Ares I in political trouble?

[docm]

Like NASA Watch or not this post there is interesting;<br /><br />Link....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Political Objections to Ares 1 Are Apparently On The Rise</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Editor's note:</b> Over the past several weeks I have had an opportunity to talk with people who are working space policy - and related issues - for both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates and party organizations. One common theme is readily apparent (so far) - on both sides: a greater use of private sector solutions - i.e. the use of commercial launch vehicles - specifically EELVs - as the launch vehicle of choice for the CEV. No one seems to be all that fond of continuing the development of Ares 1 (a government-owned solution) or the cost of developing something that already exists i.e. something you can buy now (EELVs). Of course, much can change between now and the election - and who will run NASA in 2009. But the writing on the wall is starting to become rather clear.<br /><br /><b>Editor's update:</b> Contrary to what some of the space chat pages would suggest in response to this post last night, the individuals I have spoken with are not other space chat site posters whose opinions are pulled out of thin air. Rather, these are individuals, many of whom who work here in Washington, DC with significant positions in government, politics, industry, and academia. Many are seasoned political and campaign veterans.<br /><br />Posted by kcowing at June 12, 2007 9:19 AM <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />Problem is the cost of decommissioning the VAB, SRB facilities etc. would be so high I'm not sure any money would be saved. <br /><br />Care to weigh in on that S_G? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

To be honest, if they favor more private investment then I"m for it..

 

[j05h]

<i>> Problem is the cost of decommissioning the VAB, SRB facilities etc. would be so high I'm not sure any money would be saved. </i><br /><br />NASA and other agencies and businesses that deal in Very Large Toys have "abandon in place" policies. The VAB is vastly oversized for operating horizontally-integrated (or pad integrated) EELVs - which will probably fly from the CCAFS anyhow. The whole point of the "capsule-on-EELV" approach is to greatly reduce infrastructure and operating costs.<br /><br />In other words, they want to save a couple hundred million dollars by spending several tens of billions extra. Is the goal to go to the Moon and Mars or to keep Cold War icons operating?<br /><br />One last thing, please notice Keith's derision of "space chat sites" pulling stuff out of "thin air". Keith, like Jeff Bell, trolls all the forums looking for ideas. At least Jim Oberg posts actual questions (on sci.space.policy) to generate discussion. Uplink, NSF.com, Selenian Boondocks and others have been way ahead of the curve on this. Keith is deriding his sources of analysis and largest audience. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">The VAB is vastly oversized for operating horizontally-integrated (or pad integrated) EELVs</font><br /><br />Would VAB be required for Ares V? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Keith has a couple follow up comments here...<br /><br />http://www.transterrestrial.com/mt-stats.cgi?entry_id=9178<br /><br />

 

[holmec]

I'm with you docm, you need VAB for Ares V unless they want to scrap it and change drastically NASA's plans for space. <br /><br />In any case this might show that the intent to let commercial (new)space has a shot is alive and well, but commercial (new) space has yet to prove itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>To be honest, if they favor more private investment then I"m for it.. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Me too.<br /><br />Ares I is all about <b>just</b> transporting crews to LEO/ISS. But as we all know it is quite likely that several private companies will have developed that capability in about 5 years.<br /><br />From what I understand NASA's sole reason for wanting the Ares I rocket is just so that they retain in-house ownership of a LEO-access capability ie. no ultimate dependency on private industry.<br /><br />IMO the question is if SpaceX and others achieve a robust/efficient, manned LEO capability before completion of NASA's Ares I, how will this impact the perceived need for it by politicians?

 

[christine16]

they are different

 

[thereiwas]

Evidence suggests that NASA carefully defined the mission of Ares-I so that Delta-IV or Atlas-V would not meet the requirements.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><i>"But as we all know it is quite likely that several private companies will have developed that capability in about 5 years. " </i><br /><br />That is certainly is not a sure thing ! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />True. But nothing's sure/certain, however it is likely that at least one company will succeed within several years. People like Rutan will see to it.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Evidence suggests that NASA carefully defined the mission of Ares-I so that Delta-IV or Atlas-V would not meet the requirements.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Conspiracy theories aside, it's just not trivial to make a manned capsule able to carry that many crew and still fit it on existing launchers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Not true. The Delta IV or Atlas V can not perform the mission of the Ares I. Also NASA certainly can not depend on a commercial LEO capability being ready in time. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Oh ok I see, but apart from the schedule, what then is the mission of Ares I such that SpaceX's proposed manned launcher (or similar) can't be developed to loft Orion to LEO?

 

[josh_simonson]

I doubt scaled composites will have an orbital vehicle in Burt's lifetime. Their technologies do not have an evolutionary path to a practical orbital vehicle.

 

[thereiwas]

Wouldn't the logical configuration be to use SpaceX's own Dragon on a Falcon to get to LEO? Orion is overkill for such a taxi service, and that is all COTS is about.<br /><br />If you define the mission as "Get Orion to ISS" then you are falling for the "define the mission so only Ares wins" dance.

