ATK were actually the originators of the whole ARES LV concept:http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm.

It was their upper management that sold the idea to Griffin and Horowitz in 2004, who then ran with it as if it originated from NASA. Ever since it has become clear that this was another “even if we fail, we make pots of money” Aerospace Industry boondoggle that inspired the USAF to bankroll Elon Musk as a way out of the dilemma of which ATK is just another player. I believe the term for it is “Corporate Socialism”!

Anyway Griffin’s plan didn’t even survive Griffin:
the change from using the Shuttle/STS SRBs as the Ares I first stage to using a new five segment solid rocket fuel first stage (except primarily the casings, which is a weird and bizarre choice that only seems justified as a PR sleight of hand) is a larger change than many seem to realize. At that point Ares I should have been scrapped because the professed (but perhaps not sincere) aim of Griffin with Ares I was to utilize STS heritage and that aim was obliterated by that change.

And the original Ares I should have been killed by the 60-day ESAS study, truly should have. ATK must have known the instant they saw the design but of course they’ll say they’ll provide the SRB (as well as the change they know will be needed somewhere down the line) ^_^ NASA has overall responsibility after all, if NASA wants to build weird things using ATK supplies it’s none of ATK’s concern: they’ll provide as long as the money arrives.

The fundamental design idea of Ares I “Mark 1″ was like the notion of cutting off a third of a semi-trailer truck engine and putting in your sedan with the expectation that it would be an appropriate and fully working solution for normal sedan use. It just didn’t seem quite as bad as that because the Shuttle Transportation System sort of has three engines (SSMEs and two SRBs all roughly providing a third of the power each) but in reality it was just as stupid in the way it completely ignored the actual workings and design of the STS and how that system was broken when using a single SRB alone in a new launch vehicle.

Likewise to that mix and match approach the fundamental design idea of Ares I “Mark 2″ (made when at least some of the flaws of the original Ares I were undeniable) was like the notion of trying to make one and a quarter firecrackers into a larger firecracker by taping them together. Same kind of mix and match approach that ignores just about everything about how things actually work. I didn’t realize this either at the time because I didn’t know enough then but it’s hard to believe nobody at all at NASA realized the follies of both Ares I versions fairly early on/almost instantly.

A side note about management fits in well at this point: as far as I know what Griffin and his HQ did wasn’t that far from what you think is good management advice and so what? Reality didn’t budge and the outcome is exactly the same only at far higher levels of wasted money, wasted effort, wasted years, and wasted employee talents. If you look at the results that’s not good management.

Wouldn’t it have been better if somebody at NASA was not only allowed but encouraged to demonstrate why the original Ares I couldn’t and wouldn’t work according to know basic solid rocket fuel/engine knowledge? Sure keep it internal if you can but if that wasn’t an option due to for example your recommended management policies then publicly.

And by the way isn’t “open battle” (maybe a bad choice of words) exactly what happened in Apollo with John Houbolt and LOR? Not to “invoke” Apollo unfairly ^_^

And facts should never be deemed subversive no matter what or one is in deep trouble (and of course if “facts” are politically defined as seems common in Congress then one is in equally deep trouble).

Oh look, another Rand Simberg fa_sist on Jeff Foust’s space policy blog.

But shouldn’t George Bush in that case have told Griffin to do what he (Bush) and O’Keefe had written down in the VSE. Griffin clearly wasn’t following orders when he started Constellation.

People may find my opinion baffling as I’m clearly not a Constellation supporter. But this isn’t about any specific program, this is about management and, although some things can be handled with kid gloves, public dissent is *toxic* and must be met with an iron fist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhRj_6gtG0w