Lets see:

1. Over budget - check
2. Behind schedule - check
3. Technical "problems" - check

Yep, I say this is definitely the best plan we could ever have.

No wonder Harrison Schmidt left the NAC. He probably would have gagged and had a heart attack coming out with a report like this one.

Any attempt to rethink the plan, he said, would be bad

Heads up, America.

Think it through, you can do it.

I suppose that this robotic parroting of the NASA 'party line' is all we will get out of official channels until after the election. As with any large organisation facing difficulties, loud and public declarations of orthodoxy are valued above all other things.

It is difficult to judge based on official pronouncements (as people seeking election instinctively say what they think their audience wants to hear as opposed to what they actually think). However, I get the impression that both leading candidates for the Presidency are interested in making changes at NASA. Neither of them seem interested in throwing excessive amounts of money at the problem but both of them want quicker results.

Bearing this impression in mind, and given Dr. Griffin's absolute refusal to accept any alternative to the current Ares system, I strongly suspect that he might justifiably fear for his post when the new administration takes over. If there is a change at the top in NASA, it might be interesting to see if they choose to take a new direction and, if they do, how many of the people who currently say "Stay the course" will start saying "Of course, we always knew that changes were necessary."

I hope the next President, whomever it is, pauses and has "qualified" outside advisers take a good look at Constellation, compare it to Direct 2.0, compare it what can be accomplished by putting Orion on EELVs. They should also consider the options that open up by using SpaceX's Dragon capsule or SpaceDevs Dream Chaser on an Atlas V. If the best approach is a combination of elements from all of these ideas then that needs to be considered. We don't need another Shuttle replacement that will be canceled in a few years putting us even farther into a hole.

The problems with the Hubble mission delaying the conversion of one of the Shuttle launch pads may be a blessing not too disguised. It comes at the right time for an opportunity to review before irreversible changes are made to infrastructure.

I may be wrong, but I don't trust that NASA is making the right decisions on Constellation. The way information comes out from them doesn't make it easy to trust them on this issue.

Before I put this item up for sale on e-bay, I thought I'd give folks that believe Ares I/V is the best solution a chance at it:

For Sale: a bridge over the Banana River, vicinity of Cape Carniverous! Price: 17.2 billion Federation credits. Contact supporters of Constellation and opponents of Direct 2.0!

I think they're right. This is clearly the best design a committee could ever come up with. That's why until recently "design by committee" was a euphemism for "piece of crap" in the aerospace industry. Then we won the Cold War and now we build everything by committee using Systems Engineering Principles that must have been handed down by God from Mt. Sinai, because they've never been worth a damn on any program they've ever been used on.

NASA did a trade study of "more than 1,000 different rocketship designs". Only thing is, not a single "design" was a design. None of them were "designed" by anyone who had ever designed a rocket before in their lives. None of the designs were viable. How can you trade 1000 "designs", none of which you have any confidence would work, and then say, "oh looky, we came up with the best one" when you're done? Garbage in garbage out. Even something as inane as a Systems Engineering process works that way.

Back when engineers designed rockets they worked. Today we've replaced engineers with processes, and nothing works worth a damn. Where's the "trade study" that replaced engineers with processes, you ask? Where's the quantifiable proof processes are better than people at design? Good question. We've replaced Werner Von Braun with a process because engineers are just cogs in a machine. One's just as good as another. Doesn't matter if they're American or Indian or Chinese, creative or analytical, smart or stupid. One's just like another.

Fundamentally, the selection of a solid fueled first stage (Ares 1) is an abomination in simple aerospace engineering terms...

NASA worried about the transition of the shuttle workforce. By selecting the SRB-derived first stage, they seeked to retain the huge infrastructure (and all the jobs!) in place to transport solid motor segments back and forth, across the country to ATK-Utah for refueling.

I know it will hurt the credibility of the agency and may even cost a lot of jobs, but from a technical point of view, Ares 1 is a terrible selection. It should be cancelled as soon as possible and focus on Ares 5 development and invest some money in Space X. Their Falcon 9/Dragon concept will beat NASA's Ares 1 into orbit by several months, if not years.

- Cancel Ares 1.
- Focus on development of heavy lifter. If that is Ares 5, fine.
- In parallel, design a capsule to fit on top of EELVs. Leave the core vehicle alone, "man-rating" is an obsolete concept. If you need to escape the vehicle in an emergency, design your bail out system on the capsule.

luison

This site is rapidly descending into the "HateBlog" category. I propose everyone here (including the blog-meister) ask themselves an honest question: what would it take to give you confidence that the Constellation Program is on the right track? Put your personality disagreements aside, if you are able to. Put your architecture preferences aside, if you are able to. Is there ANY independent review which gives Constellation a positive assessment you would believe? If the answer is "no" I think you need to ask yourselves if you have descended into a realm of unproductive cynicism.

To those that think Constellation is "above budget, behind schedule" I suggest you do some research. Find the ORIGINAL Program budget agreement with Congress/the President through 2016 along with the IOC date (NOT ESAS, the true Program budget). If no one else can do this, the Blog-meister should be able to. Compare it (on a graph would be good) with the ACTUAL funding Constellation has received to date.

I'm sure there will be clever, somewhat humorous responses to this posting. Fine. Human spaceflight is a tough business. If you want to go through life making jokes about it, you may have found the right forum. I would hope that NASAWatch could be a forum for a more thoughtful discourse.

"I hope the next President, whomever it is, pauses and has "qualified" outside advisers take a good look at Constellation, compare it to Direct 2.0, compare it what can be accomplished by putting Orion on EELVs"

Perhaps if Obama is elected, he will will revert to his previous position and stop most spending on Constellation for 5 years while this "good look" is going on.

@ GeezerGas:

My only architecture preferences are that we don't re-invent the wheel and think we can do better. Look at Ares I. I don't need to make a joke, because it LOOKS like a joke. I'm not an AE, but I know the fat part of the rocket goes on the bottom of the stack.