Per Augustine, Ares I/Orion won’t be ready until 2017-2019, most likely more on the later side. It started in 2005, so that’s not halfway, especially considering the Shuttle budget that would go that way in the later years.

Considering that the budget for Ares I/Orion would have forced ISS to be lost before Ares I/Orion could service them, and thus Orion would have no real work to do for decades, it just doesn’t make sense.

John: “But will the COTS capsule really be man rated and operational before we could complete Orion?”

We don’t know for sure of course, but the best assessment of Augustine and the Aerospace Corporation was that they would be ready at the latest by 2016. NASA is planning to put much more funding into commercial crew than the Augustine Committee suggested, which may give them an even better chance to be ready earlier. Also remember that Augustine was equally skeptical about the dates given by Constellation for Ares I/Orion and the potential commercial vendors they interviewed.

John: “The hang up is Ares 1 so why not just put the Orion on a heavy EELV?”

This would still have taken time, money, and rework. It does strike me as making more sense than Ares I/Orion though. However, there’s no reason some derivative of Orion couldn’t compete in the commercial crew competition.

John: “Then we have a spacecraft that can do the LEO missions but can also go beyond when the HLV (which most of you and certainly Bolden support) is ready to take us there.”

The HLV probably wouldn’t be enough; Orion would also need rework for this. That’s more time and money. The HLV is likely to take tons and tons of money and time. I wouldn’t count on it. It may make more sense to wait until a suitable rocket is developed and then start work so there aren’t rocket/spacecraft change cycles as happened with Ares I. Also, NASA might be more interested in a space-only beyond-LEO craft.

John: “But what is this HLV going to be in the limit budget environment going to be? Are we really going to design another Saturn V (fully liquid fuelled)? No. We can’t afford it.”

I think that’s true.

John: “So we are going to do something that uses Shuttle SRBs or a version of them and RS-68 engines. So it will either be Ares V, Ares V-lite, Direct, or something like that.”

I think those would also be too expensive.

John: “If we are going to do Ares V (why are the others that much better?) then Ares I is a step in the direction of the SRBs for Ares V.”

Ares I and Ares V are far too expensive to develop and operate, and take far too long to develop.

John: “So there is a good case for just staying with Constellation and phase it to meet the budget.”

Ares I/Ares V don’t phase well with smaller budgets. That’s one of the many central points of the VSE that ESAS violated. VSE was supposed to be robust in the face of changing budgets, but ESAS completely collapses given small budget changes or technical hurdles. That’s how we go from a 2012 Ares I goal to 2019, and a 2020 lunar goal to 2035. The 2011 budget is much more robust in the face of possible future budget changes. Just dial up or down on 1 or 2 technology demos, R&D projects, space technology investigations, HSF robotic precursors, ISS experments, human research plans, or whatever — the rest of the program survives intact because the tight interdependencies aren’t there.

John: “The key thing is to have some policy stability.”

There’s no reason to have policy stability if the current plan is a complete disaster.

John: “I think we also need some hard driving management to make things happen on a budget.”

One thing management always wants is a smarter, more experienced, more hard-working workforce. The reality is that they aren’t likely to do much better than they are. It’s not as if they are trying for a less smart, less experience, less hard-working workforce.

John: “Perhaps if we have NASA scared these smart people can figure out how to get it done with less.”

I wouldn’t count on it.

John: “The point is that unless you can do Constellation then the Bolden/Garver talk is just hot air.”

I’m not following this part. I don’t see how not being able to do Constellation makes the current plan hot air. If you can’t do Constellation, cancel it, and do something better. That’s what they’re doing.

John: “If you can do Constellation then do it.”

We can’t – not without unreasonable sacrifices to the rest of NASA, missing out on many very worthwhile opportunities, using far too much money, waiting too many decades for results, and even if successful getting results that just aren’t worth the cost.

John: “We need to break the cycle of change for the sake of change.”

‘Change for the sake of change’ is how I’d describe Griffin’s destruction of the key points of the Vision for Space Exploration: science, economy, and security benefits, a sustainable program, major commercial and international participation, a strong robotic precursor program, and a strong technology development effort. There was no need to remove these VSE cornerstones to make an empty “Apollo on Steroids”, but he did with no justification. The current change has ample justification; see the Augustine Committee report, GAO reports, the VSE itself, etc.

Because Orion design is based upon the LV it sits ontop. Ares I is dead and so is Orion. The required re-design for another TBD launcher would put Orion further away at a great cost. Orion dead does not mean there will be no son-of-Orion, just not now. But you really have to think in terms of design integration: Orion + LV + LAS. It takes time and money, a lot of both. You do not design Orion as a standalone vehicle or you get in the mess that LMT described some time ago.

