Is Ares I another dead end like the Shuttle?

[askold]

"and whose proposal is found to have offered the best value." " <br /><br />"It doesn't not say lowest cost. It said "best value" Cost is just one of many discriminators."<br /><br />Here's the result of meeting the minimal requirements at the lowest cost (i.e. - best value):<br /><br />Regarding the MRO's imaging problems:<br /><br /><i>A team at Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Boulder, Colo., designer and builder of the instrument, has used an engineering model of the camera's focal-plane system to successfully duplicate the problem. This has helped in understanding causes and in testing a procedure for warming the focal-plane electronics prior to each image. <b>One cause is that an electrical interface lacked extra capability beyond minimum requirements.</b></i><br /><br />There's your "best value".

 

[jimfromnsf]

"One cause is that an electrical interface lacked extra capability beyond minimum requirements.<br /><br />There's your "best value"."<br /><br />Not applicable. <br />1. It met the requirements<br />2. It wasn't a gov't contract.<br /> 2.a. JPL spacecraft (not gov't)<br /> 2.b subsystem or component wasn't part of the "spacecraft", it was part of an instrument<br /> 2.c The instrument was supplied by the Univ. of Arizona and built by Ball <br /> 2.D It would be Ball's procurement practices<br /><br />The FAR was not applicable in this case.<br />

 

[comga]

"A team at Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Boulder, Colo., designer and builder of the instrument, .... One cause is that an electrical interface lacked extra capability beyond minimum requirements."<br /><br />"There's your "best value". "<br /><br />The statement is not accurate. The circuit elements were not deleted for cost, nor were they deleted because the system met "minimum requirements" without them. I believe it was an error, discovered before launch but whose significance was not known until it interacted with other aspects of operations in Mars orbit, and which could not be corrected in time for launch. <br /><br />Perfection is very expensive, and particularly hard to achieve in time for a launch to Mars. Dr. Alfred McEwen, the HiRISE Principal Investigator, is still very happy with the instrument.<br /><br />If there is anything relevant to this Ares I in this is that driving down risk, which is particularly important to manned flight, will be very very expensive, and an organization's approach to this issue of risk has a strong influence, not only on the cost, but the capabilities. Having decided that a Shuttle SRB derived first stage is the safest technology, the capabilities will shrink to accommodate it. This remains true even after developing a mostly new 5-segment SRB.

 

[CalliArcale]

Unfortunately, requirements definition is an area that can make or break a project, but it gets overlooked. In both government and commercial contracting. If you don't accurately define just what it is you want to build (and by "you" I mean both the customer and the contractor; they both have a serious responsibility in this phase), then it'll be pure luck whether or not you'll be happy with the result. I'm not sure how NASA is in this area, but I did read a GAO report blasting the DoD for really letting requirements get out of control on space-related contracts recently. "Requirements creep" can be a huge area for uncontrolled cost growth if you're not careful. <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>

 

[comga]

NASA and requirements creep? Why do you think the Mars Exploration Rovers cost $800M, however, successful and overachieving, the Mars Science Lander will cost $1.2B, and Ares 1/Orion, a repetition of the Saturn 1B/ Apollo, will cost, what? $7-12B? <br /><br />However, the issues with HiRISE had little to do with requirements definition. That was done thoroughly and well, AFAIK. My post was an attempt to take issue with the use of HiRISE as an egregious example of "lowest bidder" as a recipe for failure.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

Shuttle was and is not a dead end. It has been a successful program.<br /><br />Ares I will not be a dead end. It is just a lauch system and can be replaced if there are better alternatives, if NASA is willing to. <br /><br />Don't worry about Ares I, worry about Ares V.

 

[thereiwas]

It has been "a successful program" only by having the definition of "success" changed along the way to accommodate its limitations.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It has been "a successful program" only by having the definition of "success" changed along the way to accommodate its limitations. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's very, very often the case for larger projects. "Goals" are set for strategic reasons if you want to convince people to fund your project. By the way, if you already convinced people and got the funding, people do the exact opposite - they level down their goals in order to call a mission a total success even though it did only accomplish little. For instance, the MERs had a nominal lifetime of 90 days after the mission was a success - in reality, it would of course been a great disappointment for the MER team if the rovers would have failed at approximately 90 days...<br /><br />I say it again, from any reasonable point of view, the Shuttle needs to be deemed a successful project. That it did not fully delivered what scientists and engineers have stated as "goals" in order to get funding for it, does not change that fact.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It has been "a successful program" only by having the definition of "success" changed along the way to accommodate its limitations.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />??<br /><br />All programs change on the way to reality. ARES I was supposed to take Orion command module to low earth orbit. If they feel like it won't do that, their scrap the rocket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Are I maqy be a dead end but not Orion.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />If ARES I is dead, better let NASA and Boeing know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

