# NASA Aries manned rocket to be canceled.... **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 29, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846 "2010-01-29T03:26:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/41 "2010-02-02T04:36:13Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > I was impressed by the committee members. While I certainly am no engineer, those folks certainly have impressive backgrounds. If they think the Aries is a waste of money, I couldn’t argue with them. I do disagree that the plan for a commercial rocket makes sense. Step 1: obtain 5 billion in capital from NASA. Step 2: do what you can to live up to your initial promises. Step 3: bail if it doesn’t work. They recommend that NASA develop a backup manned launch system just in case the commercial vendors decide not to continue. So, we are going to pay to have a commercial company develop a manned rocket but the gubment will develop one too just in case. That doesnt sound particularly cost effective either. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/42 "2010-02-02T05:04:50Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > Thanks again for the link. The Augustine report. I read sections so far. I don’t see the reason for the high cost/launch though the report cites the far more capable than necessary for a taxi cost of the Orion. The main reason I can see is that it would only be used for low orbit trips a few times. It is designed for long duration and so is expensive. It does seem crazy, the equivalent number for the Space Shuttle (which I thought was criticized for its high per-mission cost) appears to be 400-600 million depending on what site you look at, so Ares I would double that. > [@](#): > > I was impressed by the committee members. While I certainly am no engineer, those folks certainly have impressive backgrounds. If they think the Aries is a waste of money, I couldn’t argue with them. I do disagree that the plan for a commercial rocket makes sense. Step 1: obtain 5 billion in capital from NASA. Step 2: do what you can to live up to your initial promises. Step 3: bail if it doesn’t work. Yea, I got back and forth on whether or not the commercial thing can work or not. SpaceX claims to be close to launching a vehicle that would be the same class as the Ares I, and they have launched things before (granted with a high failure rate), so they’re not all smoke and mirrors. But I dunno if the upcoming rocket would be deemed safe enough by NASA to actually strap an astronaut to, even if it does successfully launch on schedule. But then, its not like gov’t is free of similar risks. Commercial companies might bail, but then Congress can and does do the same thing, leaving programs high and dry (like, for example, the Constellation). > [@](#): > > They recommend that NASA develop a backup manned launch system just in case the commercial vendors decide not to continue. The new budget doesn’t provide for this, so it appears to be not happening, though I guess maybe Congress could throw it in to keep work going on the Constellation. I’ll also add that the new budget provides a billion for studying building a future Heavy-lift vehicle, which is a) what you’d need to get to the moon/mars, as well as do a lot of other neat things and b) probably out of the league of any likely commercial company, so the gov’t isn’t totally outsourcing the building of human ridable rockets to the private sector. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/43 "2010-02-02T05:24:02Z")
Quoth **Stranger on a Train** : > [@](#): > > Of course, space exploration isn’t just about science; it is about adventure and heroism and ticker-tape parades and all that, for which robots serve rather poorly. This is an excellent point that’s often overlooked. The primary benefit of manned space exploration isn’t the science; it’s the prestige. Now, if I had to choose one or the other, I’d take science any day, but there’s no reason not to have both. For the amount of prestige we get, the manned space program is awfully cheap (certainly cheaper than wars, the other major way governments try to earn prestige). ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/44 "2010-02-02T05:28:05Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > [This commercial capsule](http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php)resembles the Soyuz with it’s solar panels. Er, not really. [Soyuz](\rsmc32-fps02\dfs\RSLP\_Workspaces\E-LRALT Workspace) has three modules; a service module, an orbital habitat/command module, and re-entry module, the latter designed to be a minimum of mass and not reusable. The Proposed SpaceX Dragon is designed for the command/habitat module to effect reentry and be reusable for at least ten missions, and a discarded service module. Also, it’s Ares, not Aries. The Aries was a Minuteman-derived sounding rocket and target launch vehicle based on the M56A1 motor. The Ares is a Shuttle-derived family of vehicles. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/45 "2010-02-02T13:16:52Z")
