The editorial board at the Orlando Sentinel (Florida’s largest paper) weighs in:
If U.S. space-policy decisions were dictated based solely on spectacle, the Ares I would be a shoo-in as NASA’s next manned vehicle. Unfortunately for fans of the rocket, cost, design and timing also matter.
Problems with all three argue for scrapping Ares I and assigning commercial rockets the task of flying to the international space station in low-Earth orbit. That would allow the agency to concentrate on its pre-shuttle mission of cutting-edge exploration.
I think we’re reaching the point at which its supporters are trying to swim up Niagara Falls.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Mark Matthews over at the Sentinel has a story on the hearings discussing the future of the program.
This should shock no one:
“There are a few people in the administration who want to kill Ares I and put all the money in commercial and the [Augustine] report tends to endorse that type of scenario. I think that is absolutely wrong,” said Doc Horowitz, former astronaut and Constellation architect.
If I were him, I’d just shut up, and hope that the IG doesn’t decide to open a belated investigation into his revolving door between NASA and ATK.
And then there’s this little tidbit at the end:
…there are whispers that the administration is exploring plans outside options presented by the Augustine committee, although it is unclear as to what they could include.
I suppose they could include (e.g.) bringing in the Chinese. We could just put it on the tab with all the other things we borrow money from them to buy from them.
Bringing in the Chinese would be an excellent strategic choice. The budget doesn’t allow all three of SDLV, ISS and exploration at the same time. SDLV and no exploration makes no sense. Bringing in the Chinese and scuttling the ISS in 2020 doesn’t make sense either.
Therefore bringing in the Chinese improves the chances for continuation of ISS after 2020, just as it increases the chances for SDLV cancellation. Commercial crew taxis have the same effect, it creates additional groups of special interests with a vested interest to preserve the ISS.
ISS may be a very inefficient government program just like SDLV, but at least it has synergy with commercial development of space.
They could even let MSFC continue to build paper rockets for a while, it was not as if they were going to do anything useful anyway.
The second Sentinel article includes a link to a white paper by Doug Stanley that suggested among a lot of contorted logic ideas such as using propellant depots and Ares-I to do exploration…
~Jon
I don’t agree with MM that bringing in the Chinese would be “excellent”. Bringing in the Russians was not excellent, and they had more to bring to the table. At the same time, it wasn’t the worse mistake ever that some feared it would be. And it was Hillary’s husband that opened up the tent for that camel’s nose. So, considering the Clintons’ relation with the Chinese, I wouldn’t be surprised to see that option.
Yeah lets have the Global Space Agency! The UN of the skies, that’s the ticket. We can have blue space helmets. One government can’t find it’s a$$ with both hands. Do you seriously think that a group of governments can do any better?
The comments on the second article are terrible. Elifritz looks like the voice of stone-cold reason in there.
“…there are whispers that the administration is exploring plans outside options presented by the Augustine committee, although it is unclear as to what they could include.”
I’m hardly a fan of this Admin, but this development is good (and expected). The Augustine hard-on for a HLLV and $3 bill more a year needed a bucket of cold water thrown on it.
It could kill SDLV, provide an anchor customer for commercial crew taxis and who knows even continue to provide space for space tourism. Not bad for a government program.
By all means bring in the Chinese, I hear they’re having trouble stealing technology from us fast enough currently so maybe we can help them with that little problem.
I was completely against bringing the Russians on…but ISS would have been totally screwed without them. In retrospect it was a very good, even great decision.
Let’s give the Ares 1 technology to Iran. Kills two birds with one stone.
Let me offer an alternative to the question of non-Augustine ideas being consider – specifically, what if they are looking at a pure fuel depot based architecture? If you are willing to consider fuel depots and the like as National infrastructure (like highways), and you see the potential offered by the Commercial spaceflight industry, then there develops an arguement that you need to develop the infrastructure, to help the industry grow. QED.
Anyway, just a thought
Let me offer an alternative to the question of non-Augustine ideas being consider – specifically, what if they are looking at a pure fuel depot based architecture?
That would be too good to be true. And probably DOA on the Hill.
there are whispers that the administration is exploring plans outside options presented by the Augustine committee, although it is unclear as to what they could include.
Um…let me take a guess here. I’m going to say they include the “Afghanistan” option, where we decide contesting vacuum for the right to sole occupancy of orbit is a quagmire mission, and we need to have a New Strategy, a new gloabl sustainable green vision, so let’s ponder that for a while…er…say until 2013 or 2017 or 3000 AD maybe.
