YES, I know the performance specs are not as dazzling as Ares, and YES, you would need multiple launches for a moonshot along with a man-rated Atlas V or Delta, but Shuttle C is, simply by its inherent design, MUCH closer to reality than Ares. Its a far more pragmatic start, a foundation with which to build superior, DIRECT-style heavy launchers. You can even keep Ares V R&D going for the long-term and still have Shuttle C.

It’s not a sufficient difference to justify Ares I.

Rand its always a profound logical error to ignore history in pursuit of your own agenda.

I agree, not that it’s relevant to anything that I wrote.

Someone is advocating a marriage of Nasa and DOD.

No one is doing so. That was just <a href=”http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/media-botches-story-on-obamas-nasa-plans/” target=”_ “clueless reporting. And it’s NASA, not “Nasa.”

There is history between the two and in one very large case where Nasa’s manned requirements where blended with the military’s unmanned requirements, we got higher cost, weight and complexity and then a divorce. That one data point started in the early 70’s and is still flying in 2009.

Yes, that is all true. Yet your logical fallacy remains.

So you’re saying move along, nothing of interest there.

No, I’m not saying that at all. In addition to being illogical, you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

Rand its always a profound logical error to ignore history in pursuit of your own agenda. Someone is advocating a marriage of Nasa and DOD. There is history between the two and in one very large case where Nasa’s manned requirements where blended with the military’s unmanned requirements, we got higher cost, weight and complexity and then a divorce. That one data point started in the early 70’s and is still flying in 2009.

So you’re saying move along, nothing of interest there. That strikes me as a fallacy in pure form.

Their requirements are the same — to get hardware into orbit reliably.

Isn’t the military aiming for ORS, ie fast replenishment of much smaller satellites using much smaller launchers than even EELV?

In theory, but not in practice.

The last time the military and Nasa took your advice, the Shuttle was given cross range capabilities that Nasa didn’t want, the military never used and added cost and complexity to the shuttle.

It’s always a profound logical error to draw a grand conclusion from a single data point. This is called the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Given the completely different requirements of the military compared to Nasa, I think it would be an interesting conversation on forcing them to use the same launchers. Isn’t the military aiming for ORS, ie fast replenishment of much smaller satellites using much smaller launchers than even EELV? The last time the military and Nasa took your advice, the Shuttle was given cross range capabilities that Nasa didn’t want, the military never used and added cost and complexity to the shuttle.

Shuttle C, wasn’t that buried decades ago? Why dredge it up now? Why not resurrect the Saturn V?

Finally, did you have a straight face as you typed “overall long term government cost perspective”? After Obama and Congress just rewarded themselves and supporters with well over 1 trillion dollars(counting interest payments) of nearly pure pork? That alone made your post a howler.

I’d also like to see the Shuttle C concept revived as a heavy lift alternative to the Ares V. Not as grand, but a lot more sensible in these days of tight budgets and other priorities. Maybe the military would want to use it too.

Which groups?

I am in no position to judge the merits with Ares I so I have no opinion. What does bother me is people in Direct claiming that serious people in Nasa or the government wished to stand up against Ares I but the Griffin Nasa would punish them. Well he’s gone. Lets here the unvarnished truth from people that will put their names out there with their criticisms, If its as badly botched as some say, this should be a short and sweet burial of Ares I.

However could you possibly have come to this conclusion? If anything, the pressure is mounting to stop the train wreck in a making, or at the very least pause and reassess the difference options. I hear more and more every day about various groups coming forward to challenge the current direction. Besides, Ares I is not as far along as NASA would have you believe. The program is still sloshing through various versions and derivatives of PDR, which right away should tell you that something is indeed rotten in Denmark.

I believe you are refering to First Lunar Outpost (FLO) [opens a new window]

Actually, in 1992, the shuttle had been flying for over 10 years and Griffen actually didn’t want to use RSRB’s at all. F1 engines for the core and the strap on boosters were also liquid rockets with F1’s.

That was one of my first comments about the current design, why the switch to the SRB’s and was it the military that didn’t want to abandon the large solid rocket motor industry capability and or the Utah vote.. Just never made sense to me why he would switch.