Ares I-X launch success - some reaction and reflection

As expected, the Ares I-X flight is producing a boom in publicity for NASA and Constellation. See spacetoday.net for links to dozens of articles about the launch. A sample:
/-- Liftoff! NASA Launches Moon Rocket Prototype on Test Flight - SPACE.com
/-- Space shuttle successor completes crucial flight test - New Scientist
/-- Former NASA Administrator Griffin, U.S. Sen. Shelby cheer Ares 1 launch, test flight - Huntsville Times

As indicated by the last item, members of Congress with big NASA operations in their districts and states will try to use this success to beat back efforts to kill the Ares I. It would, in fact, have been pretty amazing if a straight-forward suborbital test, using what is basically a Shuttle SRB, had not worked. As I've repeated many times here, the complaint is not that NASA's Ares systems cannot be made to work - it is that they cannot be made to work for a reasonable cost. Both their development costs and operational costs will be enormous. The pricetag for this prototype test alone is said to be about $450M. For comparison, SpaceX is requesting COTS-D funding of $300M to develop a launch escape system for a Falcon 9/Dragon system that would give it crew transport capability.

Many of the articles refer to the Ares I-X as if it were the Ares I when in fact there are very few components in common. Mr. X discusses how this test compares to a previous development program that launched prototypes with incrementally greater capability: Mike Griffin, Saturn I, and the Potemkin Rocket - Chair Force Engineer

It is not a little ironic that this Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne press release about the launch brags how it used "heritage U.S. Air Force Peacekeeper missile system hardware". Previously I've seen articles warning that the US missile infrastructure will be badly diminished if ATK does not get the Ares booster market. The space age got off on the wrong track from the beginning when it based human spaceflight on converted missiles. The artillery approach to spaceflight has guaranteed high costs. Here we are 50 years later and the agency is hailing the success of its latest missile. At least the early missile based ELVs were liquid-fueled.

If human spaceflight were confined to the path that NASA has chosen, it would be headed towards a dead end. It just won't be possible to maintain public support of another $100B+ multi-decade long NASA program whose only purpose is to put a handful of astronauts into deep space. Eventually there will be a severe budget crisis that leads to the elimination of the whole HSF program and no one outside of a few areas with NASA jobs will even notice that it is gone.

Thankfully, commercial human spaceflight will continue regardless of what happens at NASA. It will be greatly accelerated if the administration and Congress selects a policy that incorporates commercial launchers into NASA's transportation architecture. However, even if they do not, commercial spaceflight will move forward and outward regardless.

Posted 10/28/09 | 18:30:50 by TopSpacer | Filed under: Space policy

Comments

Well said

Also valuable today was the discussion about the Ares I timeline. Hanley said he agreed with the Augustine panel about how long Ares I will take. 2017 to fly Ares 1, 2019 for Ares V /Lite.

Since Ares doesn't exist and Atlas does, you have to believe a tweaked Atlas will close the gap faster.

And since free market competition lowers the prices of everything else (it is the basis of our entire way of life), you have to believe rocket competition will do the same.

Some people don't believe these last two ideas.

Posted by donnie at 10/28/09 18:42:08

now, NASA needs "just" 8+ years and $35+ billion to (finally) launch its "Soyuz" called Orion atop the Ares-1 firecracker in 2017 (or later) ...both figures pretty close to the time and (not adjusted to inflation) money, the '60s engineers, were needed to send 12 astronauts on the Moon...

and, don't forget, that, $35 billion are enough to carry *** 700 *** american astronauts to the ISS with the Soyuz at the, current (100% increased) Soyuz price per "seat"

Posted by one at 10/28/09 19:48:46

There is also the possibility, just the barest possibility, that the Rocket Scientists at NASA know what they are doing and the New Space blog sphere doesn't....

Posted by anon at 10/28/09 20:15:53

"Rocket Scientists at NASA know what they are doing and the New Space blog sphere doesn't"

true, in fact, both "8 years" and "$35 billion" figures to develop the Ares-1 come from NASA guys...