Frankly, I do not think the Obama Administration cares any more about space exploration than they do about foreign policy. This is just a distraction from the true course of the Revolution. So they will be glad to kill Ares. But I would not expect them to replace it with anything better, or even equally useful.
But I would not expect them to replace it with anything better, or even equally useful.
Replacing it with nothing would be a pretty good option IMO.
Replacing it with nothing would be a pretty good option IMO
Why’s that? Because you imagine they’d take seriously the problem of, say, ISS resupply or an orbital arms race with the Chinese as the latter smell weakness? So they”ll be “forced” to award contracts privately? As opposed to just letting ISS re-enter and accepting the inevitability of Chinese military parity the way we need to accept the need of the Iranians for a nuke of their own? It’s all Bush’s fault, anyway, you know.
One of the worst maxims in politics is the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Molotov-Ribbentrop pacts are almost never good ideas, long term. If anyone thinks the Obamanauts are clever and hip with their space strategy, and that’s why they’d kill Ares, then by all means root them on. But if they’re going to kill Ares because they just don’t give a foo about space, then I would not, unless you believe Ares is not merely useless and expensive but such an actual active harm to private space activities that it’s worth pulling a nuclear trigger — blowing up national manned space activity in general — in order to kill it.
unless you believe Ares is not merely useless and expensive but such an actual active harm to private space activities that it’s worth pulling a nuclear trigger — blowing up national manned space activity in general — in order to kill it.
Here’s my concern on the matter. Suppose ten years from now, ULA is offering cheaper, more reliable manned flights to LEO than Ares I. Will NASA and Congress switch over to the ULA rockets, or will they find some way to suppress the embarrassment and save Ares jobs/contractors, say by making it illegal or impractical for the ULA to compete with Ares I? NASA and Congress have done that before. The existence of Ares I threatens commercial manned space flight because it gives a number of parties incentive to game the system rather than compete honestly.
Why’s that? Because you imagine they’d take seriously the problem of, say, ISS resupply or an orbital arms race with the Chinese as the latter smell weakness? So they”ll be “forced” to award contracts privately?
The latter. ULA can resupply the ISS and SpaceX and Orbital will likely have that capability soon. ATV, HTV and progress will remain available. And I don’t think an orbital arms race with the Chinese is an important consideration.
As opposed to just letting ISS re-enter and accepting the inevitability of Chinese military parity the way we need to accept the need of the Iranians for a nuke of their own?
Even if we lose the ISS, there is always Bigelow. And much of Bigelow’s technology was developed by NASA, which should reduce the loss of face.
The only thing that ISS needs to survive is resupply, crew changes, and periodic reboos. The Shuttle can do all 3 but there are other systems for each. As Martin points out the Russians, Europeans, Japanese, and the US can still resupply and reboost the ISS without the Shuttle, and the Russians can recrew the ISS with Soyuz (continual Soyuz trips will still be a necessity with ISS for the foreseeable future regardless of any other eventualities). Remember, after the Columbia disaster there was a gap of over 3.5 years where there were no Shuttle flights to the ISS. The ISS is significantly more complete than it was then and is better suited to surviving without the Shuttle. I think the ISS will be OK.
There is the question whether the ISS is actually helpful for the development of manned spaceflight, on balance it probably isn’t, but that’s a separate topic.
Let me offer an alternative to the question of non-Augustine ideas being consider – specifically, what if they are looking at a pure fuel depot based architecture?
That would be too good to be true. And probably DOA on the Hill.
Ah Rand but there is another option. To “embrace” the idea of depots, sink a load of money, then kill it off and claim it could never be done in the first place.
“To “embrace” the idea of depots, sink a load of money, then kill it off and claim it could never be done in the first place.”
You are thinking of a scenario a la X-33, but I don’t see that happening with depots. That failure and subsequent claim of “it could never be done in the first place” occurred because there were too many radical new technologies that had never been tried before that did not pan out (such as the composite tank). By contrast, the depot concept will require mainly incremental improvement of existing technologies.
P.S.
Rand, it has been a while since I have posted to your blog. I really like the instant preview feature that you’ve added! It’s a great convenience to see the effects of my HTML tags WYSIWYG as I write. Wow, it even automatically bold faced “P.S.”!
Just noticed the automatic bolding of P.S. did not show up in the final post, so it’s not quite WYSIWYG.
Rick:
You can gold plate anything. DC-X, DC-Y were supposed to use existing components as well to reduce risk, but when NASA got its hands on DC-X they started adding Al-Li and composite tanks. Then they killed it off and started X-33. Just add a nuclear-electric space tug to the depot concept and you will cause the project to fail.
