Slashdot Mirror
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."
Should NASA be in the space launch business?
Yes, 3 billion dollars of taxpayer money has been blown. However, the decision to make is : will the gains from FUTURE spending exceed FUTURE costs? We don't factor in the 3 billion already spent in this decision. Alas, it's impossible to quantify gains since a few moon rocks and some pretty pictures don't have a readily assignable value. I'd say no, because I think the 20 billion or whatever a working Ares rocket line would cost could be better spent on other areas of space exploration. 20 billion would pay for a lot of unmanned missions, or could be used to develop a cheaper way to get to orbit (such as lasers or an EM accelerator or something)
The question should be SHOULD Ares I be rescued? Honestly, I do not think so. It always struck me as a waste since other rockets of similar size were available. That bring us to Ares V. Should it be? I honestly do not know. I know that USA needs multiple types of launchers and they need them to be low costs. I would very much like to see an Ares V or a Direct 2** be in the mix. Which is better? I am not sure. Personally, I have to give the nudge to Direct since it uses far far more of the current launch human-rated equipment. There is a lot to say for that. In the end, I am much more concerned that we will not do the right thing WRT to private space. I have aborted that several times. This time, we need to get it started AND give them an ALTERNATIVE destination; Basically, we need to get Bigelow building his Space Station. Also we need tugs combined with a fuel depot to haul things around. While it is nice to say that this is about NASA, but it really is not. It is about Obama and Congress allocating say 1.5B, 1B, and then .5B for the next 3 years and sticking with it. Will they do it? Tough question to answer
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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
However, if the billions spent on every cancelled shuttle replacement had gone towards a real project, we would *actually have something*. Following your logic (and that of many politicians), we have spent billions upon billions and have fuck all to show for it.
Meanwhile, the smart money is on China to carry on the banner of human space exploration. They don't suffer from political paralysis.
I don't so much care if we do it, or not do it, but today we have the worst of both worlds. We spend the money but don't get the results. Let's make up our damn minds one way or the other already and stop waffling around for decades on end. Either it's not worth it to send humans into space, and then let's stop spending the money and just send up robots, or it's worth it for whatever other benefits it brings, and then let's just fucking get ourselves a shuttle replacement already.
"take your comic books, light them on fire and shove them up your faggot ass."
While that's a wee bit harsh, we don't have even the slightest immediate need for manned missions.
Robots are what we should be developing. Sending people to do a machines job so others can live out Buck Rogers fantasies is an appropriate task for COMMERCIAL space outfits. Learning about space is an appropriate use for robots, which we will require to exploit the resources that are the main reason for going offworld in the first place.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
http://www.directlauncher.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Launch_Vehicle
The DIRECT system is a better option:
1) Most of the hardware is man-rated; unlike Ares
2) NASA does not have to retool manufacturing; unlike with Ares
3)Can be ready sooner with heavy lifting as an option
Why NASA is completely dug in on Ares is mind boggling. Orion, the capsule, is a go no matter what.
Also, the contractors won't really be affected: ATK would still make the SRBs, Lockmart would still manufacture the capsule, and Boeing would get it's money from being part of United Space Allaince.
No, the question is 'will the Ares program be salvaged.' The answer is 'yes.' Now, I'm not saying that Ares I should be killed... or that it should be saved. But if you try to kill it, all the congresscritters whose districts are going to get money out of Ares I (the SRB components are built by Thiokol, for example), won't let you. If the NASA tries to replace it with something else, Congress will step in and earmark part of NASA's budget specifically for Ares development. NASA has sucked since Apollo, since congress saw the awe and wonder that space exploration inspired and realised it would be a great, unkillable jobs program.
Am I cynical? Yes. But NASA has been enormously hindered by congressional micromanagement over the years. And none of it has been for the benefit of the space program.
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."
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
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.
Yes.
Seems to me could recoup the loss by, oh I don't know, cutting 3 billion from defense spending? Seems to me a lot of things could get done by diverting money from Defense.
