VSE being canceled?

[Khadgars]

Any one else read this report? Very depressing indeed.

http://www.bakerinstitute.org/public...ore-012009.pdf

[Rick]

Just read it. Since when should NASA focus on energy and the environment, that would eclipse space exploration?

Isn't there already agency's to accomplish this?

If the United States want to stay the leader in space exploration, this is certainly NOT the way to proceed.

[JimMcDade]

That report is a classic load of technocratic gobbledygook. It looks like some people want to revive the "Mission to Planet Earth" for the sake of the university research community. Perhaps NASA will become an arm of NOAA under Obama.

[Khadgars]

Ya I have not read a more biased based paper in a long time, it really makes no sense. The good news is these fools really don't have any one's ear at the moment as they are not directly involved with Obama. Though Obama has wavered a bit regarding human space flight, from what I hear the current team around him is in favor of human spaceflight.

Honestly I see Obama extending the shuttle for two years and perhaps extending the development of Ares V back several years. If not I hope they choose DIRECT imho or we're pretty much screwed

[JimMcDade]

Just an opinion, but if we do choose the DIRECT option, we are talking about possibly having no realistic chance of any NASA staged lunar surface expeditions until the 4th or 5th decades of the 21st century. We are talking about a time-frame closer to the centennial of Apollo 11 landing than the upcoming 40th anniversary. Like the STS, DIRECT would be another magnificent, but costly albatross that would keep the USA confined to LEO human spaceflight operations.

Congress will never give NASA enough money to pay for the DIRECT proposal. DIRECT just does not have enough power to get there with the hardware that we are building for the Ares launch vehicles. Sinking the ongoing projects would be a financial disaster for NASA. The costs that would be incurred by throwing all of the current work out of the window could never be recovered by NASA.

I am sure that Rice University is no different from the other schools that see NASA as a cash cow. Of course the college campus Tommy and Teresa Test Tube bunch would love to see total disarray in HSF as it would play right into their pocketbooks. They would love to see human space exploration confined to LEO. That would revive the old grants and generate new grant dollars that otherwise would have one to human exploration.

[Me2]

1. Just an opinion, but if we do choose the DIRECT option, we are talking about possibly having no realistic chance of any NASA staged lunar surface expeditions until the 4th or 5th decades of the 21st century.

2. . Like the STS, DIRECT would be another magnificent, but costly albatross that would keep the USA confined to LEO human spaceflight operations.

3. Congress will never give NASA enough money to pay for the DIRECT proposal.

4. DIRECT just does not have enough power to get there with the hardware that we are building for the Ares launch vehicles.

5. Sinking the ongoing projects would be a financial disaster for NASA.The costs that would be incurred by throwing all of the current work out of the window could never be recovered by NASA.

I like I have said I am not pro Direct but I will call yet another post full of BS.

This "opinion" is not based on any facts or reality

1. You have no basis to state that choosing Direct would not delaying NASA lunar landings that long. Conversely, sticking with Ares I and V would have "no realistic chance of any NASA staged lunar surface expeditions until the 4th or 5th decades of the 21st century" due to the huge financial outlays that they require to develop and operate.

2. Same goes for Ares I, since Ares V is less likely to be developed

3. How, so? Direct wouldn't require anymore money than Constellation is requesting

4. Incorrect. The lunar payloads are not yet designed much less being built. Direct claims they can meet the same requirements as Ares I &V. Let's say they don't and come up a few tons short. What is so bad about that? The CxP requirements are not hard and fast (loss of land landing, 6 to ISS, etc) So if Direct can do a lunar mission a few tons short for billions of dollar less, why not? That is the real issue.

5. So what. It is not like NASA hasn't done it before. ASRM, X-33, Propulsion module, hab module, ICM, X-34, FWC SRM, Shuttle Centaur, etc

[JimMcDade]

It's just my opinion. Everybody has one. You are also entitled to believe what you want even if you also "have no basis" behind you when you state it.

You do contradict your self a bit when you say, "So what", to the unfortunate practice of NASA never finishing what it starts. I thought that you thought that such behavior was a negative thing.

You have no proof that the Ares vehicles won't work, so why should NASA chunk what it has accomplished so far. Why throw away a substantial investment in already completed Ares work in order to build something that might carry less lunar payload for "billions of dollar less"? I am certain that the DIRECT launchers would run into their own costly delays and expensive modification needs. It is fantasy to suppose otherwise. Why have another restart?