 

[scottb50]

Their technologies do not have an evolutionary path to a practical orbital vehicle.....<br /><br />The technologies you know about. The basic design for SS-2 was pretty much finished a year or a year and a half ago if it's being built now. I doubt Burts been on vacation since then.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Problem is the cost of decommissioning the VAB, SRB facilities etc. would be so high I'm not sure any money would be saved. </font><br /><br />It seems that we're re-visiting Griffin & ESAS decision a few years back. In restrospect, even the supporter of Ares I and Ares V agree that the decision is political, not technical or economical. The decision was driven by NASA admistrator of wanting to pull the work "in-house" as oppose to leaving it to the contractors, like what NASA has been doing for the last 50 years (including the Saturn program). Perhaps the underlying reason for that decision, as well as using the "shuttle-derived" hardware, facilities & personnel, is to maintain jobs for NASA employees in order to gather congressional support. This is recognize as a political "pork" but perhaps unavoidable due to NASA's funding reality.<br /><br />That decision drove NASA to the architecture of Ares I & V today. That decision drove the ESAS study to skew favor toward Ares vehicles and made some unrealistic assumption to shed unfavorable lights on the EELV options. It was clear that the ESAS study main objective was to "rubber-stamp" what Griffin wanted and not providing a technical objective study. Record has shown that the ESAS' recommended architecture (Ares 1) fell apart just within 6 month of publishing its study, and they were forced to dropped the SSME as 2nd stage engine, went back to a J-2 option and drove the decision to a 5-segment SRB (FSB).<br /><br />All I've said above is history and anyone who follows the development of Ares I clearly aware of these events. Now, as MSFC get into the detail design of Ares I, more and more vehicle problems show up. This is not suprising as many of these problems were anticipated and widely talked about from experienced vehicle designers in industry. In fairness to MSFC, this is a part of design process and criticism toward them would be unfair. What is fair to criticize w <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<Ares I is all about just transporting crews to LEO/ISS.><br /><br />NASA's own propaganda has led you to that mistaken conclusion. In reality Ares I is designed for transporting a large mass of propellant (required only for the lunar mission) in addition to launching crew to LEO. <br /><br />The whole rationalization behind the so-called Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) is safety, maximizing safety by separating crew launch from cargo launch. Yet NASA requires launching some of the propellant for the lunar mission alongside the crew capsule. That is the real reason the clean sheet design Ares I was selected over existing EELV. The total payload of existing EELV was just a little bit too small to meet the combined crew + cargo mass NASA demanded for the so-called CLV.

 

[gunsandrockets]

Exactly right!

 

[gunsandrockets]

<I doubt scaled composites will have an orbital vehicle in Burt's lifetime. Their technologies do not have an evolutionary path to a practical orbital vehicle.><br /><br />I thought scaled composites is part of t/Space which bid for the ISS COTS! <br /><br />The air-launch technologies of scaled composites DO have an evolutionary path to practical orbital vehicles. Go peruse the t/Space website and see for yourself...<br /><br />http://www.transformspace.com/

 

[gunsandrockets]

<Evidence suggests that NASA carefully defined the mission of Ares-I so that Delta-IV or Atlas-V would not meet the requirements. ><br /><br />Exactly right!

 

[gunsandrockets]

<Also NASA certainly can not depend on a commercial LEO capability being ready in time.><br /><br />In time, as in the currently anticipated 2015 availability date of the CEV?

 

[gunsandrockets]

<Conspiracy theories aside, it's just not trivial to make a manned capsule able to carry that many crew and still fit it on existing launchers.><br /><br />The trade studies the contractors made before Griffin took the helm strongly suggest the ESAS capsule is grossly oversized. In fact the ESAS report itself says the capsule was increased in scale to match the payload of the Ares I.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Conspiracy theories aside, it's just not trivial to make a manned capsule able to carry that many crew and still fit it on existing launchers.</font>/i><br /><br />You walked right into the trap <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />NASA could have chosen the following approach: (1) Ask "What EELV capabilities will we have by 2015 (or choose a date)?" And then ask (2) "What missions can we build around that capability?"<br /><br />Instead, by specifying a crew of 4 to the surface of the Moon, NASA may have disqualified EELV vehicles. What is so magical about 4? Would crews of 2 to the surface have been so bad? If by choosing a crew of 2, could NASA have dramatically cut development costs, significantly cut operational costs, and dramatically accelerated the schedule? If so, could NASA fly more missions to the Moon earlier, putting the same number of people on the Moon during any given year, but start the process much sooner? <br /><br />I am not saying there <i><b>was</b></i> a conspiracy to lock out EELVs and force the building of new rockets, but in any endeavor it is trivial to specify semi-arbitrary requirements that exceed existing capabilities and thus justify the building of new things.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">That is certainly is not a sure thing !</font>/i><br /><br />This is true. For technical or business reasons the private companies may pull out of the effort. As a very simple example, look at how many of the announced X Prize teams actually flew a person? (1) Griffin has used this explanation (commercial companies may not make it through) as a primary reason for the government to develop duplicative (and potentially more expensive but more likely to succeed) efforts.<br /><br />On the other hand, many large government program have been cancelled (e.g., the Navy's A-12, the Army Crusader, several Apollo missions, and almost Freedom/ISS in 1993).<br /><br />Long-term projects that cross presidential boundaries are always at high risk of being cancelled.</i>

 

[dreada5]

My real point was that I now believe someone/some company will eventually provide a manned LEO capability and it'll most likely be well within a decade from now.<br /><br />Who'd have thought X-Prize would have had a so successful winner back in 2004... I certainly did not!