Is Ares I another dead end like the Shuttle?

[comga]

It can't end with Calli's post because many would say that it is wrong. Before we can end it we would have to agree on the meaning of "dead end" . <br /><br />The model-T was a success because future cars built on the same assembly line system with an internal combustion engine, turn by operating the front tires with a steering wheel, etc. The Stanley Steamer was a dead end.<br /><br />The Spruce Goose was a dead end, as lightweight landing gear obviated the sea plane. The X-15 was a spaectacular, wonderful, and highly successful plane, but it was to a degree a dead end in that no one was able to develope a usable system for manned hypersonic or orbital flight based on it. However, it was part of the path to the Pegasus, which used the same B-52 for its initial flights, albeit without a pilot and with solid rocket engines. <br /><br />Buran was a dead end for the same reason the Shuttle was a dead end. Bringing a 100 ton capsule back to Earth after delivering 20 tons can never be economical. However, Buran was also a programatic and political failure whereas the Shuttle has had a great many successes. However, the Shuttle *IS* a technological dead end because even NASA is using very little of the technolgy for the next generation. No wings, no dropped fuel tank, no non-ablative heat shield, no reusable engines, no wheeled runway landings or ground landings of any kind. Even the Stick and SRBs for the Ares-V are essentially new rockets. They reuse only the casing, which are a fraction of the cost and of marginal economics. It is an economic dead end because we have spent well over $1B per flight if you amoritize all the costs.<br /><br />Apollo was a spectactular, wonderful, historic, patriotic, and yes, scientific success. All of us wish we still had those vehicles and capabilities. However, it was a dead end in that it was an unsustainable system. We lost Apollo 18, 19, and 20, even though they were completely built, because it cost more to operate than was

 

[holmec]

And yet with all those dead ends people have managed to learn from.<br /><br />The control system of the 'Spruce Goose' was technology incoproated in designs of many heavy aircarft, other than C-130 I think. <br /><br />X-15's data was used to spur the creation of STS.<br /><br />Energia system gave way to a new launcher, the Zenit which Sea Launch uses.<br /><br />And now Apollo is giving way to the Constellation program.<br /> <br />So while you may call them dead ends, I call them research. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> JO5H, the photo says " image credit: Pat McCracken "</i><br /><br />Someday, I promise, I'll learn to read! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>