Congress, NASA

Bolden and Nelson disagree on additional Ares 1 tests

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) has made it clear, including last week at KSC, that he would like to see additional tests of the Ares 1 (or at least of an Ares 1-like rocket) to demonstrate its technologies as well as preserve jobs at KSC. Yesterday NASA administrator Charles Bolden made it clear he doesn’t agree with his friend the senator on that. Speaking to reporters after an appearance at the COMSTAC meeting in Washington, he said he couldn’t afford to keep testing the Ares 1. “It is incredibly costly for me to go off and try a series of Ares 1 tests to support a heavy-lift at the present cost of solid rocket motors,” he said, as quoted by the Orlando Sentinel. A solution, he said, would be to find some way to reduce the cost of the solid motors used by the rocket. “ATK says they can do that. But we’re not there right now.”

Bolden also said that solid rockets, right now, aren’t being considered for a future heavy-lift vehicle, hence the lack of interest in continuing Ares testing. “Right now, we’re leaning toward liquids,” he said. “And if you’re leaning toward liquids, why would you spend a lot of time using Ares I as a development vehicle if that’s not going to part of the mix?”

Bolden’s comments came after he spoke to—or rather with—COMSTAC meeting attendees. Rather than giving a canned speech and taking a few questions, he largely opened the floor to questions for 45 minutes, taking on topics ranging from contracting mechanisms to concerns by some attendees that not everyone at NASA is on board the president’s new plan for the agency. “I have a very strong sense of urgency about enabling you to take over low Earth orbit access,” he said late in the discussion. “It’s critical. We’ve got to do that, but we’ve got to do it safely. I think we’re headed in the right direction.” That transition, he said, has to be “incremental”, but “it can’t take ten years.”

Nelson, meanwhile, is being challenged for his general support of the president’s plan by a member of his own party. As the Miami Herald reports, Senate candidate Jeff Greene criticized Nelson for supporting the plan because of the jobs that will be lost in the state. “I was kind of disappointed when I saw Sen. Nelson flying down with President Obama to terminate those jobs,” Greene said in a South Florida appearance, referring to last month’s visit to KSC by the president. “I would rather see the space program stay here because the space program has spawned lots and lots of high-paying, great jobs in that area.” Greene didn’t elaborate on what his stance on the agency is. Greene, to be clear, is not running against Nelson (who does not come up for reelection until 2012) but for the seat currently held by George LeMieux—who, ironically, might run against Nelson in 2012.

69 comments to Bolden and Nelson disagree on additional Ares 1 tests

  • amightywind

    Bolden is just a mouthpiece. He is not long for this world in his current position. Someone is filling his mind with opinions. It is important for these people to step forward so we can have the debate. Problem is, we had the debate 6 years ago and Mike Griffin went with solids. Good call too. Ares I-X has flown and was a marvellous success. It is progress worth building on.

    Solids make terrific sense for first stages and strap on boosters where high thrust is valued over high ISP.. They are simple, flexible, safe and available. Atlas V and Delta IV also depend on them. They are an important part of Americas space technology arsenal.

    As for Nelson, he needs to be very careful hitching his political wagon to the wildly unpopular Obama.

  • Christopher

    I’m going to pretend that amightywind is major tom’s alternate account.

  • adino

    Why are we still discussing ARES1? Why can an SSTO program like the X-33 or DC-x not been resurected instead of capsule rides, atleast in an attempt to have a modern vehicle cabaple in transporting astronauts? or better yet can this be build in space and use as a “real” spacecraft for deepspace travel instead? NASA should have everything to resume work quickly and the technology is far advanced now, right? is this also cost related?
    I’m sorry I might be asking stupid question but I’m trying to make sense out of this all..I have a son really dreaming to go spacetech studies but asking me questions and so disapointed seeing us going back to capsules and crap..

  • There is no money for Ares1, so there’s no money for a SSTO vehicle either.

    But, NASA might partner with the Air Force to study TSTO; “According to an Aviation Week article Pathfinder is envisaged as a four-phase, 48-month, $33 million program. Up to three companies would be awarded Phase 1 study contracts totaling $4.5 million, after which one team would be selected to design the demonstrator and conduct first a propulsion-system ground test then at least two booster flights followed by three or more rocket-back tests.

    Such space work is hardly new to the Air Force. Recently NASA said it would partner with the US Air Force Research Laboratory to develop a technology roadmap for use of reusable commercial spaceships.

    The key here is the hydrocarbon engine research.

  • First, Obama isn’t “wildly unpopular”, though if you keep saying that, you might get some of the dumber people to believe it; his favorables are up to 55% and slowly climbing.

