Only at the end?

I would take what you say more seriously if you actually posted under your real name.

But then he’d have to take personal responsibility for his ignorant nonsense. Don’t hold your breath.

While I tend to agree with some of your post, you kinda go off the rails there at the end (just my .02…)

IMNSHO, most new space advocates have become frustrated with a NASA that, from their POV, CANNOT lead, WILL NOT follow, and DOES NOT get out of the way. This would tend to make just about anyone rather, …cranky, shall we say?

I am as big a fan of the shuttle as anyone. That said, it is forty- to fifty-year-old technology at heart; riddled with design, construction, and operational compromises; and (again, IMNSHO) well past its’ due date. NASA has utterly failed to come up with a replacement. Time to send some seed money to someone else.

On a personal side note, I would take what you say more seriously if you actually posted under your real name.

You see that on the posts here where the 60+ year record of success of ATK Thiokol is dismissed as irrelevant in comparison to a new space start-up that has exactly 5 launches to its credit, only one of which placed a satellite in orbit. But I guess in the new Obamathink of Washington experience and wisdom are viewed as negatives while inexperienced and freshness are seen as “change we can believe in”.

You also see it in the claims made on posts here that NASA is misleading (i.e. lying) the public on the Ares 1-X launch. You also see the claim that the Shuttle, which demonstrated that humans could do productive work in orbit building structures, launching, repair and retrieving satellites, the Shuttle which has placed more astronauts into space than all the other world’s spacecraft combined, is a failure. (roll eyes…)

The new space movement isn’t interested in co-existing with America’s current space program. They want to destroy it, turning NASA astronauts into no more the government funded space tourists. Sorry, that is not a space program.

Look I have nothing against COTS-D. The new space companies need to gain experience somehow. But COTS-D shouldn’t be America’s only manned space program. That would be a mistake.

We should also wait on COTS-D until we see if COTS is even a success. The first COTS launch has already slipped a number of times from 2008 to 2010. Yes, if it was one of the experienced aerospace companies you would see howls from new space on the Internet blogs, but since it’s a new space firm its only a normal part of development to have schedule slips… Really Congress would look pretty silly killing NASA’s human space flight program in favor if a COTS-D only program then having COTS fail and blow up in their face. The time for COTS-D is after COTS is successful and actually providing cargo service to ISS. But before that its just compounding a gamble with a new gamble.

As for the infamous spaceflight gap, I would just keep the Shuttle flying as Sally Ride suggested. Then provide the funds to accelerate Orion. If Congress kills the funds for Ares I then downgrade Orion for launch on the Atlas V heavy.

Anyway that is my two cents. But given this is a blog dominated by the new space movement I don’t except anyone to support it. Sadly the posters here have bought into the new space movement’s hype and merged it with the “change we can believe in” group think of Obama. Sad, but illustrative of the Internet world.

In any case this blog has become too biased towards new space to be of much value anymore. Time spent here would be much better spent making sure Congress is informed on just what they would be gambling on if they kill human space flight at NASA in favor of “inexperienced” space companies. Time actually spent doing something productive to save America’s space program.

“I don’t think they’re going to get a whole lot of valuable performance data out of it without using a “real” 1st stage.”

There is lot of data to gain in terms of aerodynamics/aerothermal data and trajectory validation data, etc. Of course if it is all planned as I suggest, otherwise… If it only is a firecracker show off then it may be the most expensive ever that’d make the Chinese proud

“I’m not trying to frame the argument as a “New Space vs NASA” adversarial thing (in case anyone got the wrong impression).”

No I did not mean to say you did, just to address it in general.

“The only real question mark is safety”

I don’t think it will stay a question. If any private space company wants to fly NASA astronauts they will have to comply with NASA requriements on safety, I cannot see it any other way (I am not going into the debate of Orion safety requirements changing with changing LV here though). On the other hand, if they want to fly their own private astronauts or if any other private entity wants to fly with them, then there’d probably be an FAA like set of requirements if it does not already exists like for commercial aviation.

