people, and that many Great Ships have been built right here by American hands.
$300 Million isn't much to ask for all the above. But throw on the practical side of the argument. Restoring The Big U would take hundreds of workers putting in thousands of man-hours. Preparing her new permanent home would take more. And add a staff to maintain and present her going forward. JOBS are a reason to pay this money, hundreds of jobs requiring skilled and unskilled labor at a time when too many people need work. If no other, today that should be argument enough.
It's time regular Americans got to put an Earmark in our Government's Budget, and this is what I want it to be. Saving an American Icon, a piece of our National History which is in distress. Agree with me? Call your Congress Critter. Write the President. Or Just Sign On.
My thanks to the SS United States Conservancy for proving the Petition.
So, we've established that Earmarks are not inherently evil and will do good. So, I want to put one in. Yeah, that's right. John Q. Nobody from Nowhere Special USA wants to put an Earmark in. Not a cheap one either, but if it makes you feel better it's not a grant to Me, Myself, and I Associates. In fact, I'm willing to bet a good number of fellow Americans would co-sign on this Earmark today, and perhaps a very large number once they've heard the background on it. So here goes.
Theory: It's time to "waste" $300 Million USD to save a Grand Old Gal
Moored at Pier 82 in South Philly for the past 13 years, a majestic site sits slowly deteriorating. The SS United States, pride of America's Postwar shipbuilding industry, holder of the Eastbound Blue Riband once and Westbound to this day, largest Ocean liner ever constructed in the US, fastest Ocean Liner ever. And she needs our help.
The "Big U" cannot be replaced, she's a completely unique and completely American piece of history. That she's even survived to this day is nearly a miracle. Her smaller predecessor, SS America, had a similar life. After Liners gave way to Cruisers, she bounced around in uncertainty until being destroyed in the Canary Islands. Her contemporary, SS Independence, was snuck out of the country recently by her owners and may be scrapped at nearly any time. Such dismal fates await SS United States if she is left to twist. Norwegian Cruise Lines, which most recently purchased her, appears to have done so under the false pretenses of restoring her. Tim Colton postulates with some authority that she was a ploy to win NCL political support for bringing more foreign-built ships to service in the US. In the current economic climate, they're likely to sign off on the first deal that crosses their desk with no thought to the ship.
So, I want to waste $300 Million USD to buy SS United States from NCL and restore her to a preservable condition. Preserved, she'd be America's Ship once again. I don't think running her again is practical nor prudent, too much risk would be associated with operating her, not the least of which would be some future Administration deciding to sell her and starting the whole circus again. Park her in Washington DC, on the waterfront which the District is trying to revitalize. Make her a Destination, fit her out to teach Americans that we a a seafaring people, and that many Great Ships have been built right here by American hands.
$300 Million isn't much to ask for all the above. But throw on the practical side of the argument. Restoring The Big U would take hundreds of workers putting in thousands of man-hours. Preparing her new permanent home would take more. And add a staff to maintain and present her going forward. JOBS are a reason to pay this money, hundreds of jobs requiring skilled and unskilled labor at a time when too many people need work. If no other, today that should be argument enough.
It's time regular Americans got to put an Earmark in our Government's Budget, and this is what I want it to be. Saving an American Icon, a piece of our National History which is in distress. Agree with me? Call your Congress Critter. Write the President. Or Just Sign On.
My thanks to the SS United States Conservancy for proving the Petition.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Theory: It's high time Puerto Rico became the 51st State
"Under Article IV, Section Three of the United States Constitution, which outlines the relationship among the states, the Congress has the power to admit new states to the union. The states are required to give "full faith and credit" to the acts of each other's legislatures and courts, which is generally held to include the recognition of legal contracts, marriages, and criminal judgments. The states are guaranteed military and civil defense by the federal government, which is also obligated by Article IV, Section Four, to "guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government." New states are admitted into the Union by the precedents and procedures established by the Northwest Ordinance. Following the precedent established by the Enabling Act of 1802, an Enabling Act must be passed by Congress as a prerequisite to admission. The act authorizes the people of a territory to frame a constitution, and lays down the requirements that must be met prior to consideration for statehood."
-Wikipedia
Increasing the number of States in the United States of America hasn't been done since August 21st, 1959. Actually, not all that long ago in the Grand Scheme of things. And lumping Alaska in as a "batch" with Hawaii (being admitted earlier that same year), the previous such round admissions was 47 years prior in 1912. Well, it's been 50 years since Hawaii are we ready for another round?