[Me2]

Because the Ares vehicles are fiscally unsustainable

[JimMcDade]

Me2, your thought processes are indicative of the fundamental flaw with the intellectual mode of the anti-Ares cult of belief. The endless nay saying does little to prove the theory that you share with the DIRECT/EELV proponents.

The problem with the observations offered by Ross, Chuck, Steve and company is that their theory influences their observations. Each problem, delay, setback, adjustment, revision, or change in the Ares program is presented as evidence or proof that the anti-Ares theory is confirmed.

In reality, nothing has occurred in the Ares I development that is outside of the norm or historical experience with man-rated launch vehicle systems. It is also impossible for a sane person to state that the EELV or DIRECT alternatives would not also run into developmental stumbling blocks that would be equal to or worse than the issues encountered by the Ares I team.

It is not that you or anybody else who is opposed to Ares are intentionally being intellectually dishonest. It is just that there is not one shred of open honest, free-standing, self-sufficient evidence to support the claims that Ares I of Ares V are not up to the task. Oh, their are plenty of anonymous claims and conspiracy charges. There have also been plenty or misrepresentations, exaggerations and reputation smearing claims.

Any legitimate technical value of these alternative launchers is obscured by the slime and mud slinging that has flowed from the discussion groups, blogs, and other venues where any attempt to point out the flawed thinking processes behind the Ares I bashing.

The fundamental problem is that personal pride and an apparent hunger for prestige will not allow certain people to face the inevitable demise of their cherished theory that NASA is conspiring to muzzle them. Egomania is the primary driver for those stray cats.

Iterative revisionism usually allows a conspiracy theorist to salvage enough pride to allow them to keep soldiering onward. We might see this if the changed political climate in Washington results in sweeping changes at NASA. President Obama may ultimately cancel Ares and choose another course, but his decision will not be made just because a bunch of anonymous web hounds and desperate glory seekers got a few newspaper and pulp magazine interviews published. I am sure that Ross, Steve, Chuckie and company will offer themselves for interviews and celebrate with friends as they proclaim victory over their NASA oppressors with the enthusiasm of that SHAM-WOW guy on TV, but their celebration would be as false as their unfair personal attacks that are aimed at people like Griffin and Cook.

The President has his own set of priorities when it comes to space exploration. According to some observers Obama leans heavily toward giving priority to NASA's scientific endeavors. The American people voted for change and that is what they are going to get, whether they like it or not. President Obama is a career technocrat (community organizer). He philosophically relates more to the college astrophysicist than he does to the NASA astronaut.

Obama may focus on ISS science and robotic exploration at the expense of human exploration programs. Once ISS construction is complete, he might put NASA in low gear and place them on a one or two STS mission per-year schedule for a while. He may shut down the effort to build any sort of an STS follow-up and restrict STS replacement work to nothing but studies.

Obama strongly emphasizes international cooperation and collaboration to solve problems. It may be that he will extend the STS program a few more years and then have NASA rent rides from Russia for ISS crew rotation.

President Obama may not see space as a critical venue for demonstrating US technological prestige through human spaceflight spectaculars. He is facing tremendous immediate challenges with the economy, wars, and energy. He may leave it for a future President to worry about an STS replacement and shift most of NASA's human spaceflight funding toward hiring tens of thousand of pre-school teachers. That was the plan that was stated in the original version of his platform. Now that he is in office, he is free to revive that part of his platform that was probably deleted for political expediency a a time when Florida was considered a potential swing state.

Hang on to your space helmet. We might be in for a shock or two in coming months. Polish your test tubes and go for that PhD in Life Sciences or Climatology. Massive NASA science grants are coming soon. The clones of Dan Goldin are waiting in the wings. Dan may be coming back (in spirit, anyway).

[Me2]

1. In reality, nothing has occurred in the Ares I development that is outside of the norm or historical experience with man-rated launch vehicle systems.

2. It is just that there is not one shred of open honest, free-standing, self-sufficient evidence to support the claims that Ares I of Ares V are not up to the task. Oh, their are plenty of anonymous claims and conspiracy charges. There have also been plenty or misrepresentations, exaggerations and reputation smearing claims.

1. Incorrect. You forget some of the selling points of Ares I. Simple and Sooner. It wasn't suppose to have a major issues. It shouldn't have performance problems, TO and wind drift shouldn't have arisen. This was to be a open and shut development. Not a kludge. Also manrating has nothing to do with it, it just basically doesn't work.