Agreed. But this should be done anyway. By no means am I religious but I do believe in turning weapons into plows. Even more, I believe workers should be able to keep the money they work to earn and not have some government bureaucrat or politician demand people give it to them. Especially at the point of a gun.
At least government military weapons. Now the government and politicians better keep their grubby hands off privately owned blades, firearms, and other weapons.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When National Geographic wanted some space history background material, they contacted NASA' history office. NASA's history office sent National Geographic to http://www.astronautix.com/ I assume NASA sent NatGeo there due to its objectivity and completeness, because they sure didn't send them there for pro-NASA propaganda. This is a good example: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm
Ares is a salvage project from its inception. It is an attempt to build a family of lifters from existing designs, technology and manufacturing as much as possible, with as little new design, technology and manufacturing as they can get away with.
Ares was designed by ATK Thiokol, manufacturer of the shuttle's solid rocket boosters, using derivative components of the shuttle, and in the case of Ares 1, the solid rocket boosters as the main engine. It is far more adaptation than it is invention. This is in keeping with NASA's "faster, cheaper" mind set that served well in many planetary probes. But since it is not a ground-up design, where flaws are handled when they first occur, it is prone to problems emerging from more complex configurations, the errors themselves more often due to complex interactions. Vibration problems, such as the current Ares booster 'pogo-stick' problem, are a common example of such emergent behavior.
One of NASA's greatest inventions during the early manned space program was systems analysis software, intended to examine a large system as it was built to determine where problems might and/or did occur. But even now, with far greater computational capability, the complexity of potential interactions due to starting with a large system that has been altered in numerous small ways from its original design puts the Ares designs beyond predictability. That will continue to occur as long as the design philosophy is maintained. If this fact, and the fact that such problems could emerge only under certain conditions -- say at max Q, pushing a heavy load with a smaller, lighter load on the top (ie. an Orion) -- isn't at the forefront of those minds trying to decide whether to scrap it and start over, it should be.
Had the shuttle component and system design philosophy been based on extensibility and adaptability (such as with SpaceX's Falcon 1 -> Falcon 9 design), Ares might have a better chance. But the core design of Ares 1 is the SRB, which was designed over 35 years ago for one purpose -- to be strapped on the side of the shuttle to help with its initial lift phase. It did that job well, with its only major failure having been a NASA decision going counter to a Thiokol recommendation. Now we have Thiokol recommending and NASA deciding the same things.
Robert Truax designed vehicles using surplus components. He designed so many, with so much acclaim for his designs, that there was a TV show based on it (Salvage 1, with Andy Griffith, ABC, 1979). But Truax was salvaging components to use in their intended fashion, not entire systems being adapted to entirely new designs.
One has to wonder at the basis for decision making when an agency first builds from scratch, then declines designs reusing some of the parts, but later chooses to rebuild existing designs. The probability is great that the decision is not technical but rather administrative. When the decisions were technical we got "Not on my watch." and Apollo 13 got home. When the decisions became administrative we got "My God Thiokol, what do you want me to do, wait until April?" and the Challenger didn't come home. This is the sort of fuzzy, intuitive, gut-feeling stuff that gets trashed in serious discussions about such major projects as a space vehicle. But the people that trash that kind of thinking aren't going to fly these things. A pilot that doesn't have a personal example of an intuitive, gut-feeling decision that was right hasn't been flying long, and the older the pilot they more likely that following such a gut feeling
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
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.
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
Should there be a Law?
Someday, you'll be hurt by the policies you advocate. Will you be such an ardent advocate of the rich then?
I am not rich now, but I want to start my own business. And I don't want government telling me how much I have to pay employees or that I have to provide health insurance, or anything else. The only thing government should have to do with it is to uphold contracts and prosecute me if I harm others.
And I already am harmed by policies you advocate, as are you whether you acknowledge it or not.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
government's duty under our social contract is to ensure the utilitarian welfare of all.