    That said I admit I’m surprised — having read the whole piece now, not just the hed :-) — that it’s not necessarily Bolden on board with the administration’s opinion, and Nelson set against it, as I would have expected.

  • amightywind

    “The key here is the hydrocarbon engine research.”

    Why are low ISP Ker/LOX booster engines a key to anything?

  • Why are low ISP Ker/LOX booster engines a key to anything?

    Who says kerolox is low ISP? You? LOL!

    So what?.

    Kerolox is cheap, cheaper than trying to make Thiokol into a medium launch rocket.

    Besides, you got stock in ATK?

  • The Ares-1 at best will duplicate at great expense launch capacities we already have domestically and that are widely available internationally. From an engineering perspective it’s a bad idea that just kept getting worse the more we worked on it.

    At the same time the operational cost difference between a modern day Kero/LOX HLV and a true SDHLV will simply never payback the destruction of our existing $40 billion dollar industrial base and workforce experience we are abandoned or the $30 Billion dollars required to create what is in fact a modern day Saturn V. A HLV we foolishly destroyed the last time we tried to find greener grass because it was ironically seen as too low tech and too expensive. Sound familiar?

    Once again we see the interplay between the two extremes in this debate as defined by those who blindly support the PoR on one hand and those that just want to s*** can most of what we have built up over the last fifty years and start over again.

    Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

    For those that don’t want to counted among the mad there is a better way, it was declared a viable option by the Augustine Commission and its call option 4B.

    http://www.vimeo.com/7209149

  • For those that don’t want to counted among the mad there is a better way, it was declared a viable option by the Augustine Commission and its call option 4B.

    As much as I like to see Direct, or a form of it instituted, I don’t see it happening Steve.

    Like in the 1970s, political forces are lining up to once again “sh*t-can” the base and the industry again has to be rebuilt to the new reality.

  • Derrick

    SSTO is not possible. X-33 wouldn’t have gone to orbit–it was only a 1/3 size test vehicle and I think it was only supposed to go up to 60000 ft. I think the full venturestar would have to drop some mass at some point. The linear aerospike engine was pretty cool though–if only they would fund stuff based on how cool it looks…

  • amightywind

    dad2059 wrote:

    “Who says kerolox is low ISP? You? LOL!”

    RD-180 ISP: 311 sec (sea level), 338 (vec)
    RS-68 ISP: 365 s (sea level), 410 s (vac)

    This is what I mean. A better Ker/LOX engine is a waste when we have better alternatives.

  • Vladislaw

    “Human-rating
    It would reportedly require over 200 changes to the RS-68 to meet human-rating standards.[7] NASA asserts that, “Several modifications would be required to human rate the RS-68 including extensive health monitoring, increased robustness of subsystems, and elimination of the fuel-rich environment at liftoff which would pose a crew hazard”

    RS-68

  • It would reportedly require over 200 changes to the RS-68 to meet human-rating standards.[7] NASA asserts that, “Several modifications would be required to human rate the RS-68 including extensive health monitoring, increased robustness of subsystems, and elimination of the fuel-rich environment at liftoff which would pose a crew hazard”

    One wonders why it doesn’t pose a hazard to billion-dollar satellites.

  • This is what I mean. A better Ker/LOX engine is a waste when we have better alternatives.

    Like what? 5 segment Ares1?

    How come they had to down-size the Orion then?

  • amightywind

    “How come they had to down-size the Orion then?”

    Because they opted for the cheaper, in-flight startable but lower thrust, lower ISP J2-X, instead of the SSME for the upper stage. So the upper stage is smaller that what was needed for the origical 5.5m Orion baseline. It has nothing to do with the first stage. All spacecraft go through a process of weight reduction during design.

    It wouldn’t bother me a bit to pitch Ares I and go with one of the many shuttle derived alternatives and keep a large Orion. Better than then waiting 10 years for rockets that will never be built.

  • It wouldn’t bother me a bit to pitch Ares I and go with one of the many shuttle derived alternatives and keep a large Orion. Better than then waiting 10 years for rockets that will never be built.

    Like I told Steve, don’t hope for Direct either.

    The commercial rockets will eventually get built, but mostly on their own dime. Don’t believe that bail-out b.s., a more even Congress will cut all programs, S.S., Medicare, military, NASA, etc.

    ULA could easily build man-rated rockets, all they need are health monitoring systems.

    But they claim it’s not cost effective for them to alter their launch towers and platforms without cost-plus contracts. Plus there’s no business case for them to do so either.

    Get ready for robot-NASA.

  • adino

    Derrick wrote :SSTO is not possible.