In reality, it takes more than the above legal requirements to admit a state. Congressional willingness to pass an Enabling Act is a large stumbling block. That provision prevents, for better or worse, the far-flung and sparsely populated island territories of the Pacific from having much chance. There's also the aspect of political balance, members of respective parties have become increasingly hostile to granting the other side anything. Since very few territories, commonwealths, or even states even get close to a 50/50 political split, you can see the problem. The Congressional hurdle has kept Washington DC in a remarkably odd legal limbo for over 200 years, though perhaps finally granting them representation is sufficient. It should be noted, however, that was only possible with an "equal concession" granted.*
But there's a relatively large (would rank 27th in population of all 51 states if admitted), economically diverse (if not yet powerful), and politically diverse candidate just all set and ready to go.
Theory: It's high time Puerto Rico became the 51st State
Since being taken from the dying Spanish Empire in the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico has been closely tied with the US. The United States Military has used the island Commonwealth for basing, training, and as a steady source of recruits. Tourism and immigration passing between Puerto Rico and the US have strongly tied it's people and culture into the great American Tapestry (my apologies for being so sappy, it fits). And Puerto Rico already participates in the US national government, though only through non-voting representation and without voting in Federal Elections. Sounds pretty state-ish already.
Why change the Status-Quo? Generally speaking, there are some bright points to Puerto Rico's current "unincorporated territory" status. For one, no Federal Income Tax. Cool, but they do pay other Federal Taxes. Where other independent, sovereign Caribbean states have been left to twist on the wind and suffered for it, the US has (usually) helped Puerto Ricans when asked and (lately) not treated them like savages in need of civilization. But without a concrete political status within the US or on it's own, the Commonwealth has suffered. States from the smallest to the least populace get a VOICE that none can deny, the ability to cast a vote and to speak as an equal on the floors of the Houses of Congress. Without those, it's too easy to be pushed aside. And they have been.
Why now? The pro-Statehood New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico now holds supermajorities in the Commonwealth's House and Senate, the Governor is an NPP member, and PR's non-voting member of the US House is as well. In the past, referendums on statehood have failed but narrowly, each time "status quo" edging out "statehood" while "independence" was far arrears. But these supermajorities, while probably not solely accomplished on the Statehood issue, seem to be big, fat signals that Statehood could be rising. Statehood is the principle Political Position of the NPP, I find it hard to believe such huge margins would be possible if a simple majority of Puerto Ricans overall did not support it.
On the other side of the coin, both major US Political parties' 2008 Election platforms had pro-statehood positions which advocated granting full annexation should the people of Puerto Rico so choose it. Could it be BS to score cheap Latino voter points? Very possibly, but the NPP consists of Democrats and Republicans both and has a fairly Centrist stance in comparison to US politics, so it would be hard for either US party to gripe.** I'd like to think that the prospect of making millions of new, 51-star flags would be a good economic stimulus as well.
So, it's time. If you're living in Puerto Rico, call up the NPP office or elected official nearest you and tell them to get that referrendum cracking. And if you live in the 50 current states, get ready for a new State Capitol to remember, new electoral math, new seats in the House and Senate chambers, tons of new flags, and oh yes, 4 million American Citizens emerging from legal limbo with a new state for us all to love, honor, defend, and give full faith and credit to.
*yes, folks, to grant full right of representation to American Citizens it was necessary to "bribe" the Republican Party with an extra red-state rep. Which is the anti-American Party , again?
**Expect the Republican Party to gripe a little, but ultimately vote in favor. They cannot regain any power in the Legislature or capture Presidency if they piss off Latino voters.
-Wikipedia
Increasing the number of States in the United States of America hasn't been done since August 21st, 1959. Actually, not all that long ago in the Grand Scheme of things. And lumping Alaska in as a "batch" with Hawaii (being admitted earlier that same year), the previous such round admissions was 47 years prior in 1912. Well, it's been 50 years since Hawaii are we ready for another round?
In reality, it takes more than the above legal requirements to admit a state. Congressional willingness to pass an Enabling Act is a large stumbling block. That provision prevents, for better or worse, the far-flung and sparsely populated island territories of the Pacific from having much chance. There's also the aspect of political balance, members of respective parties have become increasingly hostile to granting the other side anything. Since very few territories, commonwealths, or even states even get close to a 50/50 political split, you can see the problem. The Congressional hurdle has kept Washington DC in a remarkably odd legal limbo for over 200 years, though perhaps finally granting them representation is sufficient. It should be noted, however, that was only possible with an "equal concession" granted.*
But there's a relatively large (would rank 27th in population of all 51 states if admitted), economically diverse (if not yet powerful), and politically diverse candidate just all set and ready to go.
Theory: It's high time Puerto Rico became the 51st State
Since being taken from the dying Spanish Empire in the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico has been closely tied with the US. The United States Military has used the island Commonwealth for basing, training, and as a steady source of recruits. Tourism and immigration passing between Puerto Rico and the US have strongly tied it's people and culture into the great American Tapestry (my apologies for being so sappy, it fits). And Puerto Rico already participates in the US national government, though only through non-voting representation and without voting in Federal Elections. Sounds pretty state-ish already.