I'm not sure the government is aware of this. An impartial observer would say that the US government is steadily working to expand its control over US citizens and over foreign lands and foreign resources, with benefits channeled to select few corporations. I'm sure the government would have a good laugh at the notion of "social contract" of any sort. Most of government bureaucracy is not even elected.
It's perfectly legitimate for government to tax you in order to benefit society as a whole.
Troubles begin when your definition of "benefits" does not match their. How would you like a federal tax that is used for killing foreign dark-skinned people because ... [nobody remembers the cause any more.] How would you like a federal tax that takes your money and gives it to bankers? How would you like a federal tax that takes your money and gives it as free money to your lazy neighbor so that he can buy a better car? You are paying all of these taxes and many more, most of them are useless at best, but usually destructive. That's the problem.
Also, progressive taxation can be justified by observing that as one earns more, each dollar is less useful.
Even if we focus on personal income and personal taxes, how is it that each dollar is less useful? I can spend a $50K on a house and it keeps 5 laborers employed. Or I can spend $500K on a house, and it keeps 50 laborers employed. I think dollars just don't have the attribute of usefulness; each dollar is equally useful in the economy.
On top of that, all the progressive taxation does is gives more of your money to the government, where it will be misused in millions of ways. They might build a mega-school where none are needed, or they can build a bridge to nowhere, or they can build an international airport in a fishing village, or they can just burn the cash up in some war. The money is taken out of your hands, this means you are denied the right to decide how to spend it. This reduces the desire to earn more; the opposite end of the spectrum is to earn nothing at all and live on social security or some illegal income.
some Scandinavian countries have begun to issue fines for traffic violations [...] as percentages of the violator's income
Yet another way found to deincentivize honest work. Work for cash only (as a pimp, for example,) run red lights all you want, and pay nothing. Great idea, just as most governments' ideas are.
The capital gains tax is a price for sitting on wealth. It's something we should discourage.
I feel a disconnect here. An example may be helpful. Your school needs repairs. The city issues a bond for $10M, which is an offer to potential creditors. I decide to help out and lend them $1M. A year later the city pays me back $1.1M when the bond matures. I have $100K of capital gain as a fee for the risk I took and for the use of my money (I couldn't hire more workers for my business, for example, when the money was lent.) How is it that this use of my money is not socially welcome? Am I some sort of villain for letting you use my money when you needed it?
I'm not proposing "socialism" in the way you think I am. I'm proposing that we make a market economy that works better through forcing all the participants to play fair.
And, with the right value of "fair", that is the definition of socialism.
I've addressed most of your post elsewhere, so let me focus on the new arguments.
Don't confuse the model with the implementation. I described how government is supposed to work. We can agree that for the past decade or so, we've had an especially corrupt, dysfunctional government. That dysfunction, however, is not shared by governments in all places and times. Good government is possible.
You seem to take it as a self-evidence axiom in the world that government is malicious, corrupt, inefficient, and ineffectual. I reject this axiom because it is patently false. Without the underlying assumption that giving more money to the government is always a bad thing, your argument falls apart.
Yes, the amount of stuff you can get increases linearly with your income. But how much satisfaction do you gain? Does having 50 laborers make you ten times happier than having five? Does having two yachts make you get out of bed any faster in the morning? Utility and satisfaction increase slowly with income when you are very wealthy.
There are plenty of incentives to work even with a graduated fine system. The benefits of success should not include the ability to violate laws with impunity. A non-graduated fine means exactly that. I remember a case in New York City a while ago of some lawyers parking anywhere they'd like and just paying all the parking tickets because the fines meant nothing. That behavior is antisocial.
You have the ability to influence the budget through many different political channels, the most powerful of which is the ballot box. Through government spending, we can accomplish great things that would never have been done had individually individually allocated the same funds.
And so we arrive at the meat of he issue. Are you seriously claiming that there's no incentive to work in a society with a safety net? There are quite a few advantages to wealth.
Or is it that you're more upset that it's possible to survive without working? Are your sensibilities offended by the idea of someone not being punished for idle