    I believe you ment NOT with current funding for NASA, right?
    Can something like that be build in space, we shouldnt have the haslle of lifting payloads into orbit…we can use such vehicle for deepspace travel?
    Also why cant we repurpose X-38 for astronaut transport to LEO while we breach the transition to a new vehicle?..is such a waste of promising vehicles….

  • Also why cant we repurpose X-38 for astronaut transport to LEO while we breach the transition to a new vehicle?..is such a waste of promising vehicles….

    Dreamchaser, being researched by Sierra-Nevada Corp. is based on the old HL-20 design is about the closest you’ll get to a lifting body design in the near future.

    NASA will never again work on it. But I’m sure they’ll buy rides on it eventually.

  • Vladislaw

    Rand wrote:

    “One wonders why it doesn’t pose a hazard to billion-dollar satellites.”

    I wondered that myself, spent about an hour looking on NASA pages trying to find some source for the report on it. I had remembered reading that statement about the RS-68 though and thought that maybe the price differnential was related to upgrade costs(?) when they considered it for the Ares V. I couldn’t find anything else on different searches.

  • Vladislaw

    Got it .. finally, found the link for it on a FAQ page.

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/377875main_081109%20Human%20Rated%20Delta%20IV.pdf

    Page 8, it says the RS-68A shouldn’t be human rated, because of cost and time but the RS-68B would need:

    Wouldn’t allow a copy and paste but it lists some of the requirements.

  • CI

    Ok, they don’t agree. But the fact is there will be a compromise no doubt.
    So, which would Bolden rather have, shuttle extension or Ares 1?
    My guess and what seems to be in motion in Congress is Ares 1 will stay.
    Congress is not going to sign off on the new Bolden/Obama plan as is.
    We all know that!

  • amightywind

    Thanks for the link Vladislaw. Don’t you think the Delta IV heavy options are a lot more complex than the SRM first stage? A single, reliable, proven, man-rated, shuttle SRM versus parallel LH2/LO2 delta cores, complex staging, probable propellant crossfeed. And they still have an Ares I upper stage. It is hard to understand the controversy.

  • From what I’ve been reading, SRBs damage the launch pads more since the pads weren’t originally built for that much thrust (yeah, that ISP thing, although thrust and ISP are different), so the maintenance costs are higher for the pads.

  • Gary Church

    I suspect (and hope) whatever pieces are left after all this slaughter is what will become the future of U.S. manned space flight. That would be shuttle strap on re-usable SRB’s, the RS-68 engine, and the Orion CEV and abort system. Aluminum Lithium alloy friction stir welding for the second stage; There is your vehicle. I would like to see a reusable engine with it’s own return module and a wet workshop but it does not look like it.

  • amightywind

    “(yeah, that ISP thing, although thrust and ISP are different)”

    No sh*t Sherlock. Of course Ares launched from a launch platform and sound suppression system designed for the Space Shuttle. Please don’t be a moron.

  • Gary Church

    “Why can an SSTO program like the X-33 or DC-x not been resurected instead of capsule rides”

    Because SSTO does not work; TSTO does, and because capsules allow for some payload to go into orbit instead of just the tons of wings and landing gear required for a spaceplane.

  • Gary Church

    “Also why cant we repurpose X-38 for astronaut transport to LEO while we breach the transition to a new vehicle?..is such a waste of promising vehicles….”

    “Can something like that be build in space, we shouldnt have the haslle of lifting payloads into orbit…we can use such vehicle for deepspace travel?”

    It is sad that the most efficient plan for manned space exploration was figured out in the early 1960’s. Somehow what would work was sacrificed for what might work- and it turned out it did not work. We should go back to what would have and still will work. The problem is it costs “too much” money. TSTO, reusable monlithic SRB’s, Balloon tanks, engine return modules, wet workshops, external plasma pulse propulsion; it had all been thought of before SSTO and spaceplanes and VASMIR. Escape towers, ablative shield capsules and parachuting into the sea were technologies and techniques that were the correct answer and what came after were attempts to do better that failed. Just get over it.

  • Vladislaw

    “Don’t you think the Delta IV heavy options are a lot more complex than the SRM first stage? A single, reliable, proven, man-rated, shuttle SRM versus parallel LH2/LO2 delta cores,”

    That is why I am more in favor of the Atlas V, they have a shorter path to the goal line then Delta.

    I don’t remember seeing any 5 or 5.5 segment SRB’s attached to the space shuttle and being launched. So they are have not flown yet, so they are not proven. They use a different propelant, skirt, parachute, and number of segments and avionics. So we will find out if Nelson is successful in getting the funding for the tests.

