Ares risks now and then

Mike Griffin originally sold his Ares I based exploration architecture on the grounds that it would be the low risk, "safe, simple, soon" approach as compared to high risk commercial launcher options. Subsequently, there have been a series of severe technical problems for Ares 1 that make it less safe, that require complex solutions, and that will delay it by years. If we complain, though, then we're just being too risk adverse averse: Griffin says fear of risk hurting space program - al.com (via spacetoday.net).

Regarding the public's annoying tendency to ask "what it would cost", I'll point out that affordable and sustainable spacefaring will not arise from the money-is-no-object, crash program approach used to develop ICBMs and to win the Moon Race. Money is, in fact, the crucial object and saving it should be considered the top priority from the first to the last step in the design of a long term space exploration and development program.

Posted 07/12/09 | 11:23:36 by TopSpacer | Filed under: NASA Exploration Systems

Comments

I wonder if NASA really cares about affordable and sustainable spacefaring. Making things expensive, exclusive, anti-competitive keeps jobs and projects mostly in house.

Posted by GHC593 at 07/12/09 11:44:30

"I wonder if NASA really cares about affordable and sustainable spacefaring."

NASA's congressional enablers sure don't. Mission Success for the local politicians is employing a large army of civil servants and federal contractors. The opposite of affordable.

Posted by John Kavanagh at 07/12/09 11:55:08

It *is* true that we're risk adverse. But if we're going to take signifigant technical risks (and personal risk for the crews) it should be on systems and architectures more innovative and supportive of a general spacefaring infrastructure (with something resembling an RLV and orbital assembly at minimum) than this one is...

(And it's odd that one can be accused of risk adversity, for something originally presented as 'safe, simple, soon,' implying low inherent risk. One can hardly have it both ways.)

Posted by Frank Glover at 07/12/09 12:13:27

Aaaarrrgghhhh. This one drives me crazy (like "loose/lose").

We are <b>not</b> risk "adverse." We are risk <b>averse</b>.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07/12/09 12:17:33

D'oh. Forgot about the lack of HTML.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07/12/09 12:18:35

I find it annoying that he thinks a review every few years is excessive. If somebody is doing a major custom job for me, they can expect a review every few weeks.

Posted by john hare at 07/12/09 13:01:09

Wow, it is always interesting to see how little politicians and government agencies really care about the opinions of the people they are meant to represent. As a comfort, this is more or less the same everywhere in the world, not just in the US, but also (or especially) in here in the EU also. The EU basically does what the US tells them is politically correct to do ;)

To get back on topic: I am totally with Clark on this.

Posted by Elmar_M at 07/12/09 14:39:07

Add Comment

Note: HTML code will not work except for bare URLs (i.e. http://www...). Also, for postings older than 1 week, comments are filtered manually to prevent spam and so may not appear for a few days.
Note: Trash talking and name calling, especially in anonymous comments, won't be tolerated.