Clark Lindsey has some thoughts on NASA’s latest attempt to justify Ares, including the usual red herring about “man rating” (a phrase that I would purge from the vocabulary, had I the power).

…the initial conditions are the real problem. Griffin insisted on absolutely minimizing in-space assembly and avoiding unproven technologies such as propellant depots, even when such technology is close at hand and would tremendously expand space access capabilities for less money. These requirements lead to big and heavy throwaway payloads for the lunar exploration architecture.

I don’t know who the maligners of small vehicles are that she refers to in the article but I remember that there was a lot of bias within NASA towards a Shuttle replacement, i.e., a vehicle with similar crew and cargo capability. I’ve always thought the Shuttle was far too big for a first generation attempt at an RLV. Starting small, learning what works and doesn’t work, and growing vehicles over time seems like the sensible development path.

Of course, today I don’t think NASA should develop vehicles at all. Instead it should do R&D on leading edge technology the way NACA did for aviation and DARPA does today for general aerospace technology. Let Lockheed-Martin, SpaceX, etc. battle to offer the cheapest space access services.

And he is correct, Shuttle was never man rated. Which is one of the reasons why it’s disingenuous to claim that the Ares first stage is man rated because it was a Shuttle component (particularly since, with the additional segment, it’s become a new motor completely).

I’m a little confused, though, by his citing me, when the link goes to Jon Goff. I think that I have in fact pointed to Mike Griffin’s flip flop on the issue, but it’s not in any of Clark’s links in the piece.

[Update early afternoon]

This was the last time I commented on the man-rating canard, a couple months ago.