Another American step toward second-rate status. With the huge Bush-recession and budget problems, we had no choice. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/46 "2010-02-02T13:38:11Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Stranger on a Train** :This is an excellent point that’s often overlooked. The primary benefit of manned space exploration isn’t the science; it’s the prestige. Now, if I had to choose one or the other, I’d take science any day, but there’s no reason not to have both. For the amount of prestige we get, the manned space program is awfully cheap (certainly cheaper than wars, the other major way governments try to earn prestige). And then there’s the question of whether or not NASA is in the business of opening space to humans or exploring space for science. It doesn’t have to be an either/or question but it tends to be. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/47 "2010-02-02T16:32:12Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > And then there’s the question of whether or not NASA is in the business of opening space to humans or exploring space for science. It doesn’t have to be an either/or question but it tends to be. Unlike its agency of origin–the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, which was a government funded research and clearinghouse organization to support both the military and private aerospace concerns–the original charter for NASA was quite simply to “win” the space race, which rapidly became a competition to place the first human being on the Moon. This is what the general public thinks of when they think of NASA, and has been the bulk of its budget for the five decades of its existence. However, under this aegis, it has also supported a wide range of purely scientific endeavors, research, and technology advancement using unmanned satellites and space probes. While the latter is a pittance compared to the celebrated manned program, it is unlikely that this research and JPL-led unmanned programs would have received the levels of funding that it has if it weren’t a minor line item in comparison to the manned program. Indeed, the earliest lunar/planetary probes and the launch vehicles to support them were all developed in anticipation of a manned Lunar landing (Ranger, Surveyor), and served to develop the evolutionary technology to support subsequent unmanned missions to other planets to which we have no foreseeable intention to launch a manned mission (Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, et cetera). Without the manned program and the race for the Moon, it is unlikely that we would have a significant unmanned program beyond Earth orbit. As history has borne out, military and private programs (USAF ‘Blue Gemini’ and ‘Blue Shuttle’, the nascent USN space program, various private interests) are not able to sustain funding for technology development with uncertain timelines and ultimate capability. One can look at the Soviet military program, with its competing design bureaus and prohibitive politics and see the same problems. For NASA with its “blank check” Gemini and Apollo programs, funding the technology development and systems engineering to support unmanned missions was a small item byproduct of the overall goal. Whether a manned program is needed right now is, frankly, a legitimate question; certainly we’re getting little in terms of either technology development or science from the ISS, nor is it a highly celebrated mission that engenders public support. The only real value is sustaining and advancing our ability to put people in space (for whatever purpose) for an eventual permanent manned presence when the propulsion and environmental technology is sufficiently advanced to support that goal. That’s not necessarily money down the drain, but the payoff for that is decades away, rather than being of immediate scientific, technological, or commercial benefit. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/48 "2010-02-02T16:51:11Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The primary benefit of manned space exploration isn’t the science; it’s the prestige. Now, if I had to choose one or the other, I’d take science any day, but there’s no reason not to have both. For the amount of prestige we get, the manned space program is awfully cheap (certainly cheaper than wars, the other major way governments try to earn prestige). If only the public would see it this way. Unfortunately, every time you talk about the space program in a public forum, some yahoo has to pop up and complain about “all the money we’re throwing away into space instead of fixing problems down on Earth,” instead of recognizing that the space program is a paltry amount in comparison to logistical support and weapon development for wars ongoing and anticipated. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/49 "2010-02-02T17:47:20Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Another American step toward second-rate status. With the huge Bush-recession and budget problems, we had no choice. Sigh. I was waiting for somebody to blame Bush for this :rolleyes: Maybe Obama would have a few bucks to spare for NASA if he hadn’t thrown away a trillion dollars on worthless “stimulus” (ie, pork-barrel project) spending. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/50 "2010-02-02T18:53:11Z")
