Commercializing Ares I [Update - EELV costs]

Because as we well know, there's a current lack of EELV sized launchers in the US...sheesh.

I guess the saving grace of the situation is that nobody with half a brain is really going to be dumb enough to fly "high value" payloads on this engineering travesty.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at 04/10/08 08:14:17

This is just marketing/PR spin

Posted by GM at 04/10/08 08:33:53

GM,
I know. It's still annoying even though it's just PR spin. If they want to sell this on the commercial market, they should be required (as Boeing and LM were) to put up a decent chunk of the development cost as "skin in the game". Getting sole-source, uncompeted multibillion dollar contracts, letting NASA pay for all the development costs, and then turning around and trying to use that same product to compete with others who did sink hundreds of millions or over a billion of their own money just smacks of inpropriety.

Of course, as we both admit, it's entirely academic, but it still bugs me.
~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at 04/10/08 08:49:06

Not that I expect Ares 1 to fly commercial, if the EELV-size market had more competition, it could conceivably drive down launch costs. While Boeing and LM both put "skin in the game", they currently monopolize the EELV market under the United Launch Alliance.

If Ares 1 does get built, is it in the interests of the spaceflight community that it flies more often (civil + commercial payloads) or less often (Orion only)?

Posted by John Kavanagh at 04/10/08 10:02:57

John makes an excellent point. I don't know whether Ares 1 is commercially viable or not, though it seems to me that some people who say not have a political bias. In any case, competition would be better than the current EELV monopoly that some people seem intent on preserving.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at 04/10/08 12:23:39

"I don't know whether Ares 1 is commercially viable or not"

Forget commercial. Ares I is not technically viable for these payloads. Terrible acoustic environment, limited SRB casings and processing facilities, a conflicting NASA customer who also owns and operates the vehicle's launch infrastructure, and a lack of a useful upper stage without incurring huge mass penalities. What is ATK thinking... or is Dittemore just off the reservation?

Posted by jblow at 04/10/08 12:49:37

"In any case, competition would be better than the current EELV monopoly that some people seem intent on preserving."

What is the matter with it? It seems to be working fine and it is not gouging the gov't. Ares I wouldn't have any effect on the monopoly compared to foreign vehicles.

Vehicles (EELV's) for the US Gov't will always be higher priced because the gov't self insures and needs more insight

Posted by GM at 04/10/08 12:56:41

.

if the Ares-1 will work... it will be a 100% NASA property (but, probably, they'll share the profits...)

assuming it works... the Ares-1 could surely be used for cargo launches (probes, etc.) but I doubt they can sell it for commercial purposes

they have three ways:

a) launch small sats with a dummy load: just waste of money

b) use the full 30+ mT payload: to launch what?

c) launch 4, 5 or more sats per flight: good, but, who pays a so big insurance if a launch will fail?

.

Posted by gm at 04/10/08 17:30:36

Except that, legal, Nasa can't make money

Posted by Ferris Valyn at 04/10/08 20:25:44

Ares I, Falcon, Rutan all could benefit from a new simple low cost fuel alternative....paraffin. Specifically as in GOX/paraffin. Seems to me a Falcon booster would be much simpler to design, develop, maintain, turn around, lower cost etc... if it utilized solid paraffin based fuel. Same goes for Rutan I would think the ISP boost would very beneficial over Nox/poly. To me paraffin sounds like an ideal future private space fuel.

Posted by Doug at 04/13/08 09:43:38

If I had a very high value payload to launch I'd want it launched on something that will give it a smooth ride up like Delta IV or Falcon 9 instead of the flying paint mixer that is Ares I.
Not sat company in their right mind would want their payload riding on a vehicle with such terrible acoustic and vibration characteristics.

Posted by Ruri at 04/13/08 11:31:12

Did I just read ATK got a sole source contract for the first stage? How did this happen. They make motors not complete stages. I can see sole source for the motor -- even then what about Aerojet -- but the whole first stage design and manufacturing.

Posted by dannydeger@gmail.com at 09/17/09 18:56:27

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me