  • amightywind

    “That is why I am more in favor of the Atlas V, they have a shorter path to the goal line then Delta.”

    Atlas Centaur has a superb success rate. It is probably the best ride into space a satellite has today. The launch of the New Horizons mission was a triumph. But the Atlas V doesn’t have a heavy version. I doubt that a 552 can do the job and loft an Orion. You still have the problem of the lack of an adequate upper stage. 2 RL-10’s won’t do it, so you are back to an Ares-like upper stage. The 5 segment SRB has ground fired successfully. What is the source of the great skepticism that it won’t work?

  • WTF? Did Nelson even discuss this with anyone on the Ares-1 team? There is literally no tests to be done. If the Ares-1 goes ahead, the only work to be done for the next 5 years is in the computer. That’s the point of the simulation and modeling treatment. Just like the Shuttle, the Ares-1 is to be flown with astronauts on the first flight. The Ares-1Y, which wasn’t to fly until 2014, was canceled after the Ares-1X flight as it was deemed to be *unnecessary*.

  • I doubt that a 552 can do the job and loft an Orion. You still have the problem of the lack of an adequate upper stage. 2 RL-10’s won’t do it, so you are back to an Ares-like upper stage.

    That’s a flaw of the Orion design, not the Centaur.

    The 5 segment SRB has ground fired successfully. What is the source of the great skepticism that it won’t work?

    The skepticism isn’t that it won’t work. The skepticism is that it is affordable. And it’s not skepticism. We know it’s not.

  • Gary Church

    “The skepticism isn’t that it won’t work. The skepticism is that it is affordable. And it’s not skepticism. We know it’s not.”

    Then you better start buying more space clown seats on Soyuz because that is all we are going to get. There is no cheap.

  • Derrick

    Gary–I have kind of been wondering though–why hasn’t more thought been given to maglev as a means to initially boost a vehicle? Was just reading up on Argus from Georgia Tech (1998).

    http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/8429/1/aiaa_98-1557.pdf

    I think the vehicle itself is pretty funky but the concept of a maglev assist makes sense to me. Yes the delta_v it provides is a small percentage of what is needed for orbit, but if it reduces the required mass, why the hell not? Only pitfalls that I can think of is that you’d probably need a long ramp and a large power source to get it going…both would be large expensive pieces of infrastructure to put in place.

  • Fred

    There is no cheap.
    Atlas V
    Delta IV
    both ar cheap. Less than $3B each to develop.
    Falcon 9
    Taurus II
    Both cheaper again.
    How many LV’s do you want?

    Forget Orion.
    A cut down Orion suitable for ISS crew will launch on an Atlas 502.
    Nothing larger is needed because under the new plan NASA will be building for the first time a true deep space vehicle.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Derrick – the fundamental problem with something like maglev is that it has substantial upfront costs – quite substantial. Its much like the space elevator – each has high upfront costs. Now, potentially, the margin costs will be quite low, and if there is sufficient market demand, or someone is willing to foot the bill regardless of the cost, then its not a problem getting it built (relatively speaking).

  • Ferris Valyn

    Gary – we don’t know that there is no cheap – we DO know that shuttle can’t be cheap ( at least if we run it the way we’ve always run it), and there are good reasons to think that Ares I will result in the same thing.

    But we certainly don’t know that there is no cheap.

    And if there isn’t, then we won’t be doing anything exciting in space, because individual people have to at some point, take an active role in developing space. And most people can’t afford even a million dollar ticket to space, let alone hundred million dollar ticket

  • “Gary” seems to be logic challenged.

  • Gary Church

    And you seem to like insulting people Rand.

  • Gary, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them” – Thomas Jefferson. He was specifically talking about religious viewpoints, but I think he’d make an exception for you.

  • And you seem to like insulting people Rand.

    I don’t enjoy it at all. It’s a dirty job, but someone has to point out reality. And by the way, you might want to at least learn to punctuate properly.

  • Coastal Ron

    Last year the CEO of ULA testified before the Augustine Commission and stated that they could man-rate the Delta IV Heavy for $1.3B (vehicle and facilities), and the price would be $300M to launch the Orion. He said that Atlas V would cost $130M for commercial crew (didn’t see man-rate costs mentioned, and most likely just the non=heavy version).

    From the ULA website for Atlas V, the Heavy version is rated for 64,820 lbs to LEO, whereas the Delta IV Heavy is around 50,000 lbs.

    We don’t need Ares I to take crew or cargo to LEO.

  • Vladislaw

    “What is the source of the great skepticism that it won’t work?”