2. There is plenty evidence that Ares I & V are up to the task. You just can't see it. Additionally, affordability is included as being "up to the task"

[JimMcDade]

Again, your theory influences you observations. Those Ares selling points are still holding up. There is no way to prove that the Ares I alternatives could be delivered sooner than the Ares I. The Ares I is still the simplest US HSF booster design since Redstone and Gemini-Titan. The first stage has no turbopumps, valves, or expensive cryogenic tanking hardware. You can't get simpler than a solid rocket. The single upper-stage J-2X engine means Ares I has an incredibly simple, yet cost efficient and safe design.

Your buddies, in their never-ending cycle of shiftiness and iterative revisionism have proclaimed that one or more of the following- column buckling, launch drift, schedule setbacks, inadequate thrust and thrust oscillations- each spelled the end for Ares I. (I apologize if I left one of the more obscure and imaginative claims out of that list.) On each occasion that one of these claims were made, it was also implied or claimed that the Ares I cancellation announcement was imminent. Days, weeks, months, and now years are passing and Ares I is still on track.

PS- I think you had a Freudian slip when you wrote: "2. There is plenty evidence that Ares I & V are up to the task. You just can't see it.

(Don't worry, I slip up sometimes too.)

[J.McDonald]

Just an opinion, but if we do choose the DIRECT option, we are talking about possibly having no realistic chance of any NASA staged lunar surface expeditions until the 4th or 5th decades of the 21st century. We are talking about a time-frame closer to the centennial of Apollo 11 landing than the upcoming 40th anniversary. Like the STS, DIRECT would be another magnificent, but costly albatross that would keep the USA confined to LEO human spaceflight operations.

Can you explain why you hold this opinion? In terms of the specific aspects of DIRECT which you think make it slower to develop than Ares?

IMHO, holding the course with Ares risks missing performance and schedule targets. I hold this opinion because I see Ares-V struggling to meet performance requirements, and the entire Constellation plan being dependent on unattainable funding levels.

[JimMcDade]

DIRECT will be slower for a number of reasons. Remember this is just an opinion, no better than Nostradamus. One significant schedule and cost advantage that Ares I has is the fact that so much of the work is already underway, or the contacts have been let. Metal has been bent and dirt has been shoveled. Many of the usual program delays are already behind Ares I, although more delays can certainly be expected. At this point, most of the nasty surprises that were bound to crop up in a booster development pogram, have already cropped up. Direct isn't even at the process point where some of the potential the nasties can be imagined.

Some problems are obvious, but they are still ignored by the Direct dreamers. First, switching to DIRECT would cause the entire acquisition process to be reset to day one. The political, financial, legal, and technical processes would probably move much slower for Direct than it did for Ares given today's changed political and economic environment.

A list of potential Direct contractors would have to be identified and new bidding wars and all that is involved with that process would probably continue through 2011 or so. Another problem, the existing ET technology won't work with the Direct design according to working booster engineers. The NASA propulsion engineers state that the tank cannot be modified in order to meet Direct structural loading specs. You may think they are lying. If you do, then I cannot change your mind about that, so let's just skip that issue for sanity's sake. We might as well argue about Area 51 alien bodies if that is the case.

A new facility for manufacturing the more robust tankage that would be required for the Direct launcher and that would require yet another round of acquisition processes, bidding, and construction. The first test flight might not occur until at least 2019, more likely 2024, in my opinion.

If Direct does finally become operational, their are other issues that may undermine any chance that astronauts might ever ride to the moon one her. The Direct approach imposes a much higher per-mission cost for the LEO operations that it would have to perform if Ares I is not available to perform those flights. Ares I is dirt cheap in comparison to its Direct counterpart. More expense = increased mean time between flights as NASA is basically faced with fixed or even shrinking appropriations in years to come.

Public and official disappointment with Direct could translate into lowered goals and expectations for NASA human spaceflight. Direct is likely to be a huge disappointment as far as meeting the glowing expectations of it's proponents. A replay of the reality check that NASA encountered when the STS failed to meet cost and schedule expectations would occur.

