What Bolden Actually Said at Stennis About Ares

The fat lady definitely warming up to sing on Ares-1...

That's an interesting reply.

The writing is on the wall, but no one wants to believe it. The U.S. is abandoning manned spaceflight.

I thought Ares was mentioned in 2 of 5 options from what I read in Florida today. It was definately mentioned in at least 1 option.

Now Bolden says no option. Something seems strange here.

Wow, its so hard not to assume something from that vague response or read between the lines as it were. But it certainly doesn't sound as if he is gun ho about Cx. And is it me or did he refer to the Ares 1-x as past tense.. I just don't know, I want to see the original transcript in its entirety. Is there anywhere I can read it online or aquire it in its printed form?

Augustine is merely a recommendation. The actual decision will be between Bolden and Obama, and modified (by way of funding it or not) by Congress.

It's called being between a rock and a hard place....

Ares-1 was an option mentioned by the Augustine Commission. However, indications seem to point toward Augustine Commission is not in favor of it. To be honest, I am not sure what Augustine is in favor of. Am I a bit disappointed that maybe we will end up in a worst position after the report comes out? I am also concerned in NASA's reaction to the report. NASA has historically give kneejerk reactions to any kind of policy recommendations instead of letting things settle. I have seen it first hand and it is a rollercoaster ride. I do have faith in Bolden and that he may be able to temper things until the dust settles. God speed Charlie!!

I think the decision has already been made privately and the Administration is waiting for what they think is the right time to announce it publicly. That sure seems to be what is being said here.

And I am afraid that Werner is right: "The writing is on the wall, but no one wants to believe it. The U.S. is abandoning manned spaceflight."

It seems to be more important to fund AIG rather than NASA.

The fact that launching this bird isn't a given says so much about where things are and where they're headed.

Think of it politically: if the rocket launches and is a big success, they'll look like idiots for canceling it; if it's not, people will grumble about the wasted money.

Makes me wonder if they'll just quietly close up shop.

Steve, I have yet to see Florida Today present the Augustine committee findings without adding on some of their own or mixing them up beyond recognition. Ares I was considered in one option, the Program of Record, as you know. However, that option is only being presented to illustrate the disastrous consequences of sticking with an underfunded Constellation. Several news articles have taken the Program of Record and reworked it with an extra $50 billion dollars to show how great it could be for the NASA workforce, but the committee didn't carry a fully funded Program of Record forward as one of the options to be reported to the President.

Well, yes, but on the other hand, if you consider the comission's work to be the correct analysis, how can it be that you (i.e. NASA) went so far down a blind alley as to buid a prototype for a rocket program that was doomed from the start?

If I was them, I would rather be accused of bureaucratic inertia and natural waste to an R&D institution (too late to cancel, valuable test data) than of major policy screw-up (we did this rocket, but this wasn't what we -actually- wanted to do?)

A.

The U.S. is abandoning manned spaceflight.

Ares 1 != manned spaceflight. In fact, it was more likely a barrier to it.

@ steve,

The Florida Today cribsheet was pretty inaccurate. It only listed some of the initial options that the Augustine Commission considered. All the ones involving Ares-I were ruled out as it is too expensive and will take too long to build.

IIRC, in all cases, Ares-I was replaced by an unspecified 'Commercial Crew Launcher'. There is also possibility of Orion on a shuttle-derived launch vehicle if a few billion dollars a year extra could be found to develop them.

In the end, the 'Program of Record', going to the Moon with Ares-I and Ares-V was included "for purpose of reference" with the disclaimer that it was not viable.

That would be a "No".

Considering all the hard work people are putting in to get the vehicle ready (i.e. like the vibration test right now) it seems crazy not to roll it out and launch it and get a unique set of data, that if properly documented, would be worth the incremental cost from this point forward.

Need to get all the instrumentation working properly so that the data is valuable but that seems likely anyway.

Data like that would be provided by I-X is pretty scarce in the world outside the big contractors and they do not share (no surprise there).

Overall, Obama administration needs to decide if a manned program is worth the money and then work to get it. Otherwise, it seems NASA should pull back and stick to robotics, earth sciences, and aero where bang for the buck is arguably much better.

Maybe Bolden is waiting for the political commisar to tell him what to do. What does she say?

>> Now Bolden says no option. Something seems strange here.