Posted by one at 10/28/09 20:23:45

anon, the Apollo scientists have retired. The Ares I team have built nothing but failures during their tenure.

ULA, Orbital, and SpaceX have ALL built and flown more successful rockets than the Ares I team.

You're living in a fantasy fallacy.

Posted by donnie at 10/28/09 20:27:11

"anon, the Apollo scientists have retired. The Ares I team have built nothing but failures during their tenure."

So what are these failures you speak of?
Ares-I might not be the optimal solution, but making baseless claims against the guys who actually design and assemble the hardware seems a bit over the top.

Posted by MNL682 at 10/28/09 22:08:59

Donnie,

Yes. NASA has not had a launch failure since Challenger. Or are you talking about all the projects that were canceled by Congress before they could even have a test flight?

Posted by anon at 10/28/09 22:54:47

"...Rocket Scientists at NASA know what they are doing and the New Space blog sphere doesn't..."

The Rocket Scientists at NASA did not select the current architecture. The Ares architecture is the one that Griffin wanted before he came to NASA (i.e., when he was just some outsider telling NASA's Rocket Scientists what they should do) and is the one that he forced to be implemented. If, say, Pete Worden had been chosen instead by Bush as NASA chief, the exploration architecture would be completely different. If an O'Keefe style bureaucrat had been selected, then the agency would probably have an architecture picked by Admiral Steidle, who had NASA Rocket Scientists methodically examining a range of architectures, including many from companies outside the agency, at the time Griffin arrived.

The Rocket Scientists at NASA will implement the architecture they are told to implement. I'm sure they will do their best at it. No doubt many have put in many long hours into Constellation projects like Ares I-X.

Whether or not the Rocket Scientists at NASA are more experienced, knowledgeable, and talented at designing rockets than, say, the Rocket Scientists at Lockheed-Martin or Boeing is a topic that I will leave to aerospace engineers to argue about.

However, the selection of the overall architecture and strategy for the country's human spaceflight program involves a heck of a lot more than Rocket Science. That selection involves economics, politics, sociology, and host of other issues. Like many non-Rocket Scientists, I'm perfectly capable of offering a rational, informed argument about that selection. I have yet to hear a convincing argument from Griffin or anyone else for the selection of Constellation.

After hundreds of billions of dollars and 20-30 years or so, the Constellation architecture will take the HSF program to a certain point in terms of capability, costs, and accomplishments. A different architecture and strategy will put the program somewhere else. I'm sure not going to be silent and just accept that some group of NASA employees knows best at selecting what should be the nation's HSF goal.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 10/29/09 01:12:56

Not to put too much pressure on Elon Musk and his people, but a completely successful Falcon-9 first flight would e a *very* desirable thing, about now, for more than just SpaceX itself...

Posted by Frank Glover at 10/29/09 02:57:29

"Or are you talking about all the projects that were canceled"

Yes, I'm talking about those under-performing, over-budget, behind-schedule projects that were cancelled.

Face it, the government engineers have less experience with success than the commercial engineers. Todays ULA, Orbital, and SpaceX engineers have each built and flown more successful rockets than the Ares I team.

And the NASA failure count is going to increment again very soon.

Posted by donnie at 10/29/09 08:55:36

PS: it doesn't matter who is at fault for NASA's failures. The point is the Rocket Scientists at NASA have not tasted success the way commercial Rocket Scientists have, and proposing the opposite is wrong.

Posted by donnie at 10/29/09 09:12:59

"Ares-I might not be the optimal solution, but making baseless claims against the guys who actually design and assemble the hardware seems a bit over the top."

Gosh, we wouldn't want to hurt their delicate sensibilities by pointing out that their rocket is a piece of shit!

Oh ... the horror!

Posted by Horror Show at 10/29/09 10:38:28

I prefer to say that they did the best they could...with what they were given.

Posted by Frank Glover at 10/29/09 12:57:42

I prefer to say they are demonstrably incompetent engineers, scientists and managers if they can't grow a set of gonads and speak up and express their outrage when they are handed a pile of steaming shit on a golden platter, and forced by a naked emperor to eat it.