Why change the Status-Quo? Generally speaking, there are some bright points to Puerto Rico's current "unincorporated territory" status. For one, no Federal Income Tax. Cool, but they do pay other Federal Taxes. Where other independent, sovereign Caribbean states have been left to twist on the wind and suffered for it, the US has (usually) helped Puerto Ricans when asked and (lately) not treated them like savages in need of civilization. But without a concrete political status within the US or on it's own, the Commonwealth has suffered. States from the smallest to the least populace get a VOICE that none can deny, the ability to cast a vote and to speak as an equal on the floors of the Houses of Congress. Without those, it's too easy to be pushed aside. And they have been.
Why now? The pro-Statehood New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico now holds supermajorities in the Commonwealth's House and Senate, the Governor is an NPP member, and PR's non-voting member of the US House is as well. In the past, referendums on statehood have failed but narrowly, each time "status quo" edging out "statehood" while "independence" was far arrears. But these supermajorities, while probably not solely accomplished on the Statehood issue, seem to be big, fat signals that Statehood could be rising. Statehood is the principle Political Position of the NPP, I find it hard to believe such huge margins would be possible if a simple majority of Puerto Ricans overall did not support it.
On the other side of the coin, both major US Political parties' 2008 Election platforms had pro-statehood positions which advocated granting full annexation should the people of Puerto Rico so choose it. Could it be BS to score cheap Latino voter points? Very possibly, but the NPP consists of Democrats and Republicans both and has a fairly Centrist stance in comparison to US politics, so it would be hard for either US party to gripe.** I'd like to think that the prospect of making millions of new, 51-star flags would be a good economic stimulus as well.
So, it's time. If you're living in Puerto Rico, call up the NPP office or elected official nearest you and tell them to get that referrendum cracking. And if you live in the 50 current states, get ready for a new State Capitol to remember, new electoral math, new seats in the House and Senate chambers, tons of new flags, and oh yes, 4 million American Citizens emerging from legal limbo with a new state for us all to love, honor, defend, and give full faith and credit to.
*yes, folks, to grant full right of representation to American Citizens it was necessary to "bribe" the Republican Party with an extra red-state rep. Which is the anti-American Party , again?
**Expect the Republican Party to gripe a little, but ultimately vote in favor. They cannot regain any power in the Legislature or capture Presidency if they piss off Latino voters.
Friday, February 6, 2009
MMOs need to stop worrying about Retention and learn to love Achievements
I'm back, apologies anyone who might actually read this blog, but getting laid off killed my enthusiasm for writing. Still working on that situation, but I felt getting back into the habit of doing this might be a nice little booster.
In addition, a shout-out to David Shuster, about the only TV pundit I've seen take up the cause of Rebuilding the Twin Towers. Thanks, David, keep the fight going and maybe the quest will actually get some traction behind it. God knows maybe 3 people read my post on it, lol.
To the topic:
Depth in an MMO is challenging. What do you offer a player outside the main quests? What keeps them going after hitting the level cap? The basicly answer to this is "raid" content (dungeon craws designed for large groups) and/or PvP content. But the way PvP and Raid content are presented has always been vexing to me. Defeating an enemy team, winning a match, beating a boss, or getting all the way through a multi-hour dungeon are accomplishments. But most MMOs to date simply treat them as "yet another thing you did." And by this I mean they become part of "The Grind." Dun Dun Duuuunnnnn.
The problem is that rather than having to add tons of Raid or PvP content, developers would rather you played the same over and over again. And to force you to do that, they add in some super-shiny loot or gear that you can ONLY get by playing them over and over and over and over and over and yes I'm doing this and over and over again. Fine in theory, very frustrating to the player in practice. Games should be fun, you should be able to access all they have to offer just by having FUN. But The Grind makes it feel like a job, and after you've already Ground all the way through to "endgame" having more grind staring you in the face feels pretty crappy. Worse is when the grind begins to take ridiculous proportions, like the infamous 40-man instances of WoW.
Theory: MMOs need to stop worrying about Retention and learn to love Achievements
Xbox Live, Steam, Playstation Network, etc have all implemented systems for rewarding players who get "achievements" playing their games. They don't offer any special bonuses, if you miss a few who cares? But you get a way of showing off what you've accomplished (points, titles, trophies, etc) and you (usually) get a handy menu listing what achievements you can attain next, giving your further playtime direction.