They killed off DC-X, DC-Y because they were supposed to make a choice between it, Venture Star, and an entry from Rockwell. It was originally supposed to be a fly-off, but they knew Venture Star couldn’t be produced before the decision was made and changed it to an “on paper” decision. It was stupid of them to choose Venture Star that (at the time) was only a paper rocket when there was already a flying prototype DC-X. DC-X was originally developed by USAF as part of Strategic Defense Initiative and after declassification at the end of the Cold War was handed over to NASA. NASA had no input into the original development of DC-X as they did with Venture Star. Given these facts, the most probable reason for NASA’s cancellation of DC-X was NIH (Not Invented Here)
Godzilla, you forgot the hundred meter UV space telescope that naturally should be a part of any propellant depot plan.
“Godzilla, you forgot the hundred meter UV space telescope that naturally should be a part of any propellant depot plan.”
In defense of Godzilla, I know of no “hundred meter UV space telescope” that is needed for a depot, unless you are referring to the shading reflector. No really new material technology is needed there of which I am aware.
The hundred meter gold-plated space telescope needs to be there, Rick. Otherwise, it’s just not a real propellant failu^H^H^H^H^H depot.
Someone should point out to Congress that if the Shuttle costs X, and the depot systems cost Y, where Y is only 30% of X, then Congress can appropriate Z (a number somewhere between X and Y) for the depots. The difference between Y and Z must surely be greater than the current kickbacks they’re receiving, right?
While we’re at it, someone should tell SpaceX to raise their NASA prices 10% to reflect “human rating costs.” That’s millions of dollars per flight that can find their way back to someone on the Hill.
It’s like a highway bill, but in space! Win-win!
FLYP did a pretty good blog + story on the future, it’s linked in the blog. it’s worth checking out, i think.
http://www.flypmedia.com/content/end-astronaut
M
Back to the:
>Replacing it with nothing would be a pretty good option IMO.
Big agree from me. Ares/Orion is SO bad, such a big step backward, just eliminating it as a option is a major plus for space. It least it leaves a hole, and there will be presure to find some option. More presure given the concerns about how do you keep operating ISS without a craft with shuttle like capabilities to support and maintain it?
Kelly: The Russians had big plans for using Buran to service and supply Mir, also to build a future Mir-2. They even bothered to fit a hatch specifically for Buran docking in the now deorbited Mir space station. When they no longer had the funding luxuries from the Soviet Union’s command economy, they basically mothballed Buran. The Russian ISS modules were orbited using the same means as the Mir modules: the Proton rocket, which is a heavy lift launch vehicle with a reasonably good success ratio. Proton has less payload than a Heavy EELV. Each Mir module basically put itself into place instead of requiring something like the Shuttle. Something like the Shuttle IMO will eventually make sense, but not at todays flight rates. The Shuttle is over spec. It is the Concorde of space flight.
The Shuttle, unlike Ares, is inspirational. But it is not worth it.
Dream Chaser on EELV however might be a good idea.
Martijn:
NASA could have done something somewhat like Dream Chaser with X-38 years ago. X-38 was IMO an example on how people can do worthwhile things, even under a stifling bureaucracy, with a reduced budget compared to other NASA projects. Kind of funny to see the much maligned Dan Goldin’s NASA getting more stuff right than more recent administrations, but alas such is life.
> The Russian ISS modules were orbited using the same means as the Mir modules:
And a shuttle assembled them.
>==
> Something like the Shuttle IMO will eventually make sense, but not
> at todays flight rates. The Shuttle is over spec. It is the Concorde
> of space flight.
>
> The Shuttle, unlike Ares, is inspirational. But it is not worth it.
The Shuttle was much cheaper then Ares-1/Orion to build and expected to cost a tiny fraction as much per flight to prep and launch, and flies a couple times as often per year. Given that – how is it “not worth it” but Ares is?
Kelly: No, a Shuttle did not assemble them. Zarya and Zvezda were launched in a Proton rocket. Pirs was launched in a Soyuz rocket. Zvezda docked autonomously with Zarya using the Kurs docking system. Pirs docked autonomously with Zvezda using the same system. The Shuttle was used to assemble the non-Russian (US, European, Japanese) nodes which do not use automatic docking.
I never said Ares 1 was worth it. Ares 1 is a clear case of NIH syndrome. It does nothing than an EELV Heavy couldn’t do better, cheaper, and faster.
I like capsules but Orion is bloated and seemingly purposely made to not work in anything other than the non-existant Ares 1.
Godzilla,
Your comments about X-38, IMHO, are spot on target.