You know what's even worst than that? They ate the steaming pile of shit and pronounced it wonderful to the world.

Posted by The Horror at 10/29/09 13:22:20

What I find funny is how the rocket engineers at ULA have now become new space rocket engineers. I thought the whole purpose of new space was to replace the old space rocket engineers at Boeing, Lockmart, etc. with new space companies. Its interesting watching the term morph on the blog sphere.

As a side note, most of the actual work on the Ares I was probably done by same contractors from the NEW new space companies (Lockmart, et al) that have built all of NASA rockets.

But it should also be pointed out that since NASA rocket engineers haven't designed a new rocket in 30 years it makes the success of the first flight of the Ares I-X all the more to brag about. Look at how many flights it took SpaceX to get Falcon I as far off the pad.

In any case it will be interesting to see if Elon will be able to match the success of the Ares I on his first Falcon IX launch whenever that is.

Posted by anon at 10/29/09 13:41:03

donnie,

I that case you need to count all the failed viewgraph new space rockets as failures as well. How many dozens have there been?

In any case the Ares I-X flight demonstrates the difference between professionals who do their job and go back to work and the amateurs who then spent weeks bragging about their most minor accomplishments.

Posted by anon at 10/29/09 13:43:50

"the amateurs who then spent weeks bragging about their most minor accomplishments."

The accomplishment that you rarely hear the amateurs brag about is the fact that they didn't spend 10 billion dollars of US taxpayer money on a suborbital flight with a technologically flawed launch vehicle.

Posted by Horrible Waste at 10/29/09 13:56:10

"What I find funny is how the rocket engineers at ULA have now become new space rocket engineers."

I did not say that ULA was NewSpace. The point was that there is plenty of rocket expertise outside of NASA. Most all of the small NewSpace companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin have lots of engineers who came with long experience at the big mainstream aerospace companies.

"I thought the whole purpose of new space was to replace the old space rocket engineers at Boeing, Lockmart, etc. with new space companies."

You thought wrong. The point is to get NewSpace ideas, techniques and approaches accepted throughout the space industry. COTS is a perfect example. It is revolutionary for NASA to use launch services competitively fought for and contracted with fixed prices and with payments coming only when milestones are accomplished. The Augustine panel's recommendation of a similar services arrangement for crew transport is one more big step in the right direction.

"Look at how many flights it took SpaceX to get Falcon I as far off the pad."

Let's see, NASA has been in business for 50 years, has spent several hundred billion dollars over that time, has tens of thousands of engineers of its own and contracts out for tens of thousands more, has untold thousands of acres of facilities, etc. etc. It then spends nearly half billion on a suborbital expendable that has virtually no parts in common with the vehicle that it is supposed to be a prototype for.

So clearly it makes sense to compare the Ares I-X to the orbital Falcon I of SpaceX, a firm that came out of nowhere 6 years ago, starting with zero employees, no facilities and no legacy hardware and then spent less than $100M to get the F1 to orbit.

"...match the success of the Ares I on his first Falcon IX launch..."

The Ares I won't fly for at least seven years from now. The suborbital thing that flew the other day has nothing but a general shape in common with the Ares I. The Falcon 9 will have many successful flights before the Ares I ever flies and will be developed for about 1/100 the cost of the Ares I.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 10/29/09 14:30:45

"In any case the Ares I-X flight demonstrates the difference between professionals who do their job and go back to work and the amateurs who then spent weeks bragging about their most minor accomplishments."

Surely your joking! NASA is going to generate a tidal wave of PR bombast about this launch. Just as it does about most everything it does, no matter how minor.

Since you won't take responsibility for what you post, you have no standing to criticize either amateur groups or NewSpace companies for what they accomplish. Your posting on this thread is done.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 10/29/09 14:38:55

Add Comment

Note: HTML code will not work except for bare URLs (i.e. http://www...). Also, for postings older than 1 week, comments are filtered manually to prevent spam and so may not appear for a few days.
Note: Trash talking and name calling, especially in anonymous comments, won't be tolerated.