Andrew
06-24-2008, 02:30 PM
NASA: Not silent (From OrlandoSentinel.com)
By DOUG COOKE
Deputy Director for NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Washington, D.C.
June 24, 2008
The recent Orlando Sentinel article overtly accuses NASA management of stifling debate of launch-vehicle alternatives to carry out our exploration missions. Nothing could be further from the truth, and NASA's development efforts with the Ares rockets are on track and making progress.
Over my 34 years at NASA, I have seen thousands of concepts with hundreds of launch-vehicle configurations with just as varied combinations of rocket engines, tanks and boosters.
It was exactly for this reason that NASA Administrator Michael Griffin had us conduct the comprehensive Exploration Systems Architecture Study in 2005. We pulled together the best systems engineers from across the country to review all launch vehicle options and how those options mesh with NASA's budget.
The "direct" variation fails to meet NASA's needs on several grounds. It is vastly over-capacity and too costly to service the International Space Station, but worse, its lift capacity would not be enough for NASA to maintain a sustained presence on the moon.
Advocates for the "direct" variation are touting unrealistic development costs and schedules. A fundamental difference is that the Ares I and Orion probability of crew survival is at least two times better than all of the other concepts evaluated, including "direct"-like concepts.
We value an open and robust debate of the technical and programmatic trades, but key decisions on Orion and Ares concepts were made in 2005, and we are making progress with our contractor team developing these designs.
By DOUG COOKE
Deputy Director for NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Washington, D.C.
June 24, 2008
The recent Orlando Sentinel article overtly accuses NASA management of stifling debate of launch-vehicle alternatives to carry out our exploration missions. Nothing could be further from the truth, and NASA's development efforts with the Ares rockets are on track and making progress.
Over my 34 years at NASA, I have seen thousands of concepts with hundreds of launch-vehicle configurations with just as varied combinations of rocket engines, tanks and boosters.
It was exactly for this reason that NASA Administrator Michael Griffin had us conduct the comprehensive Exploration Systems Architecture Study in 2005. We pulled together the best systems engineers from across the country to review all launch vehicle options and how those options mesh with NASA's budget.
The "direct" variation fails to meet NASA's needs on several grounds. It is vastly over-capacity and too costly to service the International Space Station, but worse, its lift capacity would not be enough for NASA to maintain a sustained presence on the moon.
Advocates for the "direct" variation are touting unrealistic development costs and schedules. A fundamental difference is that the Ares I and Orion probability of crew survival is at least two times better than all of the other concepts evaluated, including "direct"-like concepts.
We value an open and robust debate of the technical and programmatic trades, but key decisions on Orion and Ares concepts were made in 2005, and we are making progress with our contractor team developing these designs.