A successful Ares X-1 test means they (Obama and his hatchet man Bolden) can't justify killing the program by claiming Ares/Constellation is a total failure. They'll kill it anyhow but they'll have to wait for the news cycle to expire after the test launch and in the meantime Bolden will suffer some awkward moments. Bolden's confused response was one of those moments.

Augustine is a fiction; they made up their minds years ago when Obama promised the money recovered by shutting down NASA's manned space flight program to one of his constituencies. Augustine is just cover.

Props to the Ares folks; launch the thing and make them eat it. Our hopes are with you.

@General Bolden:

"BOLDEN: That's a good question - and that is a question that I know everyone is muddling over. How do we explain something that was not an option offered by the Augustine Committee. We have that vehicle and the opportunity to launch it and gain data and information from it that may be helpful to future programs ... I don't know the answer today - I wish I could tell you that I knew the answer - I don't."

Well, Sir, I believe you actually answered your own question: "We have that vehicle and the opportunity to launch it and gain data and information from it that may be helpful to future programs." If such a case can actually be made and considering that the cost can be contained I am sure you and your staff can come up with a scenario to the WH/Congress and the public to precesily explain that. Can you not? Or see it this way: What is more wasteful? Not launching, never to validate your models and organizations, or to launch and spend some cash to make up the case?

BTW: You really want to make a case and a VERY valuable launch, try and launch an abort mission with a LAS firing. That would indeed be very useful and I'd be surprised if the whole community would go against it. Even if the launch has to be delayed. Note the LAS abort does not need to be perfect. But can you imagine the value of validating all the proximity aero? And possiby your trajectory as well?

I bought an Ares patch at KSC last week. heh.

Thanks for providing this. This unofficial transcript is a bit different in tone than previous internet reports of what Bolden said in response to that question, and it sounds a bit more like what he would say. Any way you slice it, it portents the end of Ares I. Way more than a day late and about 3 billion dollars short. I'd still like to see it launch, it would provide real world data and it would provide a sort of closure to all the folks who worked their arse's off to get it this far. Of course the Air Force has not even provided their approval for it yet, so there are plenty of hurdles to get over.

If I recall correctly, Ares I is not mentioned in any Augustine option that stays within budget or even a 'less constrained' budget. So it works out to it not being affordable, even with moderate budget increases. There is an option I believe in the 'less constrained' budget that includes an Ares Lite or Ares IV or something like that (no Ares I), but that option is not likely to be picked up anyway.

Ares 1 was one of the options by the Augustine committee-- unless they've already decided to delete it from their final document. It was just the most expensive option especially when coupled with the Ares V.

Sounds like the administration has already made up its mind on the fate of the Ares 1.

Again, I hope the Augustine Commission does present the president-- with all-- of the most rational options with details of the cost and the timelines for each of the shuttle replacement and return to the Moon concepts:the Ares 1 and Ares V; the Sidemount-HLV; DIRECT, and the EELVs.

Of course, I also hope that the Obama administration will also seriously listen to the in house options presented by NASA (The Ares 1 and Ares V and the Sidemount-HLV) since they do know a little something about flying people into space and traveling to the Moon.

Most comments posted here seem entirely ignorant of the very real pitfalls of the Ares program, and Ares 1X in particular. There is also no awareness of the details of the proposed test. The default position seems to be that cancelling the test is a political ploy to prevent progress on 1X. Maybe the test is in fact a political ploy ( by supporters) to fly a vehicle that does not resemble the actual flight hardware proposed for Ares 1X? That way the program can claim progress when there is in fact none, and this entire program is a blind alley for our space program. The blind chearleading such as on display here is what gives cover to the USA's disfunctional space program. All "buck" and no "bang". Unless you really just want a jobs program, then I guess its OK to sacrifice space exploration for your high tech ditch digging.

The writing is on the wall, but no one wants to believe it. The U.S. is abandoning manned spaceflight.

Posted by: Werner at August 31, 2009 12:22 PM

What a bunch of FUD...

Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt

It is through "The NASA's" own mis-management of its funds, and selection of project management for that matter, that NASA, may be unable to launch humans. Through NASA's own bureaucracy, they have made it extremely painful for private companies to launch humans into space.

