1) Where did you get the idea Atlas/Delta would be less safe than a completely new rocket design (which, btw, would require a new type of vibration dampening mechanism on a scale never attempted before)? Atlas V and Delta IV have been flying for years and ULA actually has experienced rocket designers that designed those rockets. NASA is trying to relearn designing rockets and w/respect to experience they’re stuck with ideas of 40 years ago. Industry has moved on and produced much more advanced upper stages than what Saturn V had.

As for the comment about riding a solid booster that cannot be shut down and in event of abort you need to thus outrun it AND it can fail catastrophically is SAFER than a liquid fuel engine, to be honest I call that a load of bull. Show me the last time a liquid engine rocket literally blew up by itself (*not* structural collapse which is what happened to the recent SeaLaunch Zenit) and then I’ll remind you of the last two instances a SRB failure happened on U.S. launchers. I do not buy NASA’s “analysis” about safety, because frankly, that whole ESAS study was rigged to give Ares I/V as the best solution.

2) The more affordable heavy lift solution would be any of the REALLY shuttle-derived vehicles, be them in an inline configuration (a.k.a Direct) or sidemount (a.k.a. Shuttle-C). Ares I/V require 2 launches anyway and while Ares I struggles to loft even the Orion, it forces Ares V to be the sole heavy lifter for the entire mission so it ends up a bigger behemoth than Saturn V. And we know how sustainable Saturn V was.

Also, the idea of “manrating” (which by itself doesn’t mean anything – NASA chooses what it means and coincidentally, picks requirements that Ares I “can” meet and EELVs can’t) Atlas/Delta requiring billions and 5-7 years is ludicrous when the entire vehicle design AND infrastructure cost less.

By modifying the lunar architecture to have two launches (the “1.5 launch” term is crap, there’s no such thing as a half launch), on a common vehicle (and thus not requiring development money for TWO different vehicles). A vehicle maintaining ACTUAL shuttle heritage which has a 30 year flight history – 4 segment boosters, 8.4 m ET and not 5/5.5 segment SRB development and 10 meter ETs.

Noone’s arguing going beyond LEO wouldn’t be expensive. But there is a difference between affordable/sustainable and unaffordable/unsustainable. Constellation as it currently exists is of the former type. If you really want to see the entire, objective picture, you need to look beyond what NASA *wants* you to think. Look “under the hood”, which Michael Griffin fro some reason really doesn’t want anyone to do. As I said before, things are slowly revealing themselves about the true nature of what went on beyond the scenes in NASA’s Constellation high management for the past 4 years, and believe me, it’s quite frankly sickening.

Also, to be perfectly clear – my original comment about SpaceX’ capability does NOT imply that’s the way to go beyond LEO. I don’t consider SpaceX to be a threat to NASA (nor does SpaceX – they say it’s actually an enabler for NASA to move on beyond LEO, while leaving LEO/ISS “housekeeping” to commercial entities), but let’s be fair here – no one at the moment has a booster or spacecraft capable of going beyond LEO so bringing up that comment about SpaceX only is unfair.

14) Max Vozoff,SpaceX Mission Manager. You can find more of him on YouTube. Also Cassie Kloberdanz from SpaceX Media.

24) As Ben said, Dragon and Orion are designed for two different missions. They may eventually overlap in the area of crew transfer to ISS. Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, thinks that once both are up and running it makes more sense to do ISS missions with Dragon (cheaper) and use Orion for its main mission (getting us back to the Moon). That is why Elon sees Dragon as an enabler for Constellation. Let Dragon take care of the ‘mundane’ ISS mission while Constellation focuses on the big picture.

28) True, for the unmanned cargo missions Dragon will be grappled by the ISS robotic arm. For manned missions, I believe the plan is to actually dock using thrusters. See the COTS C (unmanned) and COTS D (manned) videos at Spacex.com

Ben says: Not yet. At least they have something planned towards that goal whether its on the brink of being axed or not.

Gordan Says: In fact, the path NASA chose – with the Ares I/V concept is at the verge of being dumped as the situation appears to be unfolding rapidly.

Ben says: I’m aware of that. I think it’ll be a mistake but that’s just me.

Gordan Says: That’s right, after billions of taxpayer dollars and several years with nothing to show for

Ben says: To be fair, its hard to start up a new program when your spending 160 million per launch on the space shuttle and that’s just the launches. If Ares I/Ares V have nothing to show for it, its not because a lack of capability but a lack of commitment to the program and its funding ultimately. Not to mention you can only move so fast when the 39B has to be used by STS-125’s potential rescue.

Also, can you honestly tell me how much has been spent on the Constellation program as of right this moment? I dislike your throwing out of the word billions as if it was an excuse. Yes Constellation is suppose cost billions, but how much has been spent so far? Can you answer that? Since your argument against Constellation is that we’ve been wasting money.

Gordan Says: The time has come to do what should have been done from the start – developing something NASA can actually *afford*, not another Saturn V, only this time accompanied by an anemic launcher. Why buy one when you can get 1.5 for the price of 1.5?

Ben says: That depends, what are you proposing being the goal of NASA? At 18 billion a year, it certainly isn’t going to be beyond LEO. Your a little vague on what exactly should be what NASA can afford so I’ve just assumed the baseline of the current budget. You also mention nothing about a suitable replacement, what is this cheaper/better spacecraft/launcher you speak of?

The point is to go back to the moon, and to go back to stay and eventually use the moon as a technological testing ground and astronaut training ground with the goal of Mars in our sights.

You may disagree with that, but to lift things beyond LEO you need a heavy lifting rocket. Ares V will do that in spades (If it ever gets built).

If you have a suitable alternative lets hear it, I disagree with the other ones I’ve mentioned though. BTW: I goofed on my previous post when it came to the Delta/Atlas launcher being man rated. Anyway as I was saying, Atlas/Delta man rated would be less safe and less capable. Easier and better to build an entirely new rocket.

Anyway, what it comes down to is this. Its my opinion and NASA shares this opinion, that there isn’t a safer/cheaper alternative if your plan is to go beyond LEO. Nor one as capable.

Is it expensive, I wont lie, of course it is but you get more bang for your buck and with not having to worry about the launches and landings (Well, there will always be risks but at least Ares minimizes those risks). Thus you can focus on the science and exploration that NASA has lacked for so long in its manned missions.

Not that relatively NASA is expensive even when you properly fund NASA and throw in a manned mission to Mars. Certainly cheaper hen the 1.89 trillion in Mandatory spending which is just on the rise and once Social Security stops paying for it self you have even more problems (Yes Mr. President, more social spending is exactly what we need! >.> It doesn’t matter that we can’t afford the social spending we already have)!

Anyway, that being said, it all depends on what your after. If you want cheaper, scrap manned spaceflight all-together. Though other nations are going to move forward anyway, and I’d prefer that we stayed the leader in all things space rather then having to pay someone else down the line.

That viewpoint does not include paying the Russians during a five year gap (If that long at all). 50 million per flight is fine considering its cheaper and leaves you with enough money to develop a new space vehicle (Not to mention the Apollo/Shuttle gap was longer).

Also, there seems to be two Ben’s here after reviewing the comments. Post 21 is me, post 15 not so much.

Just thought I’d throw this reality check in for you: neither does NASA.

In fact, the path NASA chose – with the Ares I/V concept is at the verge of being dumped as the situation appears to be unfolding rapidly. That’s right, after billions of taxpayer dollars and several years with nothing to show for, the time has come to do what should have been done from the start – developing something NASA can actually *afford*, not another Saturn V, only this time accompanied by an anemic launcher. Why buy one when you can get 1.5 for the price of 1.5?