Ares I woes

I think the first flight test will be the H--l Mary pass for Ares-1, Constellation and the future US manned space flight program. Frightening to know that so much depends on such an unpopular, controversial and questionable design. Failure will subject Ares and NASA to the Obama\Pelosi\Reid regime makeover. What emerges will be little more than a go-nowhere façade manned space program at best. Perhaps SpaceX will benefit to some degree. Either way I do not see any future forward looking manned space initiative emerging from an Ares cancelation. Add 25% DOD budget cuts on top of the current financial crises plus Obama’s proposed tax burden on the wealthy suborbital ticket buying public and I fear it could be over for the private sector as well. Meanwhile Russia, China and India will gain ownership of near space and the Moon. Welcome to the FEDZILLA regime.

Posted by Doug at 10/26/08 09:42:42

Doug - your attempts to equate the idea of a tax increase as the destruction of society, and the ending of the US space program, is overblown crap.

I do agree to a point that the first flight test is likely to be a hail Mary pass, if it happens at all. But there is a reason that people like Patti Grace Smith and Lori Graver are supporting Obama - because he understand the potentail and importance of space and space development

Posted by Ferris Valyn at 10/26/08 10:23:17

"But there is a reason that people like Patti Grace Smith and Lori Graver are supporting Obama - because he understand the potentail and importance of space and space development"

....and they want a job.

Posted by Mike Puckett at 10/26/08 12:57:01

Ferris,

I hope you are correct about Obama space policy. However it is congress that has the final say. The potential Obama\Pelosi\Reid\Press\Acorn synergy presents an unbridled far left regime the likes of which we have never experienced (plus recent FED related bailout intrusion into the free market). To what degree will Pelosi and Reid influence Obama's policies (Unanimous Consent (UC))? It’s not just the burden of additional taxes on the wealthy that concerns me. It is taxes on top of the recent demise of stock market related equity, wealth and credit that concerns me. Politics aside to what extent will all of this effect the ability and interest of the wealthy to purchase $200K suborbital rides? How will this affect the well of potential space tourist? I fear the effects and depth of the upcoming recession are yet to be realized. Potential DOD cuts on top of a potentially shrinking space tourism market and tightening of capital credit could severely impact the new emerging private space companies. I sense this new era of FEDZILLA will be full of unpleasant surprises for future space development, entrepreneurs and society in general.

Posted by Doug at 10/26/08 13:37:24

I have long been a skeptic that the Ares launch system will ever fly, or if it does it will only be a cute NASA toy that will be rapidly demonstrated as obsolete even before it gets more than a dozen launches in.

I'm not saying that DIRECT is any better, but at the same time there seems to be a HUGE disconnect between the top NASA management and those who are grinding the numbers and doing the hard work of design and development.

In any engineering enterprise, you have to go through a process where the folks helping to build the item/project/technology have to "buy in" and become committed in almost a religious fashion to getting the project finished. In other words, they have to be "converted" to the concept and really believe it will work. When this happens in engineering projects, they usually succeed in the end.

I just don't see that happening with Ares right now. Those that are working on Ares are doing it "as a job", and there certainly have been enough grumblings "leaked" to the press that there is more than one dissatisfied engineer working on it at the moment. The usually government solution is to throw more money at the problem... which sometimes works but often doesn't either.

Could this just be sour grapes from a bunch of lose cannons among the Ares engineering teams? Yeah. But I would suggest this is just the tip of a much larger problem. Besides, NASA has a proven track record of ignoring advise from their engineers, including the loss of 14 lives that could have been saved if there were much better communications channels to discuss and resolve legitimate concerns. In private industry, that would be called murder and justifiably prosecuted.

At the very least, I sure hope that the Ares rocket won't be held up as a classical example of a failed engineering design, ranked right with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (Galloping Gertie). That would not be good for NASA or for private spaceflight either.

Posted by Robert Horning at 10/26/08 17:53:41

<i>At the very least, I sure hope that the Ares rocket won't be held up as a classical example of a failed engineering design,</i>

It's already that, and more.

Why do you insist on prolonging the agony?