    I am not skeptical that it won’t work, but it has to actually fly to be proven. On the same line, a person can say the Falcon 9 is proven. It has already flown the engines on the F1 and the nine engine configuration has been ground tested so by your definition the F9 is proven. For me, that doesn’t work, you have to actually fly it fully configured in a mission ready mode to be called proven. The concept is proven, we know that by the success of the 4 segment version but we have to actually fly it. The main thing that troubled me about the 1x test flight is when it launched they had it take off at the tiny angle to avoid bumping into the launch stand. The extremely hot exhaust burned up part of the launch stand on that test, it didn’t make much noise on the blogs but I saw the video of the damage it caused and still have not seen a line about mitigating that yet. If you have I would like to see it.

    But as Rand states, cost, it is expensive and the solids leave like 23 tons of crap on the ground in the form of pollution. For me, there is just less expensive, non polluting ways of performing that same function.

    I believe an area where we have a major difference of opinion though is NASA role in launch operations. I have no problem with NASA astronauts using American train systems, airline systems, auto systems just like I have no problem with NASA astronauts utilizing just another form of commercial transportation to get them to their work place. In this case, a mear 200 miles straight up. NASA does not design, develop, build any of those commercial solutions for travel and for LEO access I don’t think they need to utilize precious, limited resources on that aspect of space flight.

    That is why I do not really support Orion, although I can see it’s role as a precurser, in space, test bed vehicle and launched with no crew. If they want to dock it to a propulsion/power module and do fuel transfers to it and do runs to GEO/EML1 I am all in favor. But to use to to launch astronauts to orbit… again, there are less expensive alternative routes that can be utilized freeing up more funds for other activities.

  • Gary Church

    Trent, Rand, I know it is hard to accept that someone could dare to disagree with your opinions but…..try and behave like adults. Both of you seem to think you do not smell like other people. You do.

  • DCSCA

    Space policy comes from the White House. It’s the administrator’s job to implement that policy. Bolden, with all due respect to his credentials, is essentially another Dick Truly. NASA needs a Jim Webb with the full support of a president who has an interest in the space program. Obama does not. In fact, as a candidate months before he won the nomination, recall he voiced plans to cut space funding.

  • DCSCA

    @Fred- “There is no cheap.
    Atlas V
    Delta IV
    both ar cheap. Less than $3B each to develop.
    Falcon 9
    Taurus II
    Both cheaper again.
    How many LV’s do you want?”

    Gee, Fred, how many different model cars do we want? Or need. Any one will get you there. Any or all LVs, clustered or otherwise modified, to carry a perfect Orion up seems fine. Or Americans could go Russian and use the same basic rocket to loft a spacecraft for 50 years. Perfect the spacecraft to fly on existing LVs that can be man-rated (preferably liquids) and press on from that to the moon. If the sweep of current events follow as projected now. there will be no human spaceflight program and, in the eyes of a cash-strapped public that funs these ventures, no need for a NASA by 2020. Which has been a conservative target for years, anyway.

  • Gary, in order to disagree with you I’d have to know what you’re talking about. Most the time, I don’t. Thus the whole ridicule-is-the-only-possible-response thing.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 21st, 2010 at 1:54 am

    NASA needs a Jim Webb with the full support of a president who has an interest in the space program….

    I dont care what NASA needs. The US needs a human space program that is not an entitlement, but is something that grows our economy.

    I dont want a president who has a “space program” ‘fetish. I want one who has an idea how to get the new economy for this century.

    Robert G. Oler

  • No sh*t Sherlock. Of course Ares launched from a launch platform and sound suppression system designed for the Space Shuttle. Please don’t be a moron.

    Just making an observation. Please don’t be an a$$hole. Guess being a reich-winger precludes manners.

    Don’t hand me that British Parlimentary b.s. either.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Almightywind,

    Just a clarification: Atlas-V does have a heavy version, the -5Hx (single and dual engine Centaur options). It hasn’t flown yet but has passed all design milestones up to the point of actually being built and flown. ULA say that it can be built within a few years of an order.

    FWIW, everything seems to say that a crew-rated Delta-IV would be more expensive than it was worth. Atlas-VH would be a better starting point and you could use the Delta-IV for cargo launch instead, something that it is indutibly good at.

    This would also fit in with the availability of the two rockets. Delta has generally fewer contracts than Atlas, so it would make sense to focus it on the numerically greater cargo flights to fill the empty slots in its manifest and use the Atlas-V (with fewer empty mission slots) with the less frequent crew launches.