NASA is unlikely to ever see another open checkbook the way it had when Apollo was built. Going to the moon is a very expensive proposition. Public enthusiasm for space exploration-- almost never more than 50% of the public in scientific opinion polls, even during the Apollo years-- waned permanently after the novelty of space wore off. NASA has never done a great job of selling space. Carl Sagan and Ron Howard did a better job selling space than NASA public relations ever did. Most people still don't see space as either a threat or an opportunity that is worth more than five seconds of contemplation--at least as long as their Direct TV dish is working.

The public finds it too easy to lend credibility to the Direct smear campaign. Painful memories of the Apollo 1 fire, Challenger, and Columbia crush the more pleasant recollections of triumphant Apollo 11, crisp Hubble images, and the gallant drama of Apollo 13. The Direct campaign has accomplished nothing more than inflicting further harm on the already tarnished public reputation of NASA. Direct serves no real purpose other than allowing a collection of goofs to get their names in print while the opponents of NASA human spaceflight exploit the faux scandal as an opportunity to bash the agency. One agai, that's just my opinion. Time will either uphold or shatter that opinion. It is too bad that the Dircet guys are almost pathologically devoted to the supremacy of their opinions. For them, the case is closed, no criticism or dissent is allowed. Their minds are closed. In their minds, their closed-mind stance justifies their use of deceit, misrepresentation, anonymous sources, and character assaination in order to make a splash.

[Khadgars]

Can you explain why you hold this opinion? In terms of the specific aspects of DIRECT which you think make it slower to develop than Ares?

IMHO, holding the course with Ares risks missing performance and schedule targets. I hold this opinion because I see Ares-V struggling to meet performance requirements, and the entire Constellation plan being dependent on unattainable funding levels.

Thats a very important point, a lot is riding on what Ares V can do. My personal opinion is transforming the Ares V into what DIRECT people call a Jupiter 232 heavy.

Ares V is just becoming to big and I think NASA needs to abandon the 1.5 architecture.

Going to a three launch architecture (1 Ares I and two smaller Ares V) would allow for not only more launches but would negate the need for new crawlers and VAB modifications.

[J.McDonald]

Jim, here's my opinion in response to yours.
You claim that because we are three years into Ares-I then it is a given that it will fly sooner than DIRECT could. You appear to imply that similar schedule issues to those that have hit Ares will also hit DIRECT. Presumably, then, the fact that Ares needs a new SRB, and a new liquid rocket engine doesn't, in your mind, add any schedule risk at all? IMHO DIRECT's J120 is logically a faster development process. Fast enough to account for the reshuffling of paperwork? Who knows.

Another problem, the existing ET technology won't work with the Direct design according to working booster engineers. The NASA propulsion engineers state that the tank cannot be modified in order to meet Direct structural loading specs.

Most interesting. I shall see what Ross has to say about this. I know that the concept is to return to LWT specifications for additional strength, with the tanking lightened again at a future date. Intuitively one would assume that it's a lot easier to mount a load on top of a stage than it is to hang it from three mounting points on the side. As has said before, if we were starting from scratch, it'd be a damned sight easier to built an inline SDLV than the STS itself.

Jim, if the tooling is unable to produce an inline core, then what are they going to use to build Ares-V?

A new facility for manufacturing the more robust tankage that would be required for the Direct launcher and that would require yet another round of acquisition processes, bidding, and construction. The first test flight might not occur until at least 2019, more likely 2024, in my opinion.

Blimey. These would be the exact same contracts and schedule that Ares-V faces, no? Better tell those budding astros that nobody's going to the moon any time soon eh?

The Direct approach imposes a much higher per-mission cost for the LEO operations that it would have to perform if Ares I is not available to perform those flights. Ares I is dirt cheap in comparison to its Direct counterpart.

Point #1:
Cost per mission= (marginal + fixed)/number flown.
The huge fixed cost of any SDLV acts to greatly dilute the difference between Ares-I and J120. J120 can also spread its costs more easily because every single part of it would also fly on J232. On Ares, this commonality is limited to the J2X, although some of the SRB technology may be shared, depending on what happens with the Ares-V design.

#2:
DIRECT are actively promoting man-rating the DIVH for LEO duties.

#3:
NASA cannot afford a lunar return and ISS at the same time. So the number of missions that Orion would fly to ISS is quite limited.

#4:
COTS-D is supposed to take over LEO duties, eventually.

It is too bad that the Dircet guys are almost pathologically devoted to the supremacy of their opinions. For them, the case is closed, no criticism or dissent is allowed. Their minds are closed. In their minds, their closed-mind stance justifies their use of deceit, misrepresentation, anonymous sources, and character assaination in order to make a splash.

