Here’s the latest straw man:
A lot of people are confidently predicting the death of Ares 1 just becaus [sic] the Second Augustine Commission exists.
I’m not aware of anyone who predicts the death of Ares I on “just” that basis. Can Mark point to someone in particular, or is it one of the mysterious and always unnamed members of the “Internet Rocketeer Club”?
We (or at least I) predict the death of Ares I because its schedule continues to slip (expanding the dreaded “gap”), its technical problems continue to mount with no obvious solution, its budget has ballooned to two and a half times the initial estimate, with no signs of coming under control, and it turns out that NASA has been less than truthful about the competition, and put a thumb on the scale when it did its trade analyses to get the “right” answer. The existence of the Augustine Commission is simply a recognition of this reality by the administration. And Mark can take comfort from Rob Coppinger’s whistling past the Ares deathbed if he wishes — the ultimate disillusionment will simply be all the greater when the plug is pulled.
[Late afternoon update]
Imaginary friends, and imaginary behavior:
Rand Simberg screams and leaps again at my analysis…
Hilarious. One wonders how many moons orbit the planet on which he resides, from whatever alternate universe he posts this insanity. I neither “screamed” or “leaped,” as anyone can see, above.
And what “analysis”? He did no analysis. He never does an analysis. He’s simply incapable of it, not understanding the things he’s “analyzing.” He just pointed to a post by Rob Coppinger.
And then there’s this:
…repeating some of the standard conspiracy theories concerning Ares and its alternatives.
“Conspiracy theories”?
Mark, it is not a “conspiracy theory” that the schedule is slipping to the right. It is a fact, documented by the GAO.
It is not a “conspiracy theory” that Ares I development costs have gone from fourteen billion to thirty-five billion, by Steve Cook’s own admission. That is a fact.
Facts are stubborn things. Though not as stubborn, apparently, as Mark.
And this:
He seems to suggest (though likely, being Rand, he will deny it in retrospect) that Augustine could actually report that Ares is still the best alternative but it will ultimately fail anyway.
I only “seem to suggest” that to someone who has difficulty parsing out plain English.
So what you’re saying is tat Augustine could report that Ares is the best alternative and it will still fail? What does that say about Augustine?
So what you’re saying is tat Augustine could report that Ares is the best alternative and it will still fail?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. That’s possible, I suppose, but unlikely. Norm’s not that dumb.
and it turns out that NASA has been less than truthful about the competition, and put a thumb on the scale when it did its trade analyses to get the “right” answer.
True, but it was likely not exclusively NASA’s thumb on the scale, Griffin came up with an SDLV, which was the answer his supporters in Congress wanted to hear. That bias may still exist.
Griffin came up with an SDLV, which was the answer his supporters in Congress wanted to hear.
That may be true, but I’m skeptical. I think Griffin’s preference for an SDLV is due to internal NASA politics, not Congressional politics.
The primary alternatives to Ares, built by ATK, are the EELVs, built by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Boeing is headquartered in Illinois and has major facilities in Washington state, Missouri, California, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Kansas. Lockheed is headquartered in Maryland and has major facilities in Texas, California, Georgia, and Colorado. ATK is headquartered in Minnesota and has major facilities in Utah.
I just don’t believe the Minnesota and Utah Congressional delegations are strong enough to hold back the Congressional delegations of Illinois, Washington, Missouri, California, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Kansas, Maryland, Texas, Georgia, and Colorado.
Marshall, on the other hand, seems to carry a lot of weight within NASA. The Ares rockets seem to exist in order to give Marshall something to do on the VSE besides overseeing a couple of launch contractors.
So I don’t think it’s the Congressional politics that’s driving the Ares trains.
Griffin came up with an SDLV, which was the answer his supporters in Congress wanted to hear.
I think Griffin’s preference for an SDLV is due to internal NASA politics, not Congressional politics.
Griffin came up with Ares when he was doing a study for the Planetary Society. He did not work for NASA at the time, and his supporters were in Pasadena, not in Congress.
Back then, the makeup of the relevant Congressional committees (especially the leadership) was quite different from what it is today. To suggest that Griffin designed Ares to appeal to people who would be in a position of power four or five years implies he had some sort of crystal ball.
I’m not impressed by Rob Coppinger’s analysis either. He confuses performance claims with “safety” claims (eg, a 20% performance margin on a vehicle doesn’t tell you its LOM rate). He ignores that the Aerospace report is aging information. I don’t know when it was published, but some of the apparent disagreements between ULA and Aerospace could be due to the passage of time since the data was handed to this study. Finally, it’s infuriating to have to piece together this report from information provided by an executive in testimony. I doubt anyone is lying, but there’s so much information that we’re missing. Surely NASA can release most of this report.
Rand I think you may need to put a filter block on your PC so you don’t see things from Mark Whittington. Don’t want you burning out and going Steven D and only talking about Anime.
😉
>..Augustine could report that Ares is the best alternative and it will still fail? ..
Ok, that’s a interesting though. “Best” presupposes best at what? Aries is hugely successful at spreading money around to large numbers of folks who formerly got money from shuttle. A technically better shuttle replacement (or even shuttles upgrades) could devastate some of these special interests. NASA generates little public interest or votes other then from its ability to get money to enough districts – so really a failed Aries Program that delivers the pork would really be better for NASA (excluding backlash), then a functionally successful system that didn’t spread around enough money. Same thing killed shuttle upgrades, so it could well carry Aries/Orion through.
One huge cavet though. The STAGERING cost projects for Aries/Orion flights, and the laughably small capacity of them, could well make them politically unviable. I mean visions of headlines of $10 billion dollar a launch, launch systems could chill congressional and voter appetite for pork.
Don’t want you burning out and going Steven D and only talking about Anime.
Mark’s posts are far too entertaining (though not generally enlightening) for that.