    On to the subject of this thread:

    I agree with General Bolden’s underlying point. Further Ares-I tests are wasteful. They will cost a lot of money and not return a lot for that investment. You would be better off flying the 5-seg SRM and J-2X tests on prototype HLV cores (MAF says that a core proving flight using RSRM and a modified shuttle ET could be ready in 2013). Not only would this mean you are flying something aerodynamically similar, it would shorten the time-line for the introduction of the HLV by eliminating expensive and redundant test-flights of a dissimilar vehicle.

    IMHO at least, the only test for which Ares-I-X is obviously suited is the max-Q transit Orion aerial abort test. It’s violent aerodynamic force environment would make for an incredibly effective stress test of the Orion LAS. If something could escape an Ares-I-X abort, then it could escape anything.

  • Bennett

    Gary Church wrote @ May 21st, 2010 at 1:13 am

    “but…..try and behave like adults.”

    Gary, I find this statement quite amusing. My first encounter with you was a late night comment where you called everyone who comments on this blog “clowns”, and were deliberately, crudely, insulting. Not only towards me, but towards Elon Musk, a man who has accomplished such great things in an unbelievably short period of time that I’m in awe. All of his work you seem to view with scorn, believing, I suppose, that someone is going to take your Zubrin-based space dreams seriously.

    Since that introduction I have resisted lashing out at you as you spouted fantasies about “bomb powered spaceships” and the like. But now? Now you ask for civility?

    I chuckle over your comment about being banned from some other space board, and wonder if you ever look at yourself in the mirror and ask “why oh why am I misunderstood?”

    Your comments are ridiculous. As in “worthy of ridicule”. You really need to grow up and learn a touch of humility, before coming here and interacting with adults.

    For what it’s worth.

  • amightywind

    “It hasn’t flown yet but has passed all design milestones up to the point of actually being built and flown. ”

    Hmm. The choice: a Lockmart Powerpoint rocket or Ares I has done that has flown. The ongoing debate in a nutshell.

    As for wasteful. Redirecting NASA after 6 years of Constellation is wasteful. Hopefully congress can hold the line and these clowns will be gone in 2 years.

    Vladislaw wrote:

    “But as Rand states, cost, it is expensive and the solids leave like 23 tons of crap on the ground in the form of pollution. For me, there is just less expensive, non polluting ways of performing that same function.”

    At least we know what we are dealing with, a tree hugger above all. One would think you would oppose Falcon and back Delta IV on the basis of emissions. I love solid rocket boosters. There is nothing like an Aluminium salt contrail at sunset.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 21st, 2010 at 8:25 am

    “It hasn’t flown yet but has passed all design milestones up to the point of actually being built and flown. ”

    Hmm. The choice: a Lockmart Powerpoint rocket or Ares I has done that has flown. …………

    when did that happen? Ares 1 flying? Missed that

    Robert G. Oler

  • […] Bolden and Nelson Disagree on Additional Ares Tests […]

  • I know it is hard to accept that someone could dare to disagree with your opinions

    Then once again you “know” something that isn’t true. Surely you meant to type something more intelligent than that?

  • Space policy comes from the White House. It’s the administrator’s job to implement that policy. Bolden, with all due respect to his credentials, is essentially another Dick Truly.

    Huh?

    If you knew your space history, you would know that Dick Truly was fired because he not only refused to implement the president’s policy, but actively sabotaged it.

  • If the sweep of current events follow as projected now. there will be no human spaceflight program and, in the eyes of a cash-strapped public that funs these ventures, no need for a NASA by 2020.

    That would have been even more true had we stuck with Constellation.

    Which has been a conservative target for years, anyway.

    Now that statement is ridiculous.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ almightywind,

    *sigh*

    No, Ares-I hasn’t flown yet. Ares-I-X, a close but not identical aerodynamic simulator with just about every system dissimilar to Ares-I is the thing that flew. Something that you could honestly call ‘Ares-I’ won’t fly until 2014 by the earliest, most optimistic and least realistic NASA prediction. It is more likely that it won’t fly until 2016 or afterwards.

    On the other hand, the Atlas-V has flown more than a dozen times. That makes it far, far more than a ‘PowerPoint Rocket’. Cheap, reactionary sloganeering doesn’t help, even though it is practically the only think that MSFC and the supporters of the ALS have left to bring to the table except fallacies about sunk costs.

    No matter how you look at it, from where we stand now, Atlas-VH is far, far closer to the finish line than Ares-I.

  • Gary Church

    “you called everyone who comments on this blog “clowns”, and were deliberately, crudely, insulting. Not only towards me, but towards Elon Musk, a man who has accomplished such great things in an unbelievably short period of time that I’m in awe. All of his work you seem to view with scorn, believing, I suppose, that someone is going to take your Zubrin-based space dreams seriously.

