DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[J.McDonald]

Agree.

How can anyone know if the STICK works or not until it is tested?

Conjecture works.......sometimes I think.

Well Ares I-X won't really tell us much either way. It tests:

- an SRB which has already been tested hundreds of times. Not the new one.
- an interstage which WILL be real Ares hardware
- a roll control system borrowed from a missile and not the same as the one that Ares will use.
- avionics borrowed from Atlas and not the same as the ones Ares will use
- an out of date BPC OML which makes the aerodynamic data different to what's needed for Ares.
- a lump of steel rather than the real upper stage.
- etc.

I'm not against testing per se, just think it would have made sense to, at a minimum, wait for the 5-seg before flying the first test. It seems the 5-seg isn't too far away now anyway, and we might find ourselves in the positino where Ares I-X is delayed so far that it could have used the 5-seg. Sigh.

[JimMcDade]

Ares_Is_Go, Welcome to the discussion. You have a good point. There are always unknown unknowns, aren't there. The Space Shuttle still provides the occasional unpredictable, and sometimes tragic, surprise.

Ares I is the first man-rated booster system that relies exclusively on a solid propellant first stage. Launching people, or satellites into orbit is not like firing a cannon. You don't just point and shoot. The first full-up Ares I launch may result in design changes or refinements such as altering the internal geometry of the propellant.

The Ares I team learns a lot from static firings, but the real test will not come until the first Ares I flies a full launch profile to orbit.

Ares I is a pioneering concept. If it is proves to be a successful, reliable and efficient concept, some of the proponents of using only large, expensive, complex, liquid propellant boosters for human space missions, will see Ares I as a significant setback. Only time will tell.

I hope that Ares I will be a success. Liquid fueled boosters are enormously expensive and complex with all of the finely engineered plumbing, tanks, pumps, on-board controls, and ground support, systems required to fly them. Solids can get rather complicated, particularly with add-ons such as oscillation dampers, but the level of complexity is still not close to that of the a liquids.

The manufacturing and reuse advantages of solids are obvious. A solid does not require continuous cryogenic propellant topping and tank pressurization control at the pad during the final countdown. There are a lot of potential cost savings that could make access to space cheaper if Ares I proves to be a success. Ares I might prove to be safer, as well.

I think that we have seen something like 264 Space Shuttle launches with only one SRB failure over 28 years of service. The STS-26 SRB failure was the result of a design flaw that was previously identified. Overall, the SRBs have an unprecedented success rate in the field of rocketry.

[Rick]

John, Jim,
I am wondering if he was referring to an SRB not attached to a stack flying? That IS a totally new test.

Just a guess on my part.

[Me2]

There are a lot of potential cost savings that could make access to space cheaper if Ares I proves to be a success.

That is not going to happen. The SRB is more labor intensive than a LRB. The SRB require more facilities pre and post launch (RPSF, ARF, Hangar AF, VAB, etc) Ares I costs are going to be almost like the shuttle's. It will never approach the EELV's

[JimMcDade]

Me2, Time will tell. It always does.

NASA will be retrieving and refurbishing one booster per launch instead of the two required for STS. Also, those recovery and processing facilities already exist, although some modifications and additions will be required. Most, if not all, of the personnel required to perform these tasks also exist and are on the payroll.

Have you got some numbers (dollars figure estimates) that you can share with us that will support your position?

[Me2]

Most, if not all, of the personnel required to perform these tasks also exist and are on the payroll.

So what is your point?
They aren't free. Which means that CxP will have to fund them and their time is charged to Ares I. Which means Ares I will be expensive. The difference between 1 &2 SRB's is minor. I guess you don't understand cost accounting. If there is no Ares, there is no need to fund these jobs. KSC doesn't pay for capabilities. Programs fund capabilities they require at KSC. If a capability isn't funded, it goes away

Also all those recovery and processing facilities will need to be maintained.

[JimMcDade]

Me2,

Today is 30 April. D-Day for the alternatives, according to Logsdon.

Now that you have switched your focus on cost comparisons after the technical arguments against Ares I failed to catch hold, please provide us with some specific figures.

First. I do understand cost accounting. I used to be a department head and I had to sit down with a financial officer every month + at least one big annual budget meeting. I also own my own business and do the books myself.

