What Fresh Hell Is This?

Yes! Yes! Commercialize the Ares 1!

Have NASA offer a contract to whatever firm can come up with the payload of the Ares 1 to the desired orbit wihin stated performance paramenters. Then let ATK go out to raise the money to develop the Ares, and recover the expense from the profits on government and private sales. NASA can charge them for use of KSC according to the formula other private launchers use.

Oh, wait. Maybe that's not what they mean by 'commercialization".

Never mind.

There is no figging way that the comsat guys would use something like this with such a rough ride.

I wonder if Jim Bennett remembers how the DOD cofinanced the development of the EELVs, being touted as the "commercial alternative" to Ares 1. Oh, and let's not forget COTS funding for Falcon and the new Taurus.

I wonder if Jim Bennett remembers how the DOD cofinanced the development of the EELVs, being touted as the "commercial alternative" to Ares 1.

I'm quite confident that he does, Mark. What's your point? That because we were dumb enough to do it once, we should do it again, on a much less commercially promising vehicle, for which the market is glutted?

Rand,
I agree with most of your assessment, but wanted to make one point. As you're apt to point out, an expensive GEO satellite is probably just as important as crew or passengers on a launch vehicle. So, I think the idea that people have to have a launch escape system, while $500M satellites can just take their chances is a philosophy that isn't going to last too much longer. Especially once you have orbital propellant depots, I think the case for putting some sort of escape system even on satellite flights will start to make sense. Sure, it bites into your payload, but if you design the launch so that the upper stage spends most of its propellant getting into LEO, tops off at a depot, and then delivers the satellite directly to GEO, any and all GEO satellites could easily be launched on an Atlas V 401. If your station is in the right orbit, you could even top it off using the cheapest LVs available--Dneprs, Soyuzes, Protons, etc.

Why should billion dollar payloads still have to play Russian Roulette getting to orbit?

~Jon

Jon

Not going to happen that way. The comsat guys are incredibly conservative and their launch costs are only 19% of their total systems cost anyway, so why introduce increased risk into the equation.

It is hard enough to get them to accept generic life extension.

This just does not compute.

That's a good point. Still you'd have to engineer the payload to handle the abort accelerations. That might be more expensive than taking your chances.

Mark,
When DoD did the EELVs, there was a) a competition, b) a requirement for each of the teams to put substantial financial skin-in-the-game, and c) the competitors had to build, and operate their own launch sites.

Boeing, IIRC put up about 2/3rds of the development cost of Delta IV, including building two new launch sites.

LM, IIRC put up somewhere north of 1/2 the development cost of Atlas V, including building a new launch site (and now a second one as well).

SpaceX had already started development of Falcon IX when COTS came around. It competed. It's going to build and operate its own launch sites (three of them actually). And even with COTS and DARPA it's putting up something like 2/3 or more of the required capital.

Even Orbital is putting skin in the game, had to compete to get money, and is having to do its own launch infrastructure.

Ares-I, OTOH is a 100% government funded venture, was not competed, and all the launch infrastructure is 100% government owned.

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that Ares-I is just like EELV or COTS? If so, that shows a certain ignorance of how these all worked.

Now, if ATK had competed for the Constellation contract, was putting up 1/2-2/3rds of the required capital, and was going to be owning and operating its own launch sites, they'd have just as much rights to commercial business as either EELV or COTS competitors. But as it stands right now, Ares-I is nothing like either of them.

~Jon

Jon, the point is that there are no launch vehicles in existence or in development (except for the suborbital cruise ships being built by Scaled Composites, et al) that can be defined as "purely commercial." The rest consists of relatively meaningless details.

Jon, those are all good points. Too bad the US Congress has proved itself quite willing to squelch competitive markets with massive subsidies to politically well-connected constituencies. Just look at public education, or anything related to agriculture.

The rest consists of relatively meaningless details.

Let me translate. "relatively meaningless details" = "arguments too complicated for Mark to understand, but of quite cogent legal significance."

Ares should be renamed Eros 1, the great vibrator in the sky. Maybe paint it pink too.

I'm sure additional Ares flights for unmanned satellites might save a few jobs at KSC, and make the system seem worth developing at all. As Rand says, nice candy for people who are ignorant of reality.

Ares I doesn't provide a capability that is not already available with other launchers. Launchers that have a track record and are available today at a lower cost, and can be launched in other locations than just KSC.

I do think Ares V might provide some additional capabilities. If NASA must continue giving bones to ATK, then I don't know why we don't just skip Ares I, develop Ares V, and make better use of the additional upmass, rather than make better use of a shaky, underpowered lifter that is Ares I.