    Since that introduction I have resisted lashing out at you as you spouted fantasies about “bomb powered spaceships” and the like. But now? Now you ask for civility?”

    I did not say everyone, I said most, which the previous comments confirm. The reason I upset so many people is because I do not “seem” to view with scorn- I do. Your boyfriend Musk is after money and the rest of you are pursuing your own personal fantasies. So you can all lash out all you like- but everything I fantasize about has just as much technical validity as your pipe dreams. So smoke that.

  • Michael Kent

    amightywind wrote:

    Hmm. The choice: a Lockmart Powerpoint rocket or Ares I has done that has flown. The ongoing debate in a nutshell.

    Yes that is the debate, but as usual, you got it exactly backwards. The Ares I has never flown anything but a simulator, while the Atlas V has flown actual missions 21 times.

    As for wasteful. Redirecting NASA after 6 years of Constellation is wasteful.

    No, what is wasteful is spending $35 billion to develop a launch vehicle to loft 55,000 lbs of payload into low Earth orbit (LEO) at a cost of $1 billion / flight when we already have a launch vehicle (the Delta IV Heavy) that can loft that payload into that orbit for $250 million / flight. What is wasteful is spending $8 billion to develop a capsule that can carry a 4-man crew to LEO on a $1 billion / flight launch vehicle when for $6 billion we can develop three spacecraft that can each carry a 7-man crew to LEO on a $150 million / flight launch vehicle.

    Killing a $43 billion development project (Ares 1 / Orion) and replacing it with a $6 billion development project (commercial crew) that can do more for much less operational cost is the opposite of waste.

    Mike

  • Vladislaw

    amightywind wrote:

    “At least we know what we are dealing with, a tree hugger above all.”

    This is why no one considers your arguements, you constantly commit crimes against logic.

    Argumentum ad hominem (Abusive: attacking the person)
    Argumentum ad hominem literally means “argument directed at the man”; there are two varieties.

    The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem”. This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn’t depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.

    Regardless if I am a “tree hugger” or not, it has nothing to do with anything I said. The arguement is two rockets, even if the dollar costs were the same, there are still other costs and the effect on the ecosystem is one of them. Ceteris paribus if all things about the two are equal and the only difference is pollution amounts I would go with the one that costs less to the environment.

    So if I was to play your game when you say:

    “I love solid rocket boosters. There is nothing like an Aluminium salt contrail at sunset.”

    I can respond with you are nothing but a paid shill working for ATK, we cannot believe a word you say because you are nothing but a paid for mouthpiece.

    But that does nothing to further the debate.

  • Bennett

    Gary Church wrote @ May 21st, 2010 at 11:08 am

    No Gary, the reason you “upset so many people” is that you approach debate or conversation as if it was a high school insult game. In the adult world that’s just not acceptable (or clever).

  • Gary Church

    Better talk to Rand and a couple other guys about high school insult games; the reason you and a couple others attack me so vehemently is you disagree with my basic stance on commercial for profit vs government not for profit. Look how many posts you and the other “adults” have made just to flame me. Just say what you want to say and I will say what I want to say. Or go away, because I am not.

  • Bennett

    Fine. Please explain to me why someone with a billion dollars would spend it on a rocket company in order to make a profit of millions? Is “money” really the motivating factor?

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 21st, 2010 at 4:02 am – “I dont care what NASA needs.”

    Well, there you have it. NASA is a duly chartered agency of the U.S. Federal government. A government elected by the people of the United States. Not so with private space ventures. This writer doesn’t care what private space industry needs, except that all its needs be met by raising capital, building infrastructure, perfecting spacecraft and LV’s with the risk carried by the investors and not socialized through use of existing government assets. Drax Industries and Destination: Moon are your business plans. Go fly on your own… at your own risk and on your own dime.

  • amightywind

    Vladislaw wrote:

    “Ceteris paribus if all things about the two are equal and the only difference is pollution amounts I would go with the one that costs less to the environment.”

    Nonsense. Ceteris parimbus is invoked so often by the left as to have lost all legitimacy. You have only look at the NASA leadership to see what this ruinous concept has wrought: political correctness and gross incompetence in the NASA leadership and all levels of government.

    “I can respond with you are nothing but a paid shill working for ATK, we cannot believe a word you say because you are nothing but a paid for mouthpiece.”

