Finally some sanity making its way into exploration planning!

For you Constellation stalwarts: just think of this as Gemini on steroids...

A shot in the dark here: Mr. Cooke is smart enough to see which way the wind is blowing - away from Ares-I and towards EELV. Because of this, he is suddenly forgetting the party line about the unsuitability of Atlas-5 and Delta-4 for the CLV mission. He is doing this mostly because he has guessed that there is a real chance that Ares-I will shortly become surpulus to the new administration's requirements and he really doesn't want to ALSO become surplus to requirements at the same time.

Great news. It's time to end this Ares debacle. Hopefully, we can transition smoothly to this more practical course after January 20. I am concerned about the cost impacts due to modification and cancellation of the current Constellation contracts. I remember the mess after the JIMO debacle. NASA has really made an art form out of failed overly-grandiose programs over the last eight years.

Is there a place online to read about the cost trades between Ares I and Delta IV Heavy/Atlas V? Or whichever other rockets would be suitable for putting an Orion in LEO?

I was under the impression that a Delta IV Heavy was about $600mil, which strikes me as pretty expensive. How much was a Saturn I in today's dollars? Of course it could be more of an indictment of Ares I if costs more per launch...

I wonder who's going to get thrown under the bus after this boondoggle is straightened out? Gee.... Hmmmmmm...... Anyone care to make a wager????

The data they have is what you can find in ESAS. Cost of development, launch and infrastructure were put in a table for all the possible options, EELV included.

These guys are developing a 5 seg SRB/J-2 Ares I and are spending every penny on that. No study is currently open for alternatives.

So their answer is right and your bashing is misplaced.

Editor and most posters here are forgetting that the principal driver for chosing Ares I as we now know it was safety, it was not budget. Columbia accident was very fresh.

If you want to challenge something, you've got to challenge ESAS numbers and demonstrate that a EELV solution is safer than a SRB based one.

For all that I can see from ESAS SRB solutions emerge as twice as safe as any other.

ESAS shows also clearly that the 5 seg Ares V would cost 30% more than Delta IV Heavy.

Griffin actually started the idea of launching CEV on existing EELVs himself in a document entitled "Extending Human Presence into the Solar System". It is a very interesting read. He mentioned a dedicated new launch vehicle flying from the Cape as a political decision due to all the workers employed there.

There should be a trade study on hand at NASA.

There is this ESAS thing... http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140637main_ESAS_06.pdf, page 414, 6.5.4 Human-Rating Considerations for EELV. No data on EELV???? Funny it seems that the report did not make it all the way to the top...

Graham - best estimates for Delta IV-H is around $250M per launch at current rates. The Delta IV line was supposedly built to handle construction of many more cores and would likely experience some economy of scale if manufactured at capacity or above. With no commercial customers the D-IV-H line sits somewhat idle, Atlas to a lesser extent.

So much so in fact that both EELV companies have their own investments in US-Russian launch providers: ILS and SeaLaunch.

With NASA in the game for the EELVs it could help generate the economies of scale to rebuild US commercial spacelift. This would be the "air mail" idea - provide enough tenancy to build the market for a certain system. Normal payloads, orbital assembly and fueling and an incremental base-camping approach could help open the Solar System.

Anyone that says Ares I (or Ares V) is safer has forgotten Challenger.

And anybody bringing up Challenger should remember that a burn through of a SRB is survivable. It is otherwise when you attach the SRB side by side with a tank. Unlike Ares I.

The notion that you can assess the safety of a paper rocket that has not gone from paper to hardware, and hasnt even passed its design reviews, down to decimal digits is laughable.
Get it off the ground once, and we'll see how safe it works out ..
Besides, the "twice as safe" Ares I in ESAS isnt really the Ares I on drawing board now, is it ?
Safe, simple, soon .. pick one ? Oops, no picks qualify.

Sandrot - are you sure Ares I burn-through is survivable with heavy top-loading on those casings? Still wondering about bending movement with the "hotdog-on-a-stick" configuration.

For anybody beyond preschool, Ares I on the drawing board is what you have in ESAS, go and *read* it. It just was not the 1st pick, it was the 2nd, after use of SSME was deemed unviable.