Second, I asked your for the comparative numbers, so that we can better understand your claims. All that we hear from you is another claim, unsupported by actual comparative numbers or analysis. And then, you tossed in another personal slight, "I guess you don't understand cost accounting."

Please provide your inclusive relative cost estimates that include fixed and variable costs over the life of a program with each launch system, with maybe four to six launches per year.

[Danny Dot]

Sorry John.

snip
If NASA wishes to continue to attempt to design launch vehicles, let them compete against others outside NASA, and let an independent body [answerable to the president and/or OMB] make the call.

Maybe it'll take numerous shuttle debacles and a Constellation FUBAR to bring some pragmatism and common sense to American space policy.

Amen!!!

NASA had a launcher and ULA had two launchers. Guess which launcher NASA picked? Of course they picked their own design.

Danny Deger

[Me2]

Me2,

1. Now that you have switched your focus on cost comparisons after the technical arguments against Ares I failed to catch hold, please provide us with some specific figures.

2. Please provide your inclusive relative cost estimates that include fixed and variable costs over the life of a program with each launch system, with maybe four to six launches per year.

1. Wrong, It still has major problems (among thoseTO is not solved or mitigated) and another just popped up that it going to reduce its performance even more. Ares I has both cost, schedule and technical problems.

2. I can't give you the EELV cost since they are propriety. But for comparison, as stated over and 2 EELV's with 3 launch pads were developed for 3 billion. Ares I development is going to cost 15 billion.

Also the 4-6 launches for Ares I is bogus, the manifest is for 2-4 per year

[Rick]

Amen!!!

NASA had a launcher and ULA had two launchers. Guess which launcher NASA picked? Of course they picked their own design.

Danny Deger

This might be a dumb question, but why wouldn't they pick their own design? After all, it's their choice.

Now, if it succeeds remains to be seen. Only time will tell.

[J.McDonald]

This might be a dumb question, but why wouldn't they pick their own design? After all, it's their choice.

Now, if it succeeds remains to be seen. Only time will tell.

Ummm.. because they are a publicly accountable body? Because they shouldn't just get carte blanche? Because it is borderline criminal for them to waste taxpayers' money on a project when it could be done cheaper another way?

If it's "their choice" then there's something very wrong with the NASA is allowed to run.
How is this any different to, for example, a school deciding to spend all of its budget on a new car for the head teacher, when actually they needed to buy classroom equipment? In the UK at least, schools have overseers who prevent misuse of funds. I assume, and hope, the same sort of thing happens for NASA!

[Rick]

There's alot of assumptions there I think in your response. I was hoping for an objective answer?

I don't fault you however for writing what you think, just that the assumptions you are making are a personal opinion, and not at all fact.

Happy Friday.

[J.McDonald]

OK, I'm not sure which assumptions I made that were erroneous (perhaps you could explain?).
But I'll try to be more objective, so here goes:
You asked 'why wouldn't NASA pick their own design'.

I say, because the alternatives offered a cheaper and faster route with less chance of schedule slips. This could have freed up funding earlier for work on the moon rocket and the lander.
Both EELVs and their pads were developed for the cost of the 5-seg RSRM alone. OSP laid all the groundwork for EELV man-rating. To me, it seems that a combination of different priorities (safety over-ruling costs and schedule) plus a dose of NIH were factors in NASA's decision.

[JimMcDade]

The NASA administrators were hired to specifically make such decisions as choosing launch vehicles. Do we really want corporations or independent experts to have authority over the people that we entrust with making these decisions.

Does anybody think that ATK used it's substantial political influence to guide NASA toward Ares I? If that happened, can we assume that the EELV contractors lost their bid simply because they held less political sway than the Ares I contractors?

It is true that some contractors have led NASA astray at time in the past. It is true that some contractor engineers may know their subject matter better than their NASA counterparts. There is probably always some taint whenever a federal contract is competitively bid.

Perhaps, NASA was simply biased toward the Ares I design. So what? Holding a contrary philosophical approach or technical bias in relation to some of the bidders is not inherently illegal or ethically inappropriate.

The losers always get sore when they are rejected. I believe that it was hurt feelings that are the root cause of the whipped-up Ares I controversy.

There are legitimate and factual arguments against Ares I or any other concept that was on the table. Ares I emerged as the winner from the competitive process, but that does not mean that the aguments against Ares I would simply fade away- particularly here in the age of blogs and internet discussion groups.

