Here’s the latest straw man:

A lot of people are confidently predicting the death of Ares 1 just becaus [sic] the Second Augustine Commission exists.

I’m not aware of anyone who predicts the death of Ares I on “just” that basis. Can Mark point to someone in particular, or is it one of the mysterious and always unnamed members of the “Internet Rocketeer Club”?

We (or at least I) predict the death of Ares I because its schedule continues to slip (expanding the dreaded “gap”), its technical problems continue to mount with no obvious solution, its budget has ballooned to two and a half times the initial estimate, with no signs of coming under control, and it turns out that NASA has been less than truthful about the competition, and put a thumb on the scale when it did its trade analyses to get the “right” answer. The existence of the Augustine Commission is simply a recognition of this reality by the administration. And Mark can take comfort from Rob Coppinger’s whistling past the Ares deathbed if he wishes — the ultimate disillusionment will simply be all the greater when the plug is pulled.

[Late afternoon update]

Imaginary friends, and imaginary behavior:

Rand Simberg screams and leaps again at my analysis…

Hilarious. One wonders how many moons orbit the planet on which he resides, from whatever alternate universe he posts this insanity. I neither “screamed” or “leaped,” as anyone can see, above.

And what “analysis”? He did no analysis. He never does an analysis. He’s simply incapable of it, not understanding the things he’s “analyzing.” He just pointed to a post by Rob Coppinger.

And then there’s this:

…repeating some of the standard conspiracy theories concerning Ares and its alternatives.

“Conspiracy theories”?

Mark, it is not a “conspiracy theory” that the schedule is slipping to the right. It is a fact, documented by the GAO.

It is not a “conspiracy theory” that Ares I development costs have gone from fourteen billion to thirty-five billion, by Steve Cook’s own admission. That is a fact.

Facts are stubborn things. Though not as stubborn, apparently, as Mark.

And this:

He seems to suggest (though likely, being Rand, he will deny it in retrospect) that Augustine could actually report that Ares is still the best alternative but it will ultimately fail anyway.

I only “seem to suggest” that to someone who has difficulty parsing out plain English.

The New York Times has a story on yesterday’s Augustine hearing, and this jumped out at me:

In an interview, Steve Cook, manager of the Ares Project at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., said that the cost estimate for developing the Ares I and seeing it through its first manned flight was $35 billion. Contrary to the claims of critics, he said, costs have not spiraled out of control.

Let’s ignore the tragic hilarity of that last statement, when we consider what the original cost estimate was when it was “simple, safe, soon.” He is admitting that the development cost, for Ares I alone, through first crewed flight, is thirty-five millibaracks. So how can that be reconciled with the Aerospace study which seems to imply that the total life cycle cost for fourteen flights is nineteen billion? If development alone is thirty-five, then using the assumptions I used in that other post, the LCC for fourteen flights would be over forty billion (almost three billion dollars per flight, for people who know how to divide). That compares to a cost of sixteen billion for the Delta option, or a little over a billion a flight (still ridiculous, of course). Why is it that we accept these kinds of numbers as though they’re perfectly reasonable, perfectly affordable? Particularly in light of the fact that SpaceX has gone a long way toward developing both the Dragon capsule and Falcon 9 for (at a guess) a percent or so of forty billion?

Anyway, I find that the most interesting thing about the Times reporting is that there is no mention of SpaceX or commercial alternatives. I guess they’re not worth covering. As for the “dueling power points,” my vote is “none of the above.”

[Update a while later]

OK, I was digging around to try to find what the original promises were for Ares I development costs, and I stumbled on to this. “Safe, Simple, Soon” is still up! And apparently being maintained and updated by someone (no doubt funded by ATK).

And it’s hilarious. It’s like reading Pravda in 1988.

Comrades! All is well!

The potato and beet crops were a record this year! Steel production is exceeding the Gorbachev five-year plan!

I’m going to save that page for posterity.

Anyway, does anyone have a link to an initial Ares I cost estimate, circa late 2005?

[Friday morning update]

“Rocket Man” has the numbers:

“In September 2005, NASA authorized the Ares I project to proceed with the development of a new human-rated crew launch vehicle with a 24.5-metric ton lift capability and a total budget of $14.4 billion for design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E), and production.” (GAO-08-51)

So the development cost estimates (including production? Of how many vehicles?) have more than doubled in less than four years. But the program is “under control.” And now the Aerospace numbers make sense. They were using the original DDT&E estimate for their trade, which (as usual) puts a NASA thumb on the scale in favor of Ares. The Aerospace study is now either worthless, or makes Ares look even worse; it does nothing to aid its cause.