@Josh: it is survivable, 1st of all Orion has an escape system; 2nd there is no explosion; 3rd Challenger astronauts were alive, while falling to the ocean.

Sandrot -

What Griffin et al. did in ESAS was jack up the mass of Orion to a level higher than what the Delta IV Heavy could deliver, thus a priori excluding it from most of the analyses.a

ESAS was a criminally flawed design analysis.

But Delta IV Heavy could launch current Orion. Just it can't do it safely. Look at Delta IV reliability numbers!!! And it cannot launch without a new upperstage, that is currently what is delaying Ares I. You have no basis to say that ESAS was criminally flawed.

We don't know with any tangible certainty what the safety of Ares I is or the "Man-Rated" EELV. Our internal process for evaluating paper design vehicle's safety is so open for debate and assumptions the number it spits out should be taken with a TON of skepticism. Remember ESAS did NOT evaluate Ares I with a large Thrust Oscillation Dampening Systems of which we have NEVER done. What is that mechanical devices Reliability/Safety..? We don’t know. ESAS did not evaluate a 294K Thrust J-2X reliability or cost they evaluated a Heritage J-2S reliability/cost.. Granted we my be safer, but we are NOT going to be cheaper..

I’m not saying EELV is better then Ares I, but EELV does have some tangible reliability/safety number you can start with. Ares I does also relative to the Solid Motor turning on and not coming apart, but the integrated vehicle is still ??????

One last observation…. NASA did the ESAS trade and selected Ares I, however, the design has moved (in my opinion significantly) from it’s original concept. Yes we’re using solids and an upper stage engine that has the Letter J and the No. 2 in it, but practically speaking nothing is of heritage design. So now we have to ask the question without emotional attachment… Is our current design still the best option if put back into the ESAS trade…? Are we so far along that EELV could not be competitive with Ares I starting NOW…? The trade would have to ask if EELV is better beginning at the starting line while Ares I is…… say…….. 15% along.

It’s obvious NASA Management has become very uncomfortable defending Ares I. These questions 2 years ago were easy for them to answer. With our design “Creep” the answers have become grey…

Hey, I didn't know ESAS worked like a coin sorter! So what was third, if 5seg+J2 didn't work out either?

Josh wrote: >Anyone that says Ares I (or Ares V) is safer has forgotten Challenger.

Anyone remember that the Challenger accident was twenty-three years ago?

The DOD lists a reliability for Delta vehicles of 98%. That's a phenomonally high number, but not as good as shuttle.

Look at the Ares I reliability numbers, they are no better than Delta IV. It doesn't need a new upperstage, that is just a smear tactic.

ESAS may have not been criminally flawed, but nevertheless it is flawed and tainted

Ridiculous... Ares I was first a 4 segment vehicle unable to deliver Orion to orbit, then it became a 5 segment vehicle with all the associated oscillation issues we all love and more. Ares I is far from ready. Ares I will be required to be man-rated since the first stage is so different from the actual SRB. How much savings does that mean compared to man rating an exisitng EELV?

1) and 3) above The current LAS (tractor) does not work! That is why NASA is investigating an MLAS (pusher). Could it be that the thrust required for a LAS for Orion (mass, Ares I thrust termination issue) is so high that the ensueing accoustic waves will destroy the astronauts? It is not enough to put a rocket atop a capsule to make it safe.

2) Did you analyze the potential of a detonating 2nd stage due to 1st stage malfunction? No explosion???...

If anyone think that Ares I is the same Ares as in the trade studies (ESAS) go and read. Look at the assumptions it made and how false they have turned out to be in terms of Safe, simple, soon.

Ares I is so unpowered, NASA has taken saftey stuff equipment off Orion. Now, what does that do to the ESAS study of saftey numbers? What did NASA say about EELV's that they had blackzones. Guess what? Bigelow is thinking of using EELV's for his space station.

One last question--if you look at the ESAS, guess what is missing? The missing Appendicies. You can do a freedom of information act to try and get them. ESAS was a study where the outcome was written before the study begain.

Please tell me you best agrument for Ares. Schedule--Nope--not ready till 2016. Quality/saftey--? Please go and look at Ares PDR, I think its average grade was C or below. Cost--?