In the long run, the internet bantering will probably prove to be inconsequential. In time, people will move on.

For example, one critic posting here can't produce specific numbers of any type to back his claims. He focuses on a few cherry-picked specific such as, "The SRB is more labor intensive than a LRB". That claim falls short simply because it doesn't account for the fundamental disparities between single-use boosters and the supposed saving achieved savings through the utilization of re-use with the SRB. Where are the numbers that support this claim? Are we just supposed to blindly accept the claim that SRBs are more labor intensive because NASA is trying to deceive us about Ares I?

He needs to provide the relative program life costs to add weight to such a claim. Intuitively speaking, LRBs are probably much more labor intensive while on the pad prior to launch and during initial construction, but I am not going to state that supposition as a fact, the way that poster would if he were on the other side of the debate. Naturally, there are many other labor and cost factors that an honest comparison of LRBs and SRBs would have to take into account.

Other critics also can't provide verifiable proof of their claims. They are all basically claims, not disectable arguments.

The excuses for not offering actual supporting numbers that are offered by Ares I detractors are typically one of the following: ITAR, claims that the data and numbers are a of proprietary nature, or that the mysterious "they" inside the program are being suppressed by the threat of job termination if they share the data. If any of that is true, then why issue claims that cannot be verified? It is a losing quest.

I still cannot beleive that their is not a single insider who is courageous enough to publicly step-forward, using his real name, to tell the world that Me2 or the Gang of Five are right. This Anti-Ares I campaign is of toddlers age at this point, yet we have not seen a single, credible and authoritative program insider say anything that would indicate that Ares I is in serious jeopardy. It's always some anonymous poster, hiding behind an internet handle, or some former employee who may or may not have actually been in a position to know something substantial, or somebody who overheard this or that while he worked here or there.

Meanwhile, anybody who merely suggests that the critics of Ares I are not right-on-target, is tagged as either ignorant or a blind devotee of NASA administrators and the Ares I team. It is a typical conspiracy theory mentality that lies behind such attacks.

It's all very ARES 51, isn't it?

[Rick]

OK, I'm not sure which assumptions I made that were erroneous (perhaps you could explain?).
But I'll try to be more objective, so here goes:
You asked 'why wouldn't NASA pick their own design'.

I say, because the alternatives offered a cheaper and faster route with less chance of schedule slips. This could have freed up funding earlier for work on the moon rocket and the lander.
Both EELVs and their pads were developed for the cost of the 5-seg RSRM alone. OSP laid all the groundwork for EELV man-rating. To me, it seems that a combination of different priorities (safety over-ruling costs and schedule) plus a dose of NIH were factors in NASA's decision.

Hey John,
Sure, the 'borderline criminal' statement is the one that caught my eye.

There's also no proof that using an EELV or Jupiter would not have the same concerns that you mention regarding NASA's choice.

That's my opinion of course.

[JimMcDade]

Rick, EELV, and Jupiter II...err, Jupiter Direct would indeed come with their own set of issues, not all of them predictable, just as Ares I did. You pointed out -correctly- that there is no way to know how extensive those issues could potentially be.

The overriding advantage of Ares I at this point in history, is the fact that NASA has been working the Ares I issues for quite a while. In light of the factual accounts of Ares I progress, would it make any sense to throw all of that work aside and take a new challenge with EELV of Jupiter II (The LOST IN SPACE sci-fi reference is intentional)?

EELV is a more viable alternative in comparison to Jupiter II, uh.. Direct... but the opportunity to switch to EELV passed long ago. Some of the people who still cling to Jupiter Direct hopes are crazier than Sesmar from the Dream Monster episode of LIS.

[J.McDonald]

The NASA administrators were hired to specifically make such decisions as choosing launch vehicles. Do we really want corporations or independent experts to have authority over the people that we entrust with making these decisions.

This reminds me of the arguments people made in 2003 on the eve of war. It's a fundamental difference in viewpoint- do we appoint a person to have total control over decisions, or do we we retain some control ourselves? It's my opinion that a publicly accountable body is acocuntable at all times, not just at the time of appointment.

Does anybody think that ATK used it's substantial political influence to guide NASA toward Ares I? If that happened, can we assume that the EELV contractors lost their bid simply because they held less political sway than the Ares I contractors?