If we really wanted to, we could strap an Orion onto a Delta IV Heavy or an Atlas V. And please, spare all of us the "manned rating" and "technical issue" problems that NASA always brings up. This simply allows “The NASA” to continue it’s monopoly of HSF in the US.

SpaceX will launch humans into space before NASA does. And if we were "smart" we would build Orion for EELV. Either way, Ares I is a terrible choice for HSF.

I really have to give credit to all the engineers and low level managers that got Ares I this far. Not only did they have to encounter, discover, devise, and overcome technical issues; but they had to deal with lousy managers who were more concerned about ppts and snazzy videos.

Your statement of the US abandoning human spaceflight is absurd. It is just NASA, who is to big, fat, bloated, and slow to do anything efficiently. The United States is far better off with letting commercial companies getting humans to orbit and let NASA build spaceships to Mars, Venus, ect.

VR
RS327

"Props to the Ares folks; launch the thing and make them eat it. Our hopes are with you."

Posted by: Bob the rocket guy at August 31, 2009 1:43 PM

Amen, Bob. Hook up the igniter to the 12-volt car battery and light this candle!

FWIW, my reading of Bolden's words is that he's like to launch Ares-I-X, just for the test data they would get back, irrespective of whether or not the Ares-I program continues. The problem is that it would be a very big and very public bit of data gathering. He thinks the problem would be convincing the public that there is any point in the expenditure as Ares-I is about to follow VentureStar into eternity. If they can't figure out a publically-acceptable reason for it, then it is unlikely they will be allowed to do it.

@Stan Wright:
"There is also no awareness of the details of the proposed test...Maybe the test...a political ploy (by supporters) to fly a vehicle that does not resemble the actual flight hardware proposed for Ares 1X?...the program can claim progress when there is in fact none...blind alley for our space program...gives cover to the USA's disfunctional space program."

Agree & Ares 1-X might not resemble the actual software either for all we know.

Not sure how much the Utah test is relevant to the Ares 1-X test? Haven't read if there are any hardware or software commonalities or whether the Utah test success was a precondition to commencing the Ares 1-X test?

@ Moonlady,

The DM-1 ground test was on a five-seg SRM. Ares-I-X has a modified four-seg (the same type used by the shuttle). To my knowledge the two are unconnected and the timings are coincidental.

Beyond aerodynamic similarities, I don't think that there is very much commonality at all between Ares-I-X and Ares-I. However, I would defer that question to those who know more about it than I do.

@MoonLady:

I think the Utah test is the first test of a 5-segment SRB with an updated nozzle. They are after some vibration data to see if the models are close to reality (if a horizontal test is reality). Hopefully, some good data will come out of it.

I sure hate to criticize those who work on Ares-1. They have worked hard to get what TPTB asked them for. It breaks my heart that their work may go for not. I say launch the 1X and get some data! Nothing wrong with that. I couldn't care what the launch vehicle looks like (stick,DIRECT,HLV or EELV) as long as it works. I agree with someone's comment that NASA is kind of waiting for someone like SpaceX to be successful. That is just my take on it.

Given the current state of our Manned Space program, I believe it is best described by Han Solo: "I have a very bad feel about it..."

I am not U.S citizen so perhaps I should not judge you harshly.
But it seems to me that you can't see what is really obvious.
USA is abandoning manned spaceflight. Too much beauracracy, too much different lobby groups and no spirit or ambition anymore. Even it it won't be official, the effort to restart manned spaceflight will be weaker and weaker, untill it will be abandoned in all but not in name.
I really think that Asia is the next place where humanity will have its dreams realised in terms of technology development, ambition to achieve something great and so on.
USA had its chance, but let's face it, it lost it.

I have the preliminary report with the option chart in front of me right now and the Ares I and V are included in the first three options as part of the program of record, baseline, iss focused options. Given that reports by most media outlets are that there will be little to no surprises in the final report, I believe that at least 2 of the potential 7 options being considered will include the Constellation program Ares I & V. As to whether the writing is on the wall, I will wait for what Congress actually puts in legislation since terminating Constellation Ares I program will require Congressional approval under current federal statutes.

Augustine hasn't delivered its verdict, has it?

There were many ideas thrown around, and some are potentially more pricey than the moon. So to say that continuing on the path under development was never an option is to suggest that the point of Augustine was to come back with a report that said "anything but constellation".