Jeez, some people actually pay to read your fiction?
On a thread on NSF recently, Ross chimed in with his suggestion for a 'clean-sheet' lunar rocket. It bore no resemblance to DIRECT whatsoever.

In a way, it's a shame that I missed the posts you made at NSF before getting banned, because in my time there I have never seen anybody who put across thoughtful and informed dissent be treated with anything but respect. Most of them tend to end up converted in the end though...

[Me2]

In a way, it's a shame that I missed the posts you made at NSF before getting banned, because in my time there I have never seen anybody who put across thoughtful and informed dissent be treated with anything but respect. .

McDade's posts on NSF were neither thoughtful or informed, which also applies to his post's on other forum

[JimMcDade]

Well, you guys are entitled to your opinions and you are free to call mine fiction. Ares I continues to make bench progress while the early Ares V work is still moving ahead. As each day passes, the actual results have been reinforced the quality of the decision to opt for the Ares vehicles instead of the other options.

I realize that the folks who work for the unmanned booster manufacturers are still hurting from NASA's decision to build rockets that are the descendants of the STS, but isn't it time for them to move on? The same goes for the DIRECT guys. It was fun for them while them while it lasted, but their fifteen minutes of fame is running out rapidly.

It has been five years since Bush instructed NASA to build the next generation of manned space vehicles. NASA is pressing forward with tests, pad conversion work, and planning for Ares I-X. There is no indication that the Obama administration has told NASA to shut down or scale back the Ares programs.

The Ares I-X test was originally conceived as way to conduct high-fidelity testing economically by utilizing four segments from the leftover STS-114 SRBs. A successful Ares I-X flight will not necessarily be the nail in the coffin for the renegade movement, but it will provide a big boost to the program. I expect that Ross and the guys will still be griping when Ares-I is flying routinely. There are people who still think that Martin should have been given the Apollo CM contract, after all.

[J.McDonald]

The only thing that the launch of Ares I-X will prove is that the program is still running. The only things it will test that are of any relevance to Ares-I are the already proven SRB segments and seals. Everything else will be new hardware by the time Ares-I flies (if ever).

I cannot read Obama's mind, but surely anybody looking in on the program now can see that the rationale behind Ares-I has gone. Orion is smaller, commonailty with Ares-V has be ditched, and man-rating requirements have been relaxed. I see little but momentum now preventing a switch to EELV. And if it is momentum that is making the big decisions in the world's biggest manned space program, well that is a sad state of affairs.

[Me2]

1. I realize that the folks who work for the unmanned booster manufacturers are still hurting from NASA's decision to build rockets that are the descendants of the STS,

2. It has been five years since Bush instructed NASA to build the next generation of manned space vehicles. NASA is pressing forward with tests, pad conversion work, and planning for Ares I-X. There is no indication that the Obama administration has told NASA to shut down or scale back the Ares programs.

3. The Ares I-X test was originally conceived as way to conduct high-fidelity testing economically by utilizing four segments

1. They are not financially hurting. Boeing got the A1US work, etc.

2. Bush did not instruct NASA to build the "next generation of manned space vehicles" He gave NASA some goals to meet, the VSE.

3. It was never economical nor high-fidelity, This is why this test is a waste. It provides marginal data for huge cost. It will cost more than the following:
1. Another shuttle ISS resupply mission
2. A EELV launch pad for a manned capsule
3. A Discovery class science mission
Ares I-X violates the "test like you fly" philosophy.

Just keep drinking the koolade

[JimMcDade]

I don't know why I continue to waste time answering these absurd, baseless arguments.

The lingering hurt amongst you Ares-bashers is more emotional than it is a matter of the bottom line for the EELV manufacturers. On September 19, 2005 Michael Griffin dashed the hopes of the EELV advocates, who now share a common cause with the Direct advocates. What I see in a lot of these anti-Ares comments- the angry retorts in particular- is a blurring between thoughts and emotions. The so-called renegades are incredibly passionate and protective. Vengeance appears to be the underlying motivation behind all of this petty sniping.

The Bush directive to Congress more than just implied that NASA should next generation of manned space vehicles. Bush ordered the end of the STS program.

Here is a little test that make help some of the Ares-bashers move toward accepting reality and then moving on with life. Please share this with others:

http://www.queendom.com/tests/access...idRegTest=1121