“But what is this HLV going to be in the limit budget environment going to be?”

Why do you neeed to know NOW? Why? Don’t you think you need to identify a mission first? What is the mission? Going back to the Moon? Nope it has been cancelled. Could it be that they are trying to figure what capabilities can come on line in the near future before deciding?

” Ares I is a step in the direction of the SRBs for Ares V.”

Nope it was not supposed to be, not in the current, former implementation anyway. Read ESAS.

“So there is a good case for just staying with Constellation and phase it to meet the budget. ”

No, I am afraid there is no such thing.

“The key thing is to have some policy stability.”

Not at all.

“I think we also need some hard driving management to make things happen on a budget. Perhaps if we have NASA scared these smart people can figure out how to get it done with less.”

They had their chance, it was a VSE REQUIREMENT to do it within budget and they scr…d up. Too bad. They should go. In real life they would go, but who is going to replace them at NASA? It is a cultural issue.

“If you can do Constellation then do it. ”

You just cannot do Constellation and it why it is being cancelled.

“You’re saying that Constellation won’t succeed and neither will the new route proposed by Bolden and Obama. O.K. I respect your view and I’m interested in what you think should be done to really get us exploring the solar system.”

That’s a fair question Abe. To do it justice was pretty difficult, I didn’t want to just dash off a quick response. The over riding politics boxing NASA in limits the reasonable options.

I should start off though by saying that I approve of some of the new choices Obama made for NASA. Ares I and Ares V had to go. Encouraging commercial manned access to LEO is good, even at the cost of a purely NASA manned spacecraft.

Bear with me. I now have an overall NASA plan in mind and the reasons to justify it, but I don’t have the time right now to type it up. I promise to post it all very late tonight or (more likely) on Saturday. I call it NASA on a Shoestring (budget).

Orwellian.

The man is a liar. This is not what he promised in Florida during the campaign now is it?

He doesn’t care about NASA, only what it can DO for him.
Today was a PR stunt. A pretty lame one. Boring and as inspiring as well, his so called nebulous “vision”.

Right now he is desperate to say he is “creating” jobs.
Doesn’t matter he wipes out thousands of them in the process and rips the heart out of NASA.

He needs a reality check to.
His understanding of how to get things through congress is clearly weak. He is making rookie mistakes. Thank god.

In order to launch the Orion and the Altair into lunar orbit, the Ares architecture require the development of a new 5 segment SRB, a new upper stage for the Ares I, a new heavy lift core vehicle, and an EDS stage.

For Direct to launch an Orion and Altair into lunar orbit, it only requires the development of a new heavy lift core vehicle and an EDS stage. That’s it!

Right now, NASA doesn’t need any more breakthroughs. The NASA shelves are full of break through technologies that have never been utilized. NASA just needs to do things as simply and as efficiently as possible with existing technologies.

“Why should I trust NASA’s access to orbit to private companies that get down on their knees every time Fascist China barks or throws money at them!”

You brought up a good point, but the ITAR regulations exist for the reason you stated. There are many however that feel we need to loosen up ITAR regulations because it is preventing our companies from getting their hands on valuable contracts in other countries. I think we must remain careful with respect to China in this area.

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar_official.html

The point is that unless you can do Constellation then the Bolden/Garver talk is just hot air. If you can do Constellation then do it. We need to break the cycle of change for the sake of change.

Why should I trust NASA’s access to orbit to private companies that get down on their knees every time Fascist China barks or throws money at them!

YEP. AND: If we do it that way, we may, just may, start the building of an infrastructure from the “top” and the “bottom”. The “top” is advanced technologies required for deep space exploration things that don’t existed today and require lartge amount of cash: The USG. The “bottom” is the commercials which will use existing technologies and build quickly a “low” cost access to space. Once we have those 2 things started then we will be able to get the infrastructure, the ISRU, the advanced re-entry vehicles. Until then we only have utterly ridiculous competition to build 1950/60 technology. And that is not progress in any way shape or form.

Saying that is like saying if Toyota cancels production of one of their automobiles no one will be driving. It is silly at the least and insanity on a bun at the most.

Orion is ONE design out of hundreds that could be designed. you will never convince me of the logic of launching a capsule from the surface of the earth, dragging it to the moon, mars, asteroids and using it as your LEO to earth return vehicle is the best design.

You spend enormous energy to get your “space ship” into earth orbit and then you drag it back down into a gravity well.

Let commercial space design, develop, build and operate the “pop & drop” rocket and capsules for access to LEO, let NASA focus on IN SPACE reusable systems for exploration.