Rand, A minor quibble with your reliability/safety argument: In aviation it is common to provide crew escape systems in aircraft which aren't all that reliable or where the nature of the mission may make the aircraft unreliable(ultralights, sailplanes,jet fighters/bombers,aerobatic aircraft)but have no crew or passenger escape where the mission environment is more benign or the aircraft made more reliable with redundant systems etc(light aircraft, jet airliners).
Do SS2 or Lynx have crew/passenger escape systems?

Do SS2 or Lynx have crew/passenger escape systems?

Lynx is an open question at this point, I think. They may be considering ejection seats, but you'd have to ask XCOR. SS2 does not. It's Virgin/Burt's intent to make it sufficiently reliable that it's not necessary (that's one of the reasons for the "care-free entry" with the moveable wings).

In aviation it is common to provide crew escape systems in aircraft which aren't all that reliable or where the nature of the mission may make the aircraft unreliable(ultralights, sailplanes,jet fighters/bombers,aerobatic aircraft)

Oh, bog. Here we go again.

First of all, I don't know of any sailplane, ultralight, or (nonmilitary) aerobatic plane that has an escape system. I'm pretty sure there are none.

Secondly, the reason military jets have ejection seats is NOT so designers can avoid putting in redundant systems. Safety are reliability are VERY important in military aircraft design. Ejection seats are not a substitute for good design but a last resort when design and redundancy fail, often as a result of circumstances beyond a designer's control (such as weather or being hit by a missile). A good fraction of all pilots who "successfully" eject will end up with broken backs or other serious injuries, so no one will ever knowingly accept an aircraft that is unreliable just because it has an ejection seat.

That is in marked contrast to the Ares design philosophy, where the Chief Engineer publicly proclaims that reliability doesn't matter as long as they have an escape system.

What's your point? That because we were dumb enough to do it once, we should do it again

Well, of course. Can you think of a better justification for Apollo on Steroids? :-)

Redesigning every comm sat to launch on a solid rocket motor is obviously a great idea. You just don't realize it because you don't have Mark's educational background. :-)

Whittington should just abbreviate his postings to 'they should keep spending money that ends up on my paycheck' rather than subjecting us to his increasingly inane rationalizations.

develop Ares V, and make better use of the additional upmass,

What "additional upmass" is that?

If NASA spends $20 billion to develop Ares V, they will be able to afford fewer launches and have less upmass than if they use existing systems.

Edward Wright:"First of all, I don't know of any sailplane, ultralight, or (nonmilitary) aerobatic plane that has an escape system. I'm pretty sure there are none."

You are absolutely wrong on this point. There is one Russian built aerobatic aircraft with an optional lightweight ejection seat. Most of the pilots of other such aircraft and sailplane pilots wear personal parachutes which surely qualify as escape systems. In the ultralight world, ballistic recovery parachutes which lower the whole aircraft to the ground are common. There is considerable effort being expended in the sailplane world on assistance for the pilot to get out of the cockpit(inflatable cushions) and whole aircraft parachutes. These are already commercially available.

In Rand's own words about SS2 "It's Virgin/Burt's intent to make it sufficiently reliable that it's not necessary (that's one of the reasons for the "care-free entry" with the moveable wings)."

Which was my point.

As for fighters and bombers, as you correctly point out it is being hit by a missile that can make them unreliable but given the number of peacetime ejections due to systems failures I think you'll find they aren't as safe and reliable as jet airliners.

Only slightly off topic:
I once stood around with group of sailplane pilots at a contest. There were seven pilots including me. As the topic of conversation turned to parachutes I realised I was the only one who hadn't bailed out of a sailplane.

Paul,
To be fair, I don't think Mark has any financial ties to the success of Ares-I. His cluelessness isn't bought, it comes standard.

~Jon

One of the reason combat aircraft have ejection seats is because second parties at times actively seek to degrade the reliability of those systems thru the high velocity introduction of various metallic objects.

You are absolutely wrong on this point. There is one Russian built aerobatic aircraft with an optional lightweight ejection seat.

I have seen quite a few Sukhoi aerobatic planes. None of them had that option. You're referring to the SKS-94, which I believe is actually a Zvezda extraction seat, not an ejection seat. I think that's the same seat for racing planes a few years ago. I'm not aware of anyone who actually bought one.

Most of the pilots of other such aircraft and sailplane pilots wear personal parachutes which surely qualify as escape systems.