On a less contentious note, what are practical/cost issues of launching crews, say, on Delta IV Heavy? Integrate Orion and launcher horizontally in the existing Delta IV hanger? Or modify VAB and C-39 pads for Delta IV? If using existing Delta IV pad, what about crew access and pad escape? Or would a new Delta IV pad be needed to accommodate this? Perhaps I missed all this in the ESAS.

The DOD lists a reliability for Delta vehicles of 98%. That's a phenomonally high number, but not as good as shuttle.

NASA's stated reliability for the Saturn 1B for the Apollo Soyuz flight, after zero failures in the entire history of the vehicle was 0.88. It took the escape system on the vehicle to bring the reliability for Loss of Crew to 0.99.

That was back when NASA was honest about their reliability numbers.

The total value of the development contracts awarded to Boeing and Lockheed Martin for EELV was $2 billion, in 1998 dollars. With inflation, that's ~$2.5 billion in 2007 dollars. They also had "skin in the game" since each contractor chipped in a few $100 million on top of the award amount.

(Can the same skin in the game be had from ATK given that Griffin made noise about ATK commercial flights possibilities?)

For comparison, just the Ares I first stage development contract awarded to ATK was $1.8 billion in 2007. This is now over budget. And that's for an SRB that's already built and flying with 4 segments for the Shuttle!

How is it possible that the Delta IV and Atlas V launchers were both developed for less than the cost of adding 1 more solid rocket segment to ATK's SRB stick? And that's not even considering the development cost of the Ares I second stage with the J-2X engine.

For comparison...
Delta IV payload to LEO: 25,800 kg
Ares I payload to LEO: 25,000 kb (estimated)
Atlas V payload to LEO: 20,050 kg

If NASA really wanted to achieve the Vision for Space Exploration, why did they select such a tremendously wasteful and unsustainable architecture? To hell with the realities of launch rate economics and federal budgeting?

I fear that NASA's 2005 ESAS blew the window of opportunity opened by the White House almost as bad as NASA's 90-Day study did in 1989. Except that this time around they've gotten as far as the rocket PDR...

It seems that NASA leadership would rather spend their time and our money designing and building new rockets ... rather than delivering on space exploration objectives.

Forget the shuttle and Challenger... does anyone remember that the very basis of the OSP program was to use EELVs??? There is plenty of existing data from the OSP exercise that could tell you an awful lot about the practicality of using EELVs to launch Orion.

And someone above made the point that the highest reliability number for EELVs is 98%. High, but not as good as shuttle, nor anywhere near close enough to meet human rating reliability requirements. One premise on OSP (and many people believed this fallacy) was that one could somehow design the payload (the actual OSP) to "make up for" the reliability shortfalls of the EELV. This is a total fallacy because the total reliability of a system can never exceed the reliability of the worst performing component. In simpleton terms: If your EELV can only meet 98% reliability, then your total system is always going to be less than this.

But go right ahead and spend even more money to discover that same fact we already figured out on OSP.

High but not as good as shuttle? Will someone tell me how many shuttle flights have flown and how many have been lost? If Shuttle realibility is over .9 then we should have not flown over 180 shuttles before we lost 2? How many more flights of shuttle do you think you have?

I can tel/simulate for you that shuttle relibility is 0.99999, but if I only fly 2 flights, how will you ever know? In the real world (not statistical/simulation), think that any risk of spaceflight tht someone gives you a number of over 1 in 500 chance of happening, take with a grain of salt. Guess what the initial relibility of Esas Ares I is/was? They said over 0.999---please!!!! Ask yourself--how did they get that number? How many times do they realistic think Ares I will fly?

I hope Ares NEVER flies, and this is coming from someone who supports human spaceflight.

Recall that ESAS selected the current shuttle solid rocket motor and the shuttle space shuttle main engine such that we could minimize the gap in man space flight. This configuration was slated for 2010 and fit the budge profile. Matter of fact, was the only option that would satisfy the schedule and payload requirements at the time. About 6-months after the completion of ESAS we changed our minds and went from "minimize the gap in man space flight" to "lunar sooner" and changed the 4-segment motor for a mult-billion dollar new design and added a mult-billion dollar J-2X instead of an existing space shuttle engine plus test stands and common bulk head tanks for the upper stage. Most likely the budet was never increased for all this and the schedule would of been 2015 to pull all this off. The ESAS option was never dropped due to the SSME not working but trying to start everything for the lunar missions and get it all going. The biggest risk for Ares I was starting the SSME but that was the only risk.