Posted by Grass Hopper at 10/26/08 19:31:26

The problem is that should SpaceX successfully orbit a capsule with 5-7 people before 2015 there will be a lot of Lawmakers asking why NASA is spending billions doing what Private Industry just did for $500m or so.

I understand Orion is Lunar Capable etc however many in Congress will not see the difference, and it will difficult to create support for this current program against such a background.

For NASA to remain relevant they really should just focus on creating the best capsule/infrastructure they can and leave Boeing/LockMart/Orbital/SpaceX/etc to fight over the contracts to launch it.

My guess is if they do not do this willingly, it will soon be forced upon them, or worse, they will be told to cancel all hardware programs and buy what they need from private industry.

Posted by ross at 10/26/08 20:33:31

ferris: I sincerely hope you are right about Obama. But I don't believe it. Successful private space would be a shining example of the superiority of a free market approach. No socialist will allow this to happen.

And Obama is a socialist. He already said that he prefers big government programs over prizes. And he is in favor of a highly progressive income tax because it is "fair", not because it is effective. He is obsessed with "fairness".

But maybe he will be so busy dealing with the fallout of a nuclear war between Iran and Israel that he will have no time for destroying private space.

Posted by anonymous at 10/27/08 01:33:50

"Successful private space would be a shining example of the superiority of a free market approach. No socialist will allow this to happen."

..which is why Virgin Galactic was successfully founded and headquartered in the "socialist" UK.

Any more gems of wisdom?

Posted by Justaguy at 10/27/08 06:13:59

<i>Any more gems of wisdom?</i>

Prepare for another eight years of this kind of commentary. They aren't going to quit even though their philosophy has been a demonstrable FAILURE, and they've lost the election. It isn't in their way.

Posted by Grass Hopper at 10/27/08 08:31:13

Obama wants to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution". He wants to "put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.".

I did not want to quote the whole thing, so read the original here: http://michellemalkin.com/2...
If you think that "redistributive change" is more important than space develoment, then by all means vote obama. But the linked radio interview from 2001 pretty much proves that obama is a socialist. If you think that he will leave private space alone, you are fooling yourself.

Posted by anonymous at 10/27/08 09:55:29

Michelle Malkin, huh?

I didn't know she had an interest in space technology and space science. Who knew!

Posted by Grass Hopper at 10/27/08 10:01:17

Re: Grass Hopper

Attack the messenger, huh? Who cares. These are verbatim quotes from a radio interview with obama in 2001.

Has anybody of you obama fans actually lived in a socialist country? Have you seen what it can do to people?

McCain is not exactly my dream candidate. But at least he respects the constitution.

Posted by anonymous at 10/27/08 10:29:16

"Attack the messenger, huh?"

Perhaps you could help us out and point out where I 'attacked the messenger' because honestly, I must have missed it.

"Has anybody of you obama fans actually lived in a socialist country? Have you seen what it can do to people?"

Crazed zombies. Frankensteins roaming the countryside. Vampires and ghosts.

"McCain is not exactly my dream candidate. But at least he respects the constitution."

You mean like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney repected the United States Constitution these last eight years?

Honestly, if you can give us a link to Michelle Malkin's napkin and space policy position, that would be great.

Posted by Grass Hopper at 10/27/08 10:33:27

Re: Grass Hopper

You are trying to discount these verbatim quotes from an obama interview because I linked michelle malkin. How is that not attacking the messenger?

The space policy positions of michelle malkin have nothing at all to do with these quotes.

I could also have linked youtube. The only reason I linked michelle malkin is that there is a transcript.

Posted by anonymous at 10/27/08 10:54:43

"because I linked michelle malkin. How is that not attacking the messenger?"

It's not attacking the messenger because I didn't actually attack Michelle Malkin, I didn't read her quotes, and as far as I know, they have nothing to do with space technology or space policy.

If they do, feel free to post a link to them, and I would be happy to attack her space technology and space policy positions. Michelle Malkin is so far removed from everyday reality in America that no attack of her positions are necessary. She adequately destroys herself every time she opens her mouth and commits her views to publication.

As do you. Luckily for you, you're posting anonymously. Smart move.

