Can the Ares Program Be Salvaged?

MarkWhittington writes "The Augustine Commission has not officially presented its findings to the White House, but already a push back is starting to occur over the possibility that the Ares 1 rocket will be canceled after three billion dollars and over four years of development. According to a story in the Orlando Sentinel contractors involved in the development of the Ares 1 have started a quiet but persistent public relations campaign to save the Ares 1, criticized in some quarters because of cost and technical problems."

Comments

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[QuoteMstr]

Oh, and I hate to reply to myself, but from the article:

Lofstrom estimates that an initial loop costing roughly $10 billion with a 1 year payback could launch 40,000 metric tons per year, and cut launch costs to $300/kg, or for $30 billion, with a larger power generation capacity, the loop would be capable of launching 6 million metric tons per year, and given a 5 year payback period, the costs for accessing space with a launch loop could be as low as $3/kg.

Augustine's views are well-known

[Anonymous Coward]

Augustine's personal views on human spaceflight have been known since 1990:

--
In its original report, the [Augustine] committee ranked five space activities in order of priority:

      1. Space science
      2. Technology development
      3. Earth science
      4. Unmanned launch vehicle
      5. Human spaceflight
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Committee_on_the_Future_of_the_United_States_Space_Program

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/05/does_the_choice_1.html

No, it can't be "saved"

[TopSpin]

This was spelled out for you 15 months ago right here on Slashdot.

There is no saving Ares. Not because there is anything wrong with Ares. The "technical problems" are trumped up exaggerations of the engineering challenges that have emerged and been overcome. The "cost overruns" are fictional; Augustine is "finding" dramatic cost overruns because that helps justify killing the project. The reason there is no saving Ares is that the US voted in people that despise manned space flight. They have "better" places to spend money so whatever plans the US had for manned space flight are on hold for the indefinite future.

Lots of apologists appeared to muddy the waters but the bottom line is that the original plan to give the Constellation money to the NEA (a.k.a "early-education") was never repudiated by anyone in the Administration. We're just doing the necessary political push-ups to bury NASA's manned space flight capability.

It is amusing to watch as NASA and it's contractors make sweeping their work under the rug difficult; the engine test will be dramatic and will unavoidably appear in the news cycle. Ares I-X has a launch date and is being erected right now... It's kinda hard to characterize all this as "failure."

Yes, but what does it need saving from?!?

[Bureaucromancer]

Aside from the predictions and suppositions I have yet to see evidence of the insurmountable problems of Ares I. No, it was not necessary to develop a new vehicle, but at this point why waste the effort to turn around. Just about every launch vehicle and spacecraft ever developed have had weight and payload problem during development, frankly the only thing that seems different about Ares is that the internet has made the whole development process much more visible. I hate to imagine what people would have said if the internet had been around during development of the Apollo LM. As far the as the design goes, I've never loved it, but there is something to be said with commonality between Ares I and V (and we do need the V for realistic missions beyond Earth orbit). Assuming the I-X mission next month is succesful I think any doubts about the actual workability of flying an SRB solo will be dead. On the Orion front, quite frankly I am, and always have been thrilled. We are correcting the mistakes of the 70s, and getting Apollo back, with modern technology no less. Apollo and Orion are actual spacecraft; designed for SPACE, and able to explore. The shuttle is what happens when an ICBM knocks up an Airbus. In all seriousness, while the shuttle was an impressive experimental vehicle, as an operational system anything but satellite retrieval could have been done just as well, and usually cheaper, by an enlarged Apollo capsule (read Orion) and unmanned launches of the Saturn V. Satellite retrieval is very impressive, but almost never used, and the experimental side of the program could have been done cheaper and faster with a mini shuttle launched on a conventional vehicle. All of this is moot anyway, since Obama could never survive the political hit of killing American manned spaceflight (the effective outcome of cancelling Orion), so only the Ares I is up for discussion in the real world. At this point we might as well take the vehicle that is being developed, and hope it will, as NASA claims, be operationally cheaper than Delta or Atlas. Switching now would drive up development cost for Orion, throw out the billions in work that has been done on Ares I, and quite possibly damage the badly needed 100+ ton booster (Ares V) program. In the worst case scenario Ares will be a comparable booster to the United Launch Alliance options that wasn't needed, but kept the SRB engineers employed while between cancelling the shuttle and starting up Ares V development.

