Russian launches of Soyuz & Progress are the price competition.

We’ll know soon about that price and reliability when Arianespace starts launching them from Kourou in 2008.

Yet, you want to waste billions of dollars building Orion and Ares instead.

> Ares I does not compete with SpaceX or Kistler. Neither are remotely close to lifting humans.

Just because you wish for something doesn’t make it true, Bill.

> I would support more money for COTS so more money can be channeled to SpaceX and Kistler.

So, you “would” support more money for COTS. Whatever that means. Yet, you don’t support more money for COTS, you want to flush it down the crapper on Orion and Ares.

Boeing should buy the rights to manufacture R-7s (Soyuz & Progress) and they would then blow the doors off Musk and Kistler on price and reliability. But then no one would buy EELVs at substantially higher prices making it a lousy financial decision for Boeing even if it advanced our goals in space immensely.

= = =

Ares I does not compete with SpaceX or Kistler. Neither are remotely close to lifting humans.

And I would support more money for COTS so more money can be channeled to SpaceX and Kistler.

You’re making stuff up again, Bill.

Ares I did not “create” a niche for SpaceX. It was Elon Musk who met with Sean O’Keefe and told him NASA should retire the Shuttle and buy capsules, so it could go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. That was long before Griffin and his friends at the Planetary Society invented invented Ares.

No matter how you spin the facts, Bill, Ares takes away market niches could compete in — and, by law, *should* compete in.

The Launch Service Purchase Act applies to all of NASA’s space transportation requirements. Not just one or two “niches” where you think private industry should be “allowed” to compete.

You want to limit private enterprise to one tiny “niche” (less than 1% of the NASA budget) and tell us it’s a great thing. Great thing for the Empire, Yoda thinks, not for the rebellion.

It’s ironic that you are a lawyer, but you want NASA to violate the law.

Then again, maybe it isn’t.

> An EELV CLV would threaten both COTS and Ares V.

Good. Ares V should be threatened. There’s no reason why we should waste hundreds of billions of dollars just to please a few Apollo worshippers.

> And yes, there are payloads for Ares V that are not easily broken down
> into tiny bits even if there are many payloads that can be broken down
> into tiny bits.

Those who have done cost calculations disagree with you. The late Dr. Max Hunter pointed out that the largest payload which cannot be broken down for shipment is an adult human being.

There was even a “Bill White” on Transterrestrial.com who conceded Soyuz would be superior to Orion and Ares for lunar missions. A relative of yours, perhaps? (I’m sure you’ve disowned him by now.)

It’s sad that NASA and its fans don’t even *want* America to do anything new. Any new idea, whether it’s in-space assembly, orbital refueing, or low-cost launch, is rejected. Just so you can do a sad rerun of the 1960’s, with the promise that “it will turn out different this time.”

One of the main reasons they didn’t use SSME was its not built for mid-air starts while J-2 was built as a mid-air start engine. I don’t know the difficulties in changing an engine from ground base ignition to mid-air ignition but this could add significant time to development over the J-2.

EELV would need a J-2X equivalent as much as Ares needs one.

= = =

Edward [may] or [may not] be correct that the intention behind Ares I was not to make room for COTS. However the practical effect of Ares I (whether intentional or not) creates a niche for Kistler and SpaceX. Ares I sets a pick that opens up opportunity for both COTS and Ares V.

An EELV CLV would threaten both COTS and Ares V.

And yes, there are payloads for Ares V that are not easily broken down into tiny bits even if there are many payloads that can be broken down into tiny bits.

NASA should build what the private sector cannot, and that is heavy lift. Once the private sector (Musk & Kistler for example) prove they have cheap light lift accomplished or if Falcon 9 can carry a CEV class vessel, cancel Ares I (absolutely!) and use those SRB casings for Ares V rather than Ares I.

EELV? Too expensive to be sustainable. Besides, once Kistler and Falcon fly even DoD won’t be buying EELV anymore. So, why should NASA?

I thought that was what NASA were doing.

What I don’t understand the reason for the massive weight and volume growth. Surely four passengers don’t need a 15 cubic metre command module if they’re only going to be in the bloody thing for a day and a half. What does NASA think this capsule is, the Burj al Arab?

They’re only keeping the J-2 name to sell the fallacy that the development is going quick and low cost. Safe Simple Soon, and all that.

Here is Bill’s evidence. Now apologize. Or do we just discount your ravings as well?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-08-14-nasa-apollo_x.htm?csp=34