...which is a worrisome thought in itself. They were supposedly making an unbiased review of the American space programs capability, and one would think it to include all the rockets we're building now.

What else have they decided to not bother considering?

Hamptonguy writes: "robotics, earth sciences, and aero where bang for the buck is arguably much better."

Consider how much NASA spends on human spaceflight and flys seven astronauts about four times per year as compared to what is spent on aeronautics with companies flying zillions of people per year. May not be as glamourous as spaceflight but spending money on aero probably has better ROI.

Werner "The writing is on the wall, but no one wants to believe it. The U.S. is abandoning manned spaceflight."

NASA has former astronaut Charles Bolden as Administrator, and it's abandoning manned spaceflight?

NASA has former Executive Directors of the National Space Society ("Our Vision: People living and working in thriving communities beyond the Earth, and the use of the vast resources of space for the dramatic betterment of humanity.") Lori Garver and George Whitesides in senior positions, and it's abandoning manned spaceflight?

It has Alan Ladwig (Zero G, etc) in a senior position, and it's abandoning manned spaceflight?

Obama's space policy campaign document has numerous points about human spaceflight, and NASA is abandoning manned spaceflight?

www.barackobama.com/pdf/policy/Space_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf

The Augustine Commission, composed of respected astronauts, manned spaceflight businesspeople, manned spaceflight academics, and so on is assigned to "look under the hood" and get NASA out of the tremendous Ares mess it's in using independent Aerospace Corporation and NASA data, and NASA is abandoning manned spaceflight?

The Augustine Commission finds the ESAS approach isn't working, and NASA should be doing basically the same kinds of things the Vision for Space Exploration document and the Aldridge Commission report said to do in the first place (much more commercial space, international participation, R&D, robotic help, etc), and NASA is abandoning manned spaceflight?

The Augustine Commission brings NASA out of its Constellation budget and schedule fantasy, and NASA is abandoning manned spaceflight?

NASA manned spaceflight gets a stimulus boost (including support for NASA-helping commercial space work partly thwarted by Sen. Shelby), and NASA is abandoning manned spaceflight?

The Augustine Commission options include extending the ISS to 2020, and NASA is abandoning manned spaceflight?

The Augustine Commission options include strong support for commercial LEO access for manned spaceflight, and NASA is abandoning manned spaceflight?

The Augustine Commission options include reviving NASA's manned spaceflight research and development portfolio, and NASA is abandoning manned spaceflight?

The Augustine Commission options include lunar exploration and deep space exploration options with results that can be achieved with much more realistic schedules and budgets than Constellation (eg: much smaller HLVs in some cases, refueling capabilities, deep space step-by-step approaches), and NASA is abandoning manned spaceflight?

The Augustine Commission charter is to encourage commercial space, get beyond LEO, accelerate support for ISS, assess how robotics should work with and help manned spaceflight, assess the right level of manned spaceflight R&D, assess international participation in manned spaceflight, assess extending the ISS life, and fit in the manned spaceflight budget, all of which it is doing competently, and NASA is abandoning manned spaceflight?

No, I would say NASA abandoned manned spaceflight and a great deal of robotic spaceflight in 2005, and it finally has a chance to revive them.

@ red: " NASA has former astronaut Charles Bolden as Administrator, and it's abandoning manned spaceflight?"

Who better to lead a paradigm shift in manned space flight than an ex-astronaut. He's bullet proof.

Imagine if Dr. Alan Stern, a space scientist, had been named administrator, and he was asked to re-invent HSF. The JSC/MSFC/KSC industrial complex would cry foul play, etc.

But an astronaut? Who better to let down the aspiration of the manned space flight community than an ex-astronaut.

Utterly astounded at the Chicken Little Luddism here. The US will be the last country to abandon HSF. Interesting that so many people equate the death of Shuttle derived with the death of HSF.

I also doubt The One will ever rule on these. There are bigger fish to fry. The decisions will be made by Charlie, Lori, George and OMB. Also naive that The One would want such a blemish as ending HSF on his legacy, not to mention the 2012 electoral ramifications in Florida.

Gary, I don't know what chart you're looking at, but ISS Focused does not include Ares I, though it does include Ares V. Also, I'm not sure what you're referring to as "baseline". Of the seven options, only one, the Program of Record, included Ares I.

