Dr. Griffin made a speech at the Goddard Memorial dinner last week when he received the Goddard Trophy. Jeff Foust has a report of the highlights (or lowlights, depending on your point of view). There’s a lot of good discussion in comments (in which Mark Whittington makes a fool of himself by ignorantly slandering people like Steve Isakowitz), including the recent release of the Aerospace report that indicates what anyone with half a lick of sense already knew — that it would be much faster and cheaper to modify EELVs for human exploration than to develop a whole new launch system. I think that this report will hammer the final nail in the coffin of the Ares 1, particularly since it was produced at NASA request. And, like someone in comments at Space Politics, I find Mike’s statements flabbergasting:
Your viewgraphs will always be better than my hardware. A fictional space program will always be faster, better, and cheaper than a real space program.
So let’s get this straight. Ares 1, which won’t be operational for several years in the most optimistic scenario, is “hardware,” but Atlas V and Delta IV, which have flown multiple times, are “view graphs”? Jon Goff is amazed and appalled as well.
“(in which Mark Whittington makes a fool of himself by ignorantly slandering people like Steve Isakowitz)”
Excuse me, Rand, but where do I even mention Steve Isakowitz in the comments? I beieve he works for the Department of Energy.
If there is any libeling, it is on you part.
By the way, isn’t astonishing that people can support budget cuts to Constellation, be shocked that its scheduled has slipped, and then be even more shocked that there s politics going on? No wonder certain people prefer t post stupid comments anonymously.
Hey, I’m sure Ares I seems real to Dr. Griffin.
“Hey, I’m sure Ares I seems real to ”
Just as real as an EELV ready to plop an Orion on top and launch. It is interesing that the Aerospace Corp’s numbers (for man rating the EELVs) are being believed without question. I wonder why that is?
Excuse me, Rand, but where do I even mention Steve Isakowitz in the comments? I beieve he works for the Department of Energy.
He used to work for OMB (on space budgets). You said that no one who worked there understood space technology. Is that something that only happened after Isakowitz left? What is the basis for your ignorant critique of OMB personnel?
It is interesing that the Aerospace Corp’s numbers (for man rating the EELVs) are being believed without question. I wonder why that is?
Because, unlike NASA’s numbers, they make sense?
“What is the basis for your ignorant critique of OMB personnel?”
What is your basis of your nebbish acceptence of what OMB personnel are doing? Don’t try to tell me that politics never enters into it.
“Because, unlike NASA’s numbers, they make sense?”
Maybe, but I’d loved to see some proof.
What is your basis of your nebbish acceptence of what OMB personnel are doing?
Who said that I “accept what they are doing,” at all, let alone “nebbishly”?
Don’t try to tell me that politics never enters into it.
Why would I do that?
Maybe, but I’d loved to see some proof.
What would you accept as “proof”? Serious question.
I find the fact that Griffin was awarded a prize named after an innovative thinker such as Goddard to be very depressing. Goddard did a lot without a lot of resources. That’s just the opposite of Griffin accomplishing so little with billions!
Can anyone explain to me why the EELV’s can’t replicate the Ares I mission, and do it faster and cheaper?
Just wondering, because, y’know, it seems doable.
Because the Ares 1 mission is to provide jobs in politically powerful districts.
It could be more accurate to say that sticking with Ares 1 preserves the jobs of a handful of top NASA managers since Ares 1 DOES NOT preserve jobs in places like Florida or Louisiana.
It has been suggested that Senator Shelby favors Ares 1 because Ares 1 development will require the hiring of lots and lots of engineers at Marshall, even if the STS workforce in Florida is all let go. And once Senator Nelson comes to understand he has been sold a bunch of rubbish, he’s going to be very angry.
Direct and Jupiter? That would save jobs everywhere except for the jobs of a handful of top NASA managers.
MG,
EELV can loft Orion which is why the DIRECT spokesmen want Delta IVH and Atlas V human-rated as soon as possible.
If we were to cancel a return to the Moon, then we could scrap everything STS and simply use EELV and COTS to service ISS.
Otherwise, we can either use STS derived HLLV (Jupiter? shuttle C?) to support a lunar return or maybe attempt to persuade Congress to fund propellant depot technologies while simultaneously laying off huge chunks of the work force.
I’d love to see the actual report to know the approach, but one thing that may be getting glossed over is that there are several ways to ‘man rate’ an EELV, depending on whether you want to fly or you want to justify the alternative program you’re proposing:
1. Fly ‘as is’ with some additional monitoring insight to engine performance, etc allowing for abort insight (note: This is what was done with the Atlas and Titan boosters for the Mercury and Gemini)
2. Something in between 1 and 3
3. Strip the existing EELV down to the bare metal or injector level (see http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/multimedia/RS68_test.html) and re-build it with NASA logos on it instead of AF logos to maximize cost.
Good point, Tom. As I’ve often said, if I were emperor, the phrase “human rating” or “man rating” would be banned from the discussion, because it’s really meaningless, or rather, it only means whatever NASA wants it to mean on a given day or program.
Well now that Lori Garver is deputy administrator, the nails will be driven into the coffin that’s ARES-1. The use of EELVs will go forward and save manned space exploration.