In a similar vein, look at the success Call Of Duty 4 has had. Even today, well after the launch of it's "successor" people are playing the hell out of it. Well after they've gotten all the gear, well after their "reason to keep playing" according to common MMO theory has gone, they're still in it. Why? It's STILL FUN. And along the way, they're earning non-gear badges which give nothing more than satisfaction. It's not about getting the bestsest, statiest gear (in fact not all you unlock along the way is good for much apart from bragging rights), it's about having fun playing the game and getting a nice pat on the back for doing so.
MMOs could easily embrace this concept, in fact some have in all-too-fleeting forms. But when you make them secondary to the gear/loot grind as in WoW, or turn them into an amusing but unstructured aside as in WAR (don't ever have awards then without information as to how you earn them, because most people won't bother finding out and if they don't know there's no incentive to get 'em) you're missing the point.
And there's another aspect to achievements: Meta-Rewards which don't affect balance. In XboX live, Points accumulated by completing achievements give you a total to brag about and money to spend. Neither affects your play or gives you an advantage playing, just options. In Valve's Team Fortress 2, accumulating achievements opens up class rewards which give you additional play options without giving you an unbalancing advantage against those who haven't gone as far.
So rather than perpetuating the gear grind, MMO developers, reward your players for playing! Give them titles or badges for achieving things in-game, with a list of the achievements they can earn and meta-rewards for completing more. Give them meta-rewards that open up more options without giving a simple gear advantage. Stop making MMOs a job the player has to pay for, and make it a fun environment which rewards time spent in it. Because that we want to pay for.
In addition, a shout-out to David Shuster, about the only TV pundit I've seen take up the cause of Rebuilding the Twin Towers. Thanks, David, keep the fight going and maybe the quest will actually get some traction behind it. God knows maybe 3 people read my post on it, lol.
To the topic:
Depth in an MMO is challenging. What do you offer a player outside the main quests? What keeps them going after hitting the level cap? The basicly answer to this is "raid" content (dungeon craws designed for large groups) and/or PvP content. But the way PvP and Raid content are presented has always been vexing to me. Defeating an enemy team, winning a match, beating a boss, or getting all the way through a multi-hour dungeon are accomplishments. But most MMOs to date simply treat them as "yet another thing you did." And by this I mean they become part of "The Grind." Dun Dun Duuuunnnnn.
The problem is that rather than having to add tons of Raid or PvP content, developers would rather you played the same over and over again. And to force you to do that, they add in some super-shiny loot or gear that you can ONLY get by playing them over and over and over and over and over and yes I'm doing this and over and over again. Fine in theory, very frustrating to the player in practice. Games should be fun, you should be able to access all they have to offer just by having FUN. But The Grind makes it feel like a job, and after you've already Ground all the way through to "endgame" having more grind staring you in the face feels pretty crappy. Worse is when the grind begins to take ridiculous proportions, like the infamous 40-man instances of WoW.
Theory: MMOs need to stop worrying about Retention and learn to love Achievements
Xbox Live, Steam, Playstation Network, etc have all implemented systems for rewarding players who get "achievements" playing their games. They don't offer any special bonuses, if you miss a few who cares? But you get a way of showing off what you've accomplished (points, titles, trophies, etc) and you (usually) get a handy menu listing what achievements you can attain next, giving your further playtime direction.
In a similar vein, look at the success Call Of Duty 4 has had. Even today, well after the launch of it's "successor" people are playing the hell out of it. Well after they've gotten all the gear, well after their "reason to keep playing" according to common MMO theory has gone, they're still in it. Why? It's STILL FUN. And along the way, they're earning non-gear badges which give nothing more than satisfaction. It's not about getting the bestsest, statiest gear (in fact not all you unlock along the way is good for much apart from bragging rights), it's about having fun playing the game and getting a nice pat on the back for doing so.
MMOs could easily embrace this concept, in fact some have in all-too-fleeting forms. But when you make them secondary to the gear/loot grind as in WoW, or turn them into an amusing but unstructured aside as in WAR (don't ever have awards then without information as to how you earn them, because most people won't bother finding out and if they don't know there's no incentive to get 'em) you're missing the point.
And there's another aspect to achievements: Meta-Rewards which don't affect balance. In XboX live, Points accumulated by completing achievements give you a total to brag about and money to spend. Neither affects your play or gives you an advantage playing, just options. In Valve's Team Fortress 2, accumulating achievements opens up class rewards which give you additional play options without giving you an unbalancing advantage against those who haven't gone as far.
So rather than perpetuating the gear grind, MMO developers, reward your players for playing! Give them titles or badges for achieving things in-game, with a list of the achievements they can earn and meta-rewards for completing more. Give them meta-rewards that open up more options without giving a simple gear advantage. Stop making MMOs a job the player has to pay for, and make it a fun environment which rewards time spent in it. Because that we want to pay for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