    No. I used to work at Hughes Electronics (wonderful place!). I no longer work in aerospace. It is not a good business. I work developing medical devices. Same compliance environment, vastly better margins. I don’t hold ATK stock, but I do own Lockmart and Boeing. But I own those because they are profitable oligopolies in defense and commercial aircraft. I wouldn’t want to work at either.

  • Kris Ringwood

    Whew! Reading this lot makes it clear that the whole situation is in disarray. At NASA we have what smacks of incompetence at the very top; held in check(and translated into coherence) by a “nanny” Dep.Admin’. In USG we have an administration that on the surface has offered a new “visionary” space program so stretched out it has little chance of any fruition within the current 6 year(max) time frame.

    We have industry offering possibilities and interminable delays – for the most footling and head-scratching (they hadn’t done already THAT – BEFORE bringing F9 to the pad for launch?! Unbeeleeevable!) reasons – ensuring those delays stretch past 2016: including private manned ISS launches.

    Which of course, means that in 6 years time it will be all-change as a new Administration scraps the old program and starts yet another “new” one, which doubtless will itself take yet another 8 years to get underway just in time to be canceled by the succeeding…ICGO ad nauseum.

    In the meantime our potential partners are pressing on with their plans and charging us what they like for their services…which we need more and more just as we cnow an’t do without foreign oil or Chinese manufacturing…unless we’re talking of the filthy rich, natch.
    Hats off to Obama: destroying manned space while making it appear like something new is underway. Very impressive performance…

  • vulture4

    amightywind wrote @ May 20th, 2010 at 8:18 am
    >>Bolden is just a mouthpiece. He is not long for this world in his current position. Someone is filling his mind with opinions. It is important for these people to step forward so we can have the debate. Problem is, we had the debate 6 years ago and Mike Griffin went with solids. Good call too. Ares I-X has flown and was a marvellous success. It is progress worth building on.<<

    I've been working in the program for many years, and I'm not aware of any decision that has caused more damage than this one.

    Mike Griffin wanted to re-create Apollo. The goal of the program is simply to send people to some arbitrary point in space, be it the moon, Mars, or an asteroid, as quickly as possible. He and all Constellation supporters forget that Apollo was canceled for a very good reason. Its cost was much higher than any benefits that could be gained. Obviously the same fate would await the first man to return from Mars. It would be a one-off, nonsustainable stunt.

    That was why we started the Shuttle program; to vastly reduce the cost of human spaceflight so that the work people can do in space is actually worth the cost of sending them there. It did not meet its specifications, but it was only our first attempt, and a great deal has been learned. Reusable launch vehicles remain the only strategy that will permit sustained human spaceflight.

    The astronomical cost of Constellation has been justified by fanciful claims that going to the moon will magically solve our energy crisis with helium-3 (we haven't even achieved power production with D-T fusion, which is much easier, and helium-3 can be produced on earth simply by letting tritium decay) or by claiming there will be a new moon race with China (which would serve no political purpose for either country).

    Constellation was not even funded by Bush, who claimed credit for it. It's only role now is ISS logistics. The only reason it's needed is because the Shuttle is being eliminated. The only reason the Shuttle is being dropped is to pay for Constellation.

    The used of large segmented solids for human spaceflight is the least desirable characteristic of the Shuttle and the one part that should ne be considered in a new generation of reusable spacecraft. They have very high processing costs and hazards, since they are both extremely heavy and hazardous throughout the processing flow, and they have failure modes that cannot be mitigated. They have never been economically reusable due to the need to completely rebuild them between launches.

  • amightywind

    “The only reason the Shuttle is being dropped is to pay for Constellation.”

    It was politically impossible to continue with the shuttle indefinitely after the Columbia. You know this.

    “The used of large segmented solids for human spaceflight is the least desirable characteristic of the Shuttle and the one part that should ne be considered in a new generation of reusable spacecraft. They have very high processing costs and hazards”

    Hazards? As opposed to pressurized dewars of liquid hydrogen and high speed turbo-machinery? Please. Since the Challenger disaster the redesigned SRB has flown over 220 times without incident. It is an excellent first stage option either alone or where compact high thrust is needed. The fact that both Delta and Atlas use solid boosters says something about their utility.

    “The astronomical cost of Constellation has been justified by fanciful claims that going to the moon will magically solve our energy crisis with helium-3″

    Nice strawman. I wonder if it is the same magic that is supposed to miracle the US to the asteroids when we lack an HSF option at all. If the US has any ambition in space we must a basic human launch capability and a heavy lift capability. If you do not like Ares I and V you will be building their equivalent out of other, less optimal components.

  • Constellation was not even funded by Bush, who claimed credit for it.

    He did?

    Can you provide a quote and citation?

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>