The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20111129102151/http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/11/congressional-w.html
OrlandoSentinel.com

« | Main | »

Congressional watchdog finds NASA’s new rocket is in trouble

Aresvab768020_2 WASHINGTON – In the latest blow to NASA’s next-generation manned spacecraft, congressional investigators have concluded that the Constellation program is likely to cost $7 billion more than budgeted if it is to fly by its target date of March 2015. Without extra money, it could be delayed by 18 months or more.

The Congressional Budget Office cited an array of problems facing the Ares I rocket and the Orion capsule, which NASA hopes will return astronauts to the moon by 2020.

Among them are difficulties in developing an engine for Ares and a heat shield for Orion — as well as NASA’s history of blowing its budgets.

"NASA has identified several problems associated with the Ares I that could delay successful development of the vehicle," according to the 18-page report.

The engine issues include intense shaking on liftoff — a danger to astronauts — and possibly insufficient power to put the Orion capsule into orbit. Other technical woes that NASA has identified include concerns that Ares’ first stage could crash into its second stage during separation; dangerous levels of noise in the crew capsule during takeoff.

NASA officials said they were studying the report. But the agency’s top brass has insisted repeatedly that the program is on track.

"The Ares I rocket is a sound design that not only meets the high safety standards required for a manned spacecraft, it is within budget, on schedule, and meets its performance requirements with margin," said Steve Cook, Ares project manager, in a news conference last week meant to counter reports of Constellation’s problems.

The CBO projected the need for $7 billion more after comparing Constellation to 72 past NASA projects, which had similar cost increases. The estimate of an 18-month delay comes after an examination of likely technical delays and cost overruns.

The report joins a growing chorus of concern about Constellation. The Government Accountability Office, another congressional watchdog, has cited many of the same technical problems. Engineers and other NASA officials also have raised similar doubts.

Still, NASA’s options other than the Ares appear limited. A ranking NASA official Monday said that flying the shuttle after its scheduled 2010 retirement, as some in Congress have urged, is possible but will be costly.

One proposed option would extend the current flight schedule through 2012, using the giant external fuel tanks and other hardware NASA has already planned to build. A second option calls for NASA to build more fuel tanks and hardware to keep flying three shuttle missions per year until 2015.

Either option, an agency official said Monday, would cost $2 billion annually. "And that is money that is not currently in the budget," said John Shannon, NASA’s shuttle program manager.

Lawmakers — including both presidential nominees — have called for an increase in NASA’s budget by $2 billion, echoing the agency’s allies in Congress. But that would be a one-time boost, given the financial pressures driven by the ballooning federal deficit.

The CBO report also cautioned that the cost of more shuttle flights could only hurt Constellation under NASA’s limited budget. 

Investigators also seemed to dismiss the idea that NASA could speed up Constellation’s development with more money in the near term. They said NASA told them that "additional funding can no longer significantly change" the March 2015 target date of a first launch.

Even so, the agency is looking at radical changes in the program to see if it can speed up development.

According to former astronaut Eileen Collins, currently a member of the NASA Advisory Council, one option under consideration would eliminate features needed to go to the moon and turn it a simple craft that could ferry crew and cargo to the space station.

Download 11-03-NASA_Letter.pdf 


Comments



I wonder how long it will be before the tipping point is reached and NASA has to choose between Ares-I and the Moon. That is the way it is starting to look – the Stick can probably be made to fly to LEO without killing people too often. However, it will never have the power needed to lift a lunar-capable Orion. It just doesn’t generate enough power for long enough.
Horribly, I can see Griffin and his clique choosing Ares-I over VSE just to have the satisfaction of seeing their baby fly in the face of all objections. People can be perverse like that.

Keep the shuttle flying and kill Ares. We have two rockets capable of lifting Orion, Atlas V, and Delta IV. Spacex is working on a manned capsule. The Ares has proved to be, “Not Safe, Not Soon, and Not Simple”. Buying Russian rockets for 5 years while passing out pink slips at NASA is retarded.

if you have a bit of time and patience, just read this three-year-old thread on uplink.space “The VERY DISLIKED ARGUMENT: CEV-CLV launch costs,” in which I posted a detailed analysis of the TRUE development costs of the Ares-1 and the REAL “price” of each Orion/Ares-1 launch. You’ll be surprised to discover how close my three-year-old assessment was to the cost of the program disclosed today!
(http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:c7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum:bf7b9387-46b4-47ed-ad5b-34a5350b82ecDiscussion:3eb0728b-9abc-43c2-bea0-2edc52bed1f8&plckCurrentPage=0&sid=sitelife.space.com)
So, the (embarrassing) question is: why was an army of engineers and accounting professionals unable to make an assessment of costs more accurately than a simple blogger did three years ago?

RayGun – Ares must be scrapped, but the Shuttle will never get us out of Low Earth Orbit. And yes, buying Russian and firing American is retarded. But that is where Griffin is leading us.
The answer is to return to the precepts of the Aldridge Commission and the true Vision for Space Exploration: retire the Shuttle while maximizing re-use of Shuttle components, infrastructure, and people; make steady, visible progress in attaining goals; listen to your engineers.
Ares does none of that. DIRECT 2.0 does all that and more. See http://www.directlauncher.com for more info.
NASA and American engineering is not the problem. Griffin and his pet Ares project is the problem.
Go DIRECT!

launching that is too dangerous

wow latest blow to NASA’s next-generation manned spacecraft, Constellation program with the cost $7 billion more than budgeted if it is to fly by its target date of March 2015. Without extra money, it could be delayed by 18 months or more. thats amazing..

NASA officials said they were studying the report. But the agency’s top brass has insisted repeatedly that the program is on track.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated. By posting a comment, you affirm that you are 13 years of age or older and you agree to our copyright and terms of service.






About
The Write Stuff covers news on NASA's shuttle program, the international space station, robotic missions to the planets and rocket launches worldwide.
E-mail A Tip


Subscribe to our blog via email
Enter your email address



Delivered by FeedBurner

Latest from OrlandoSentinel.com blogs










Switch to our mobile site