<i>Is Ares I another dead end like the Shuttle?</i><br /><br /><br />Just as much a deadend, I suppose, as the trireme, Nina, Pinta, Santa Maria, Monitor, Merrimac, Nautilus, Langley, Great Eastern, DC-3, Wright Flyer, XB-70, X-3, X-15, Gee Bee, Electra, . . . . . . <br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

. . . Northrop Gamma, Me162, X-1, SS-1, 707, B-29, B-35, Sopwith Camel, Brewster Buffalo, Mitsubishi Zero, L-1011, DC-2, C-99, F-14, F-20, F-86, V-2, X-15 . . . <br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Or Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vulture2]

We built dirigibles in the 30's. Then there was the Spruce Goose. We tend to remember the aircraft that demonstrated new technology, even if they did not go into production, and forget the obsolete duds. I'm not aware of any project in aviation history that spent as much to develop a vehicle based on 40 year old technology as the Ares that was, in the end, worth the investment. More important, NASA/NACA's original mission was to assist industry by advancing the technology of flight. Now NASA cannot develop new technology because it is spending all the money it has flying missions.

 

[nuaetius]

Sort of off subject but NASA should really use this as a PR photo for the Shuttle program. The Shadow of the STS points to the moon... NICE BTW not photo shop<br /><br />http://centripetalnotion.com/2007/06/04/11:31:06/

 

[j05h]

That photo is amazing! Anyone know who the photographer was?<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That photo is amazing! Anyone know who the photographer was? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It is pretty amazing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

vulture2:<br />Now NASA cannot develop new technology because it is spending all the money it has flying missions.<br /><br />Me:<br />And all the money NASA has is because the 3Ps (Press, public, politicians) won't adequately budget NASA. We could budget NASA at around 1.5% GDP today and still be well below Apollo funding levels. But NASA won't probably ever see funding beyond 1% GDP again so we will ultimately have to rely on what the private sector can do for human access to space beyond the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

I'll have to agree with vulture on this one. I believe very strongly that Ares is a dead end and a waste of precious resources.

 

[qso1]

I'm not surprised and no need to be sorry, your entitled to your opinion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

For 30 years the shuttle has flown mission that no other spacecraft could accomplish. Does that constitute a dead end? We have to stop thinking that there is "one perfect spaceship" that can potentially do everything. Space--like any other frontier--will be won by using a wide variety of vehicles. Is a tractor trailer a "dead end" because it doesn't make a very good family car? Is a freight train a "dead end" because it can't cross an ocean? Is a supertanker a "dead end" because you can't drive it down a highway?<br /><br />Its not up to NASA either to develop and fly every spacecraft concievable for doing everything that will need to be done in space. NASA has done more than its share of developing and testing publicly available (to American companies anyway) technology for getting into space. The private companies are only just now really getting into space in a serious way. The "money is no object" attitude of the cold war forced the US and USSR to accelerate their space activity far beyond anything private companies could afford--even very few othe NATIONs could afford it! Only now is space travel realisitically in the realm of private enterprise. I'm sure will see a wide vriety of spacecraft flying different kinds of missions, including Ares I and V, a variety of EELVs with and without crewed capsules, spaceplanes, even aging Soyuzes.

 

[qso1]

The Russian shuttle Buran was a dead end...not because it was inferior or dangerous...but because it was never given a chance to prove itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

That's gives a good perspective. Thank you. If one wants to see a real dead-end, don't look to Shuttle or Ares -- look to Buran. What a sad story that was. It could've been a very effective program, and Energia was such a magnificent launcher. But the way it turned out was a complete, total, and utter waste. Good for nothing besides saying "eh, we can build a shuttle too", and it's stupid to spend billions on that unless you're going to *do* something with it. But that's politics for you. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <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>

 

[rybanis]

Why can't the thread just end with Calli's post? Seems like a good end to the argument <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[comga]

JO5H, the photo says " image credit: Pat McCracken "