We could of had a SSME and RSRM ready and on the pad soon if we had just stuck with it but now we have an A1-X with a 4 segment and tuna can on top?

We need to set payload requirement and build the vehicle with the most margin to serve the US and quit going back and forth ...

If I was an astronaut, presently, other than the Shuttle the
ONLY rocket I would ride would be a DELTA 2!!!
84 in a row. 138 out of 139.
Too bad its getting thrown away. -real BS.
Nothing wrong with the D3/D4 second stage -simple and works
-we better get rid of it too!!!!!!!

Our entire space program is screwed up.

"President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, considering ways to reduce the cost and risk associated with manned space exploration, has broached the idea of using modified U.S. military rockets to launch the eventual replacement for the space shuttle..."

Editor's note: When asked in today's ESMD about moving Orion to an EELV Doug Cooke said "We do not have any data on that specifically." This is certainly a rather odd thing for Doug to say

I don't think it's odd if what he meant to say is, "We do not have any data on what the transition team is planning."

As far as what we would lose with EELV, it's simple: we wouldn't go to the moon. I've heard some interesting talk about building a vehicle in orbit with 6-12 pieces that would all have to be sent up on separate launches. That assumes a very high success rate, additional ground infrastructure (more launch pads), and NO failures. As soon as a failure happens, all subsequent launches are stopped, and the government goes into analysis mode for a year or more, trying to figure out what went wrong.

And, again, if NASA slams on the brakes, stops Ares, does yet ANOTHER study, and then works on human-rating EELV, the gap will get longer. Is this really what people want, or do they just have it in for Ares before it even flies?

Launching Orion on an EELV instead of **ARES I** does not mean we cancel ARES V. Going to the Moon only requires ARES V not ARES I.

ARES I is not ready and not human rated, nor are any EELV BUT they do fly. ARES I is a paper-rocket with so many unknowns...

BTW current 4-6 crew Orion may end up canned as well unless we figure a way to make the LAV (CEV+LAS) work without harming the crew. I would not be that surprised we go to a 3 crew configuration pretty soon. We want Apollo? Then use Apollo. Not this monster of a capsule. Is there any study out there about using a Soyuz and an Orion to go to a "larger" transfer stage to the Moon?

You have no basis to say that ESAS was criminally flawed.

Ok, then the alternative is that the vast majority of the United States scientific and engineering community was too cowardly to stop it, too stupid to recognize the problem, or in the may of a major corporation and too fearful to speak up.

So what is it, criminal malfeasance, or mass insanity.

I posit during the Bush years, it was both.

By the way, all the Delta IV Heavy and Medium and Atlas V need is a new engine - the RL-60, and engine that is 80% through development. Upper stages can be modified and stretched to fit any flight profile necessary. The whole idea with using the EELVs is to develop proficiency at fielding a variety of upper stages, and developing techniques to recover and retrofit them on orbit. The mere fact that NASA turned away from the obvious back then is more than ample evidence of stupidity and/or malfeasance.

The vast majority of the community was unaware of how things were going because, save for a few websites like NASA Watch, no one cared. When no one cares we are bound for mediocrity at best, failure at worst, and suspicious leadership. Space exploration is a risky endeavor in many more ways than one. Who has ever dared to challenge their leadership?

I don't think ESAS on its own was that bad. But sticking to (part of) a plan when it clearly is not going to work IS criminal.

I however would say it started way before Bush. Not trying to excuse them, just a sad fact. What have we done since Shuttle?

True - the RL-60 mod to a Delta 4 second stage would be an easy one....
(was being planned on way back during stages development
on D3)

What have we done since Shuttle?

We launched and repaired a space telescope and built a large articulating space station in a highly inclined orbit, if I recall. We could be flying the hell out of both Medium EELVs and using the Delta IV Heavy for heavy lift, right now. We could be developing a second generation EELV using the SSMEs and both the SpaceX Falcon 9 and Orbital Taurus II right now.