Maxwell, the Augustine committee has delivered its verdict. They are required by law to consider only the options they discussed in the final meeting. If they had found something that invalidated their assumptions, they would have scheduled another public meeting, but they did not.

For anyone who doesn't have time to watch the entire transcript of the Washington, DC public meeting of the Augustine Committee, some highlights are collected here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kI4ZU5x6rQ.

The committee has a daunting task, and I for one hope they make it clear that we need to do human spaceflight right, and that means allocating adequate funding for the best program. Cx may be easy to pick on, I don't think others' claims that they could do better are credible. Ares I is the best vehicle for carrying people to the Moon and Mars.

@ blue-in-a-red-state,

*sigh* Okay, listen carefully: Ares-I cannot get people to the Moon and Mars. If ever built, it will barely be able to get people into Low Earth Orbit.

To go to the Moon and Mars you need Ares-V. If you thought that Ares-I was expensive and needed a lot of development, wait until you get a load of what Ares-V will require. The first test flights will not be until 2028 at the earliest. Development will be so costly that NASA won't be able to develop the lunar lander until after Ares-V is finished. So, the first lunar landing won't be until the mid-2030s.

Based on this, you consider the alternatives (most of which Dr. Ride's ultra-conservative estimates seems to show can get to the Moon by 2025-30) are "not credible"?

Once again, NASA *has* adequate funding. I'd even say its Constellation project has *too much money* for little to show for it after almost 4 years. NASA just has many organizational inefficiencies, so more funding won't help, NASA will be back for more next year (typical government agency pattern)

Too many centers, bloated infrastructure, management layers, conflicting industry interests etc...

As a poster has said elsewhere on this blog all "NASA needs is good spanking", not more money.

NASA needs to be drastically reformed from a cold war era organization into an agile modern agency.

"So, the first lunar landing won't be until the mid-2030s."
I hope US astronauts will have valid visas at the Lunar checkpoint of China ;]

The fundamental problem is that the politicians have put NASA in a situation where it has to do too many things-- all at once.

NASA has to continue to support the ISS (even without a space shuttle) at $2 billion a year because the politicians want to have good public relations with their international partners who have so far contributed only $15 billion to the ISS while the US has contributed over $55 billion to the project.

NASA has to continue funding the Space Shuttle ($3 billion a year) because the politicians and the public really don't want to see the US dependent on Russia for access to space for a sustained period of time (possibly 5 to 10 years).

NASA has to develop a replacement for the shuttle which is currently costing about $3 billion a year and will require an additional $2 billion a year for full funding of the Ares 1 and Orion projects.

NASA currently has no significant funds to develop a heavy lift booster, EDS (Earth Departure Stage) or the Altair lunar lander for any return to the Moon program. Conservatively, that's going to cost at least another $4 to $5 billion dollars a year is the Ares V is the chosen route.

In order to do all of this and get to the Moon by 2020, we'd probably have to raise the NASA budget by about $7 billion a year above the current funding level or terminated the current shuttle program and raise the NASA budget by $4 billion annually or terminate both the shuttle and our participation in the ISS and raise the NASA budget by $2 billion annually.

Alternatively, we could save a ton of money by terminating the development of the Ares 1 (funds that could be used to fully fund the Orion). Substantially more money could be saved by keeping the basic launch infrastructure that we already have (the current SRBs and side-mounted SSMEs) and replace the shuttle orbiter with a side-mounted Orion vehicle so there's no need to develop a new shuttle launch booster or a heavy lift booster since the SD_HLV gives you both!

To fund the development of the SD-HLV ($7 billion), EDS ($3 billion), and the Altair lunar lander ($12 billion?) is probably going to cost at least $22 billion dollars. That's a $3.7 billion a year increase in the NASA budget over 6 years. If you terminate the shuttle, that's only a $700 million dollar a year budget increase.

I'd simply raise the NASA budget by $4 billion (less than two weeks in Iraq) annually (over $21 billion a year) to get the job done! I'd terminate the current shuttle program by 2015 and US ISS participation by 2016. If our international partners want to continue the ISS beyond 2016 then they need to put up the money for it!

To go to the Moon and Mars you need Ares-V.

Or orbital assembly and fueling -- a much better investment.

@Matt Wronkiewicz

I am looking at the chart provided on the Review of HSF website from the Aug 12 hearing. Right there is Option 3A ISS focused with Ares I + Orion.