Only in the most quibbling sense. The difference between an energetic escape system and stepping out of a sailplane at around 100 knots is like night and day. You might as well compare it to the fire exit in a movie theater.

I once stood around with group of sailplane pilots at a contest. There were seven pilots including me. As the topic of conversation turned to parachutes I realised I was the only one who hadn't bailed out of a sailplane.

And you believed them? Pilots love to tell "hangar stories," but if sailplane pilots bailed out that often there would be sailplane accidents in the news every day. (It's a pretty safe bet a glider is going to crash if the pilot bails out.)

The NTSB reports only 72 glider accidents in the two years, most of which seem to be landing accidents and only one of which mentions a pilot bailing out. If a glider pilot bails out every couple of years, it is unlikely seven of them happened to be standing around talking to you at the airport.

Getting back to the subject, can you point out any sailplane or aerobatic airplane designers who made Griffin-like statements that reliability didn't matter as long as the airplane had an ejection seat?

Ed,

I see you are in full sourpuss mode wanting to disagree with everyone. Well, you win. You disagree with me. I didn't write what you think I did, and it's pretty damn obvious what I wrote, but hey, you disagree. I guess that makes your day.

Ed,

I see you want to disagree again. Well you win. You made a strawman, and you knocked it down. Wow. You're a winner. Congratulations on that ability of yours. Hopefully it will take you somewhere.

The ATK joke is only 8 days late that's all, they couldn't meet the deadline ^_^ (but of course now they need to pretend they were serious).

And lol Orville.

Bah Leland that's nothing compared to all sailplane pilots being one year old babies ^_^

To expand on what Jon wrote above...

According to trade press sources, the Delta IV medium cost about $2.0 billion to develop, all of which was Boeing's money. They developed the Common Booster Core, the RS-68 engine, integrated the medium vehicle, built the factory in Decatur, built the launch complexes and Horizontal Integration Facilities at Canaveral and Vandenberg, and paid for the Delta Mariner barge to tote everything around on with that money. They got a $500 million subsidy from the Air Force to develop the Delta IV Heavy, a vehicle Boeing thought there was no commercial market for.

Things have changed somewhat since the first flight in that the Air Force now subsidizes both EELVs' annual fixed costs.

So the Delta IV medium is almost entirely a commercial vehicle paid for by Boeing shareholders, not American taxpayers -- a very different beast than the Ares I.

Mike

Mark R. Whittington wrote:

Jon, the point is that there are no launch vehicles in existence or in development (except for the suborbital cruise ships being built by Scaled Composites, et al) that can be defined as "purely commercial."

Delta IV medium, Atlas III, Sea Launch, Athena I, Athena II, Pegasus, Falcon I, Land Launch(?)...

Mike

"And you believed them? Pilots love to tell "hangar stories," but if sailplane pilots bailed out that often there would be sailplane accidents in the news every day. (It's a pretty safe bet a glider is going to crash if the pilot bails out.)"

Yes I believed them. I knew them all and the circumstances of their bailouts. They were my customers and fellow competitors. This was Australia so the NTSB won't have the details although one bailout was in France.

To get back on track, if the system/operation is sufficiently reliable it becomes a fair bet with your life to fly without an escape system as is done every day in aviation. It took aviation a fair while to get to this point though.

In re MW: " What's a village, without an idiot?"

I hereby rechristen the Ares I with it's new Rand brand,
the Paintshaker I!

Heh.

ack, double post... I even checked. Oh well.

Habitat Hermit, I'm sure he will say we are still sock puppets. I do find it funny that because he hasn't personally seen something; it therefore means no one else could have.

Mike, don't worry about Ed. He probably hasn't visited Australia thus it doesn't exist. I checked, the Sukhoi Company sells all its aerobatic planes with either a parachute or ejection seat.

Edward Wright's aggressive stupidity is becoming as tiring as Brian Swiderski's (sp?) once was.

Why would anyone want their payload to ride an expensive booster with such a terrible vibration and acoustic environment when they have better and cheaper alternatives like the EELVs,Araine V,Proton,Falcon 9,Taurus II and maybe a selection of small RLVs by 2015?
ATK has to be completely nuts to think Ares I has a commercial market.
Also on Ares I a payload with a mass of 56,000lbs must be able to perform orbital injection on it's own as Ares I lease it's payload in a 160 by -80 KM orbit yes that right the perigee is 80 KM under the earths surface.
As for reliability the Delta IV and Falcon 9 would be far more reliable.
F9 could prove to be a nearly guaranteed ride up for a sat because of engine out capability.