No first hand experience here, but Danny Deger's comments make for very interesting reading on this issue, don't you think?

The losers always get sore when they are rejected. I believe that it was hurt feelings that are the root cause of the whipped-up Ares I controversy.

You can believe that if you want. When ESAS was announced, I thought it was a fantastic idea. I had been a fan of the Soviet Energia system- hevay lifter whose strap-on boosters become an EELV-class launcher themselves. It seemed like the perfect US counterpart. It was only when I started to read up about how expensive and late Ares-I would be that I started asking why they didn't just finish off the OSP project of man-rating the EELVs.
Like me, Ross Tierney was initially an ESAS/Ares fan. Neither of us had 'hurt feelings' because we had no dog in the fight, so to speak.
I still don't have a dog in the fight. I have no vested interest in Ares, EELV, or DIRECT. But I have tried to weigh up the pros and cons of each approach and have always found Ares to be flawed. Like I have said so many times, I would welcome evidence that would change my mind, but so far nothing has been presented.

I still cannot beleive that their is not a single insider who is courageous enough to publicly step-forward, using his real name, to tell the world that Me2 or the Gang of Five are right. This Anti-Ares I campaign is of toddlers age at this point, yet we have not seen a single, credible and authoritative program insider say anything that would indicate that Ares I is in serious jeopardy. It's always some anonymous poster, hiding behind an internet handle, or some former employee who may or may not have actually been in a position to know something substantial, or somebody who overheard this or that while he worked here or there.

Meanwhile, anybody who merely suggests that the critics of Ares I are not right-on-target, is tagged as either ignorant or a blind devotee of NASA administrators and the Ares I team. It is a typical conspiracy theory mentality that lies behind such attacks.

It's all very ARES 51, isn't it?

As an outsider, it's hard to know what to think. One the one hand, the 'official' NASA position is that all is well. Just like it was during the X33 program, or any other unfinished project.
On the other hand there is my own sense of judgement which tells me that Ares seems the most costly and longest development option on the table. Couple this with multiple apparently well informed but, yes, anonymous internet sources who expound apparently sensible anti-Ares arguments.

Your comments about ex-NASA employees could be construed as a direct slur against Danny Deger; I hope that isn't what you intended. I find his description of NASA management culture to be a very strong piece of evidence for why 'insiders' might not speak out. The JSC video is a good second source of information on this issue.

[Rick]

Your comments about ex-NASA employees could be construed as a direct slur against Danny Deger; I hope that isn't what you intended. I find his description of NASA management culture to be a very strong piece of evidence for why 'insiders' might not speak out. The JSC video is a good second source of information on this issue.

I've been reading the posts, and although I am NOT defending Jim here, I doubt he was referring to Danny.

Danny is about the only person who was/has been involved personally that identified himself. Kudo's to Mr. Deger for being honest and forthright.

[Rick]

On the other hand there is my own sense of judgement which tells me that Ares seems the most costly and longest development option on the table.

In general, people seem to always, always forget that there has been TONS of money spent on proposals, RFP's, infrastructure changes, employee reallocations etc, in support of the current course of the VSE.

I've heard from several people that are not Ares supporters that its not a big problem to just re-write, a little, alot or just rebid a contract. Those who say this, have not an inkling of understanding about contractual agreements.

I'm not opposed to Direct (except for the sometimes vicious attacks (which have happened to me by the way), nor am I against EELV. I am against starting ALL over again, when the current project has been worked on for 5 years now.

That's just me though.

[JimMcDade]

No offense to Danny intended. He is much more rational than the people I am thinking of.

What happened with X-33 is not parallel to any Ares I events, up to this point. X-33 was doomed from the start thanks to the lack of political will behind moving beyond STS at that time.

The USA has a long history of not following though with space plans and concepts since the Apollo days, but that problem has originated outside of NASA, not within the agency. NASA must be given a GOAL and a DEADLINE in addition to the MONEY in order to turn a plan into hardware.

Apollo had firm backing from two Presidents and a lot of powerful Congressmen. The last Bush sort of had the will to make Project Constellation happen, but he was overwhelmed by the War on Terror, economic woes and the collapse of his political foundation. A few key members of Congress (Nelson, Shelby, and co.) are still carrying the NASA fire. I hope so, anyway.