I said I wouldn’t address this any more, it is indeed taking up too much of my time. Fortunately, right now I’m in between semesters, but with speaking engagements and such, I still have little free time.

You comment, “I would think that the ramifications of a solid first stage would be known long before the crew capacity was specified.” is very naive in that it is a well documented fact on SpaceVidCast and other websites that the developers of Ares I had no clue about the severity of the vibration problem before they were well into building Ares I.

As for the vibration problem relating to crew reduction and the other subject of the escape tower, the relevant issues and sources of information have been well covered over past months on such websites as RLVNews and Transterrestrial Musings, I would have to wade back into previous topics on these sites to find the exact posts. If you’re truly interested in these sources, be my guest, search for them on the above-mentioned websites on your own time.

Rick Boozer wrote:
It’s in NASA’s own documentation. Because Ares I is a solid fueled rocket, it can’t be shut down during flight. This fact means that they need a more powerful escape tower rocket to pull the capsule away from a still accelerating Ares I. A more powerful escape rocket means a heavier escape rocket and the extra mass was compensated for by getting rid of one astronaut.

That paragraph is a bit confusing to me. Are you suggesting that NASA’s documentation states that the reason for the drop in crew-capacity is because of the solid first stage motor? I would think that the ramifications of a solid first stage long before the crew capacity was specified. I’d appreciate a link or reference if that is the case.

If that isn’t the case, I think the statement is a bit misleading. I fail to see an obvious causal relationship between a massive escape tower and the six-to-four-crew change.

Here’s an article on the crew capsule reduction I just ran across.
http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/04/nasa_slashes_orion_crew_explor.html
(Links are okay here, I hope)

It says:
NASA made the crew size change “in order to improve schedule and cost confidence by minimizing multiple configurations under simultaneous development during the Program’s early phases,” Hautaluoma said. “While a four-person crew would save some mass, the issue of mass savings was not a major factor in the decision-making process. “
(Hopefully that is in italics.)

I have heard the reason that the six-crew capsule was dropped was because two versions of the life-support systems would have to be designed, one capable of supporting the extra crew and one for outside-LEO missions.

A ‘true believer’… I don’t know what to say. I’m didn’t know I was even a regular believer.
I consider myself to be cautiously optimistic in the face of something that seems to me to be less-than-objective criticism. But I suppose I think the same of those who rabidly support DIRECT with what seems like insufficient evidence to support that their option is truly a better one.

I am ‘believer’ in space travel. I am a supporter of NASA. I think Ares V, conceptually, is ‘bad ass’. I think the Lunar outpost mission is a worthy mission. I am skeptical of DIRECT. I think we have to have SOME direction, and heard toward it with enthusiasm, because if we, as a nation, and as a human race, stop heading toward that goal without at least a _little_ urgency, we