But for some reason we had to take yet another 5 year detour.

I have never seen Americans so stupified by the obvious. If you are going to wait around for spaceflight to be safe, you are never going anywhere. Constellation and Ares I are a nation killer, I kid you not.

I meant what man rated launch/re-entry vehicle have we done since Shuttle? Neither Hubble nor ISS qualify as such. They both had to rely on Shuttle ancient technology.

Not disputing any of the rest...

Safe is a relative term. But this kind of "safety" is imposed by NASA because of the idea that Space is easy, routine, blahblahblah. A language I believe that started after Apollo and to justify Shuttle in the eyes of Congress if not the public. Problem is that routine is nowhere challenging...

They both had to rely on Shuttle ancient technology.

I beg to differ. Please point out any reusable engine with better combination of efficiency, Isp, T/W and mass than the SSME. You can't. Please point out any other reusable space plane. You can't. Please point out ANY modern technology in the Constellation program. You can't. You just need to learn how to face the evidence, no matter how inconvenient. You can't. You won't. And when someone does point out the obvious to you very simply, you cringe. Not a very good sign, that.

We're going to change that sort of irrational resonse - soon.

Engineering Lead, you are not getting the point. Cool off and read what I am saying, it'd help.

As great a vehicle as Shuttle is, it flew for the first time in 1981, designed on 60's and 70's technology. If a 40 to 30 year old technology is not ancient to you, I am not sure what would.

Irrational is to not realize that Shuttle is reusable because it is being refurbished at pretty much all of its flight including the SRBs and to some extent the SSMEs. This is not 21st century reusability. BTW is it the plan to reuse those engines on Ares V? Do you know why not? So before "calling names" you should do a little background check yourself.

Now if you tell me that we cannot do any better than technology designed in the 60's or 70's then there is the root of our problem.

Good luck getting a real ambitious human space program...

As great a vehicle as Shuttle is

I wasn't addressing the shuttle, I was addressing your statement directly. The shuttle is flying. The shuttle can continue to fly at a cost far less than the development costs of Constellation. The shuttle is not necessary for cargo delivery, EELVs will do just fine, thank you. An RL-60 would be a better upper stage engine, but it certainly isn't required. We have several private EELV programs in the works, plus a privately funded WINGED SPACECRAFT in development.

For you to say that winged spacecraft will not continue to fly in space is patently false, and when I confront that statement, you go off on a tangent about the benefits or disadvantages of the shuttle, which is an entirely moot point since they exist, and are flying now. NOTHING is going to change that, certainly not Constellation or Ares I.

When you think you can field a comparable EELV capsule for less than the current cost of 3 billion dollars a year to continue to fly the shuttle, do get back to me, and we'll compare notes.

Orion is not that capsule, sorry.

BTW is it the plan to reuse those engines on Ares V? Do you know why not? So before "calling names" you should do a little background check yourself.

The Ares V is a fantasy launcher and not relevant to any rational discussion. I havn't called you any 'names', I'm just pointing out that you are flailing around irrationally and not addressing any of the relevant points of future LEO spaceflight, which is restricted to launch vehicles and capsules which exist right now, and can be fielded with ZERO development costs, since the $10 billion now is irretrievably lost to Constellation development, a program with is now a guaranteeed failure and cancellation courtesy of Michael Griffin and George W. Bush. We need options, and options are what we have in great abundance. Constellation, Ares I and V are not even in the running as far as options are concerned, but winged spacecraft certainly are, right now, and for any forseeable future, thanks to the hard work and capital of private individuals, and yes, thanks to NASA.

All I have done is point out that since the shuttle is still flying, with the 14 SSMEs that require minimal refurbishment after each flight, and that SSME spares for upwards of 50 flights are on the shelves, then there are yet more options for reasonable second generation EELV development at modest cost, development which is sure to advance the state of the art of rocket science, and not set it back 50 years as Constellation has done. Those are the facts, deal with it.

The fact that Griffin decided to resurrect a 50 year old engine for Constellation should put it all into perspective.