“no one in their right mind would fork over a couple hundred thousand dollars for a trip”

I would not bet on that statement. Some people have expressed interests in 1-way trip to Mars. All they need is the cash…

“NASA forking over tax dollars to a company that they percieve is killing astronauts left and right”

Hmmm, I think NASA is currently doing exactly that to Boeing and ATK. A bit over the top but your statement alo is a bit over the top… And BTW the same holds for LMT’s Orion…

Also, unlike some other posters here, I’m not trying to frame the argument as a “New Space vs NASA” adversarial thing (in case anyone got the wrong impression). Just the opposite, I think the 2 can coexist. In fact the commercialization option the Augistine commision has been talking about is just that. Hand over Earth to LEO (i.e. ISS cargo and crew) objectives to commercial providers so that NASA can concentrate on beyond LEO exploration. If those commercial companies can really accomplish all of the required objectives for cheaper than NASA then why not? The only real question mark is safety, but NASA’s gotten plenty of astronauts killed themselves over the years. Commercial launchers would have to be even more safety minded because if the public believes that the Falcon 9, just for example, is unsafe then no one in their right mind would fork over a couple hundred thousand dollars for a trip up to a Bigelow orbiting “space hotel” (if that becomes a reality), nore would they go along with NASA forking over tax dollars to a company that they percieve is killing astronauts left and right.

As I said before I am not a fan of Ares-I-a/b/c-or-X. But I think there is some value for NASA to launch Ares-I-X in that they may be able to validate their models and org structures for developing/launching a launch vehicle, regardless of whether it is the final LV. Some of the said models may, or not, be valuable to the industry as well. And if nothing else the industry may end up hiring a lot of the people working Ares but I don’t know that.

Yes indeed a real LAS firing test along with the Ares-I-X test would bring tremendous data that as far as I know does not exist today.

So, to me, if NASA can make up a good case then they should launch. And then we move on to other things.

Finally the “new-space” vs. NASA debate is not a real debate, it is entertained by people who want to see the whole thing fail in order to say “I-told-you-so”. I’d be curious to know how many of those ever worked for the HSF, be it commercial, NASA or contractor…

Speaking to this one, how often do you see companies where the executive management has anything other than a management degree? In my company, a healthcare company, the CEO is a doctor. But he is a rarity in my industry and I garauntee you he hasn’t written prescription in over a decade, certainly not under my company’s roof. Our partner organization is run by the Catholic church. While I have no complaints in that regards, I hardly imagine the Sisters of St. Mary are emminently qualified to distribute advanced medical care. Heck, even when I worked in the restaurant business we’d dread the days when the boss decided to have a turn behind the line. We’d spend the rest of the night fixing the disasters he inflicted in an hour or two. That’s why they hire people who are qualified to do the job. So I’m not really sure what your point is here.

An interesting counter to that, however, is that a lot of the people who are now working for SpaceX have long track records working for other companies or for NASA. The head of propulsion systems has worked developing exactly the sort of thing he’s building for SpaceX in both a professional and amateur capacity for decades. I think the above mentioned link to SpaceX’s executive resumes pretty much covers it. It’s not like a couple of desk jockeys with a spot welder decided to concoct a explosive tin can in their garage. You may have your doubts, and so do I. But don’t misportray Musk’s team as a bunch of unqualified hacks. RpK wasn’t either. Again, they succumbed to funding issues, not engineering issues. Your grandstanding senator would be far better off complaining that we threw 32 million at a company where no executives held a finance or marketing degree, and I’m pretty sure you’d be wrong on that account as well.

And since you seem to be keen on pointing out forgotten COTS competitors, it’s funny that I haven’t heard much about Orbital in your comments. Just too inconvenient to your argument that ATK is part of the Orbital team or that Orbital is thus far meeting milestones? Or is it their demonstrated track record in the industry that’s dropped them off your radar?

I’m not super excited about Orbital as their project has heavy doses of Big Space on contract. It’s only a partial step forward in my mind. Nevertheless, the solution they offer gets cargo aboard the ISS faster and cheaper than Constellation, and does maintain some independance from NASA ownership of their vehicle.

Aremis

That horse left the barn decades ago.