An interesting article that lays out exactly what we get from NASA’s reboot. > **[NASA reboots, focuses on cheaper, sustainable exploration](https://arstechnica.com/science/2010/02/nasa-reboots-focuses-on-cheaper-sustainable-exploration/)** > > Faced with the reality that its budget isn't big enough for the programs it … I quite agree with it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/51 "2010-02-02T19:22:04Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Stranger on a Train** :This is an excellent point that’s often overlooked. The primary benefit of manned space exploration isn’t the science; it’s the prestige. Now, if I had to choose one or the other, I’d take science any day, but there’s no reason not to have both. For the amount of prestige we get, the manned space program is awfully cheap (certainly cheaper than wars, the other major way governments try to earn prestige). How much incremental prestige are we getting from manned missions these days? How much would we get for returning to the moon? Mars, yes, but that is hardly justifiable unless some microbe gets up and waves at a probe. Government is vital in doing risky things for which the payoff is unclear - like seeing if we can survive in space, and working out the details of the things that get us there. Government has done its job, and we have it down to engineering. Let’s let private industry do it now, since that will encourage a diversity of approaches. Burt Rutan shows a graph of fatalities from early airplane flights compared to fatalities from early space flights, with the point that we are too chicken in pushing the boundaries. I hope that we will find something to economically justify private space travel besides sending rich yahoos to orbit or near orbit, but even if that is it now, maybe it will push us up the learning curve so that other things become economically justifiable. Government has succeeded in proving the feasibility of spaceflight but has utterly failed in justifying it. It is time to turn it over, and keep government in the science business. I think Hubble pictures probably sell better than anything coming from ISS or the Shuttle. That kind of stuff is the job of government. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/52 "2010-02-03T03:56:03Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > It does seem crazy, the equivalent number for the Space Shuttle (which I thought was criticized for its high per-mission cost) appears to be 400-600 million depending on what site you look at, so Ares I would double that. > > Yea, I got back and forth on whether or not the commercial thing can work or not. SpaceX claims to be close to launching a vehicle that would be the same class as the Ares I, and they have launched things before (granted with a high failure rate), so they’re not all smoke and mirrors. But I dunno if the upcoming rocket would be deemed safe enough by NASA to actually strap an astronaut to, even if it does successfully launch on schedule. > > But then, its not like gov’t is free of similar risks. Commercial companies might bail, but then Congress can and does do the same thing, leaving programs high and dry (like, for example, the Constellation). > > The new budget doesn’t provide for this, so it appears to be not happening, though I guess maybe Congress could throw it in to keep work going on the Constellation. > > I’ll also add that the new budget provides a billion for studying building a future Heavy-lift vehicle, which is a) what you’d need to get to the moon/mars, as well as do a lot of other neat things and b) probably out of the league of any likely commercial company, so the gov’t isn’t totally outsourcing the building of human ridable rockets to the private sector. as I read the commission report (p. 72), it is recommending that development continue on the heavy-lift vehicle and make the core man-ratable. It hopefully wouldn’t be used that way, but would be available as a manned booster if necessary. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/53 "2010-02-03T04:26:59Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > An interesting article that lays out exactly what we get from NASA’s reboot. > [NASA reboots, focuses on cheaper, sustainable exploration - Ars Technica](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/nasa-reboots-focuses-on-cheaper-sustainable-exploration.ars) > I quite agree with it. I am afraid I agree as well. The basic problem is that they are assuming that congress will fund projects that have no proposed use. Take in-orbit refueling. Very nice. But will congress and the american people pay for something that has no proposed use? We are canceling manned spaceflight. It isn’t just Ares I. The reason for Ares was canceled. SpaceX claims they will be able to launch people to the space station. Lets assume they will achieve that. They haven’t demonstrated any components yet, but the future is wide open. Going to the space station doesn’t get anyone anywhere else. By definition it is a taxi. It can’t do anything once in orbit except dock and go home. Until there is someplace for the taxi to stop at, there won’t be any taxi rides. The ISS provides a demonstration of living in space and that is good. But until someone comes up with a plan to go somewhere else, nothing being talked about will have any use. Such things, especially such big things, tend to suffer the fate of the bridge to nowhere. Many people have argued that going back to the moon was pointless. But it does have a point-the moon. One can easily argue that there isn’t much to see/do there. But at least it is someplace to go. As such it provides more of a reason for Constellation than exists for the plans being discussed now. That is my problem with the decision. It isn’t the cancellation of the Ares I. It is the cancellation of the future of manned spaceflight. I remain unconvinced that NASA will or should sustain funding to development technologies that don’t have a proposed use. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/54 "2010-02-03T16:00:58Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > I am afraid I agree as well. The basic problem is that they are assuming that congress will fund projects that have no proposed use. Take in-orbit refueling. Very nice. But will congress and the american people pay for something that has no proposed use? I sort of agree, but I think that while things like the HLV are just in the cheaper design/planning stages, a purpose isn’t that important. When they start asking for more billions to actually build the thing, they’ll need a more concrete mission, but that shouldn’t be too hard to provide at that point either. > [@](#): > > SpaceX claims they will be able to launch people to the space station. Lets assume they will achieve that. They haven’t demonstrated any components yet, but the future is wide open. They’ve launched smaller rockets with the same engine (granted with a less then stellar success rate), and there’s an assembled Falcon 9 that’s being tested in Cape Canaveral, so I don’t think its correct to say they haven’t demonstrated any of the components. When they finally launch the larger rocket, I’m not sure the result will be deemed safe enough to actually attach a person to, but we should at least find out one way or another in the next year or two, which is more then can be said of the Ares. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/55 "2010-02-05T00:59:06Z")
I don’t like Obama, but I support this decision. Going back to the moon makes no economic sense-and manned moon missions make even less. If we need a new heavy lift launch vehicle-why not redesign the Saturn rocket? With newer engine designs, and better CAD, we ought to be able to make a reliable vehicle at a much lower cost than Ares. Of course, that defeats the purpose of NASA (which is to get bigger and bigger budgets). ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/56 "2010-02-05T01:41:49Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I don’t like Obama, but I support this decision. Going back to the moon makes no economic sense-and manned moon missions make even less. > If we need a new heavy lift launch vehicle-why not redesign the Saturn rocket? With newer engine designs, and better CAD, we ought to be able to make a reliable vehicle at a much lower cost than Ares. > Of course, that defeats the purpose of NASA (which is to get bigger and bigger budgets). That’s what the Aries project represents. The Saturn rocket doesn’t exist in any form and trying to resurrect it would be like trying to reinvent a B-52. The moon project was a stepping stone to Mars. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2010, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/57 "2010-02-05T02:08:41Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > If we need a new heavy lift launch vehicle-why not redesign the Saturn rocket? Rumor has it, the engineering drawings no longer exist. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/58 "2010-02-05T02:21:56Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Rumor has it, the engineering drawings no longer exist. Good news, that was just a rumor. > **[Saturn Coverage | Space](https://www.space.com/astronomy/solar-system/saturn)** > > The latest Saturn breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at Saturn Coverage The bad news: > [@](#): > > “The real problem is the hundreds of thousands of other parts, some as apparently insignificant as a bolt or a washer, that are simply not manufactured any more. Everything would have to be redone. So a simple rebuild would be impossible. The only real answer would be to start from scratch and build anew using modern parts and processes. Yet another immense challenge!” ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/59 "2010-02-05T02:33:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Good news, that was just a rumor. Outstanding! Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846/60 "2010-02-05T02:52:30Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I don’t like Obama, but I support this decision. Going back to the moon makes no economic sense-and manned moon missions make even less. > If we need a new heavy lift launch vehicle-why not redesign the Saturn rocket? With newer engine designs, and better CAD, we ought to be able to make a reliable vehicle at a much lower cost than Ares. > Of course, that defeats the purpose of NASA (which is to get bigger and bigger budgets). Well, I certainly agree that going to the moon/mar/jupiter/saturn etc makes no economic sense. To the extent that decisions need to be made purely in terms of economic sense which to me means cost/return in dollars, there is no longer a need for a space program of any kind. We know how to launch communication satellites, one could do a study to see if weather satellites actually pay for themselves. Navigation satellites don’t make the cut (look at the European experience). Hubble, Galileo, none of those returned a dime. I use data from earth orbiting satellites as part of my work (I don’t work for NASA!). I can state that very little of that data could be paid for by the scientific users. And even if they could, it is just government research grants. No net gain for the government. Since many people, not all, feel space exploration is worth some amount money even if it doesn’t make any sense, the question is how much are we willing to spend? The increase in in the NASA budget to continue manned space exploration is less than the banker’s bonuses that our tax dollars helped create. In terms of priority, if the banks are worth $800 billion, the future of manned spaceflight is worth 3. But that is just my opinion. So, in terms of economic sense you are absolutely correct. But to me, it is more important than economics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-aries-manned-rocket-to-be-canceled/526846.md?page=4)