Re:There is another option

[vlm]

Why NASA is completely dug in on Ares is mind boggling.

Also, the contractors won't really be affected: ATK would still make the SRBs

Think about how those two quotes, apparently intended to be in opposition to each other, yet strangely similar.

Senator Frank Moss has been out of office since before the first battlestar galactica series in the late 70s, and dead for six years. Its time to let the SRBs die, please. They've killed enough people.

In a similar manner, why keep all the same contractors doing the same old, same old, if all that changes is the project name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Moss_(politician)

"Senator Helped Thiokol Win Shuttle Contract ."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1367&dat=19860303&id=eM8VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5585,719942

Re:Ares-V: Yes Ares-I: No

[QuantumG]

You fail to mention that the two are part of an architecture that you can't justify one without the other. Kill Ares-I and Ares-V will follow.

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[cheesybagel]

You mean ULA, Arianespace and ILS.

Re:Bush's rocket

[cheesybagel]

Ares I is a turd. Ares I-X is an exercise in public relations. None of the components in Ares I-X is supposed to be used in Ares I. The first stage is a regular SRM with a dummy segment, and the entire second stage is a dummy. It looks pretty in pictures, but it cannot launch anything into orbit.

race to the bottom

[falconwolf]

No. There are plenty of things we can do to stop it:

* Minimum wage

Minimum wages reduces demand for employees. I know when minimum wages go up small business owners may either have to fire employees or go out of business, both of which reduces demand for employees are therefore lowers wages.

Progressive income taxes

Why should I work my ass off to make more money, and increase demand for employees, if I have to pay more taxes on what I make? That's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Taxing capital gains as income

If worked right I support this, if not I don't. The devil is in the details. Otherwise I do not support income taxes. What I, and you, work to earn should not be taxed.

Strong unions for collective bargaining

Strong collective bargaining yes, strong unions though is a big no no. If I do not want to be a member of a union or have union dues taken from my paycheck I should not have to live with either one yet still have my job. In other words no closed shops, which some unions push for. Twenty two states have right to work laws, which I support, that are supposed to prevent this.

Laws against unlawful termination

What? Laws make things unlawful, if there are no laws it not illegal.

Tariffs against nations with poor labor laws

Thus reducing demand for employees, see above. Without government interference markets will improve employee pay and labor conditions. Look at China and India for examples. Because of relatively free trade, though there still is government interference, throughout the 1990s and early 2000s to the recession both nations saw booming middle and upper classes rise up. Real wages in both nations increased. They both went from relative backwater economies to being major economic powerhouses. In competition with each other they now offer other nations assistance.

Now I'm not saying there should be no laws or regulations, the less there is the better, but the ones there are need to be smarter and if necessary reformed or eliminated.

These things worked here for 50 years, and they still work in Western Europe. What the hell is wrong with you when you argue against policies that benefit your own economic and social interests?

Oh but do they? If I go to France and want to start my own business employing people can I do so easily? I don't think so. A few years ago there were riots by the youth when government proposed making it easier for employers to fire employees. I know I would not want to hire someone if I can't fire them because they cost me more than they make for me. It's in my own, and society's, interests to be able to easily fire a bad employee as well as get rid of them when they aren't needed.

And starting my own business is something I want to do. My sister already did, with friends of hers she started an accounting firm which now employees others.

Falcon

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[Richard_at_work]

What, precisely, do you think is actually happening here? NASA isnt developing and building Ares I, Alliant Techsystems, Boeing and Rocketdyne are - all private companies. NASA is acting as the administrator of the program, a position you would need however you decide to source your rockets.