Everybody here knows who I am.

Again : Michelle Malkin's napkin?

Posted by Grass Hopper at 10/27/08 11:18:53

"I didn't read her quotes"

Look. This is not too difficult. This has nothing whatsoever to do with michelle malkin. The quotes I posted were verbatim quotes from obama.

But just so you don't have to go to that evil right-wing site, here is the same radio interview on youtube.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

You really think that somebody with these positions will allow rich people to spend 200000 USD on a five minute joyride while there is "redistributive change" to be done?

By the way: you are attacking the messenger again by complaining that I am posting anonymously. I have no idea who you are, and it does not make the slightest difference anyway.

Posted by anonymous at 10/27/08 11:35:42

Barack Obama's napkins :

http://www.fladems.com/page...

http://www.barackobama.com/...

So you see, I'm good to go, I've already read Mr. Obama's and Biden's napkins.

Now Michelle Malkin's napkin? That should really be very interesting.

Wanna read my napkins? They're very specific as well.

Posted by Grass Hopper at 10/27/08 12:01:31

Obama can post as many policy statements as he wants. He adjusts his message according to the audience anyway.

His policy can be summarized in one sentence: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Sounds nice, right? But nobody "needs" space tourism.
I mean, how more direct can he possibly get about that? He could read the entire communist manifesto, and most people would still deny that he is a socialist.

Posted by anonymous at 10/27/08 12:13:18

"His policy can be summarized in one sentence: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"."

Mr. Obama didn't say that, you and Karl Marx said it. Can you see the dishonesty?

"Sounds nice, right? But nobody "needs" space tourism."

Sure we do. If it advances the state of rocket and satellite technology, then that's good for predicting storms and quantifying ice loss and sea temperature rises and stuff like that. Your mind is wired up in such a manner that you appear incapable of recognizing indirect connections and nuances of vocabulary.

I guess you missed the 'space' in 'tourism'. Keep your eye on Garriot's statements and actions very soon now.

I'm guessing he 'gets it' as well. The question now is, will he 'get it' to the tune of thirty million dollars over the next five years. Time will tell, huh?

Posted by Grass Hopper at 10/27/08 12:22:00

"Mr. Obama didn't say that, you and Karl Marx said it. Can you see the dishonesty?"

Obama rarely says anything that can not be interpreted in multiple ways. He is nuanced like that.

But his comments about wanting to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" are a rare exception.

This is pretty much admitting is that what he has planned for the USA is unconstitutional.

If you have no problem with that, fine. But at least be so honest to admit it.

Posted by anonymous at 10/27/08 12:42:16

"This is pretty much admitting is that what he has planned for the USA is unconstitutional."

More unconstitutional than the Bush administration? That would be a trick.

I'm pretty sure the constitution is not a valid document in space, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it as well.

Posted by Grass Hopper at 10/27/08 12:44:48

"More unconstitutional than the Bush administration? That would be a trick."

So you are saying that what obama plans is unconsitutional, but it does not matter because of bush?

"I'm pretty sure the constitution is not a valid document in space, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it as well."

If you think that the treatment of foreign nationals in guantanamo is unconstitutional, obviously you think that the constitution should apply to every human being regardless of whether he is an US citizen or whether he is currently in the united states. So why not space?

But it won't matter: if the US decides that it wants to try socialism, india and china will colonize space. They have both already made that experiment, and they did not like the results. It takes decades to undo the damage, but at least they are moving in the right direction.

Posted by anonymous at 10/27/08 13:21:55

<i>So you are saying that what obama plans is unconsitutional, but it does not matter because of bush?</i>

No, I'm saying that you are delusional.

Being delusional as you are, it would be a waste of time trying to explain it to you.

Posted by Grass Hopper at 10/27/08 13:43:27

OK.

So far you have attacked the fact that I linked to the obama interview on michelle malkin side, even though that is completely irrelevant.

You have attacked the fact that I post anonymously, even though that is also completely irrelevant.

You have mentioned bush, even though bush is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

And now you are calling me names for disagreeing with you.

What you have not done is to tell me what obama means with what he says in that interview, and what makes you think that he will leave private space alone.

Instead you have used every single common debating technique to avoid discussing obamas statements wrt the constitution.

Posted by anonymous at 10/27/08 14:32:33

You are under attack.

You are very afraid.

Ronny Reagan da man!

Posted by Grass Hopper at 10/27/08 15:14:24

I was hoping to stir up an insightful debate concerning the future of NASA and private space in a left winged, recessionary, bear market with a severely curtailed military budget. Should Ares fail what will rise from the ashes? How would this effect the space tourist market? All good, all bad,some of both or unknown wait and see? How long till we know. I'm guessing about one year from now?

Posted by Doug at 10/27/08 20:46:40

Has Bush been good for NASA? I think he has been lukwarm towards NASA at best. Has Bush been good for private space? Yes I think so. At least he congratulated Rutan when he won the X prize.

What about Obama? If he is a socialist, and I think he is, then NASA will probably do OK, he may even re-orient the whole big government program toward some green objective like Solar Power Sats. I hope they work better than the space shuttle did. If he really got FDR crazy, maybe he would build a STAR TRAM as a huge public works project to give people jobs and reduce the cost to LEO to around $50 dollars a pound.

In the meantime, the Falcon 9 will go to the spacestation and on to the moon.

The spacestation might end up becoming an earth-mars cycler, after breaking up into Russian and US segments. Or maybe they will sell it to someone like Bigelow.

Obama has no interest in private space. I don't even think he knows of it's existence. He will try to kill it simply because it was supported by Bush.
Bush is bad, so private space is bad.

Personally I think private enterprise can suck and socialist programs suck too.

The real question ought to be, WHO is paying for Obama's election and how do THEY intend to screw us? And WHO paid for his college education? I am not a fan of Bush either, he shot down my hopes to go to Mars in my lifetime, and he started a war that was stupid and counterproductive.

I find it interesting that there has been very little media coverage of Bill Gate's recent 100 million dollar investment in Sapphire Energy. They are developing green gasoline directly with genetically modified organisms. We are talking about Algae directly to gasoline. We now have the ability to crush OPEC, save 700 billion a year in wealth transfer and achieve American Energy Independence. Picken's thinks he is the one responsible for the drop in oil prices with his wind, solar, and cng car plans.

What is interesting to me is that at least 700 billion was given to wall street and bankers so that they didn't get left holding the bag for all these adjustible rate mortgages. That is more than 43 YEARS of NASA budgets and nobody on either side is batting an eye! Why is any ARM legal? Why should credit card companies be allowed to charge what ever they want? That's free enterprise right?

As for Health Care, either we have a private system that no one can afford, or a socialist system where we die waiting in lines, and there is no innovation.

Why are there no conservatives working at newpapers and on public broadcast TV? Where is the "equal oppourtunity" there?

Why do High School teachers need a Master's in Education to teach math and science? Why does their NEA union keep teaching a closed shop?

Why are we moving towards socialism when Russia and China are moving towards free enterprise? I hate what the Bush Administration has done by letting military contractors and big Oil run the country. But at the same time, I hate that the Democrats have strangled NASA, prevented any economic drilling or refining, prevented any new nuclear plants, and let our most innovative solar technology go overseas because those socialist countries like germany have higher solar subsidies than we do!

Since Biblical times, any time taxes have gotten higher than a third of total income, there was a REVOLUTION.

I have been paying 36% ALL OF MY ADULT LIFE. The US founding fathers were pissed off at 3% taxes!! Before 1906 there were no income taxes at all.

I don't like McCain much at all he wants to freeze taxes where they are now! That sucks! Obama says he will reduce taxes on 95% of us, even though half of us don't pay any taxes at all. How can anyone trust a guy who lies like this?? If we try to stick it to the rich they will just fire more people and pass on the taxes as higher prices.

Anyway all this is why I still support Ron Paul and a more Libertarian philosophy.

My friend Boris, a Russian, told me this old Russian saying that he learned, before his family escaped communist russia when he was in high school, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us!"

I for one, welcome our Socialist Obama Overlords!

Posted by Tony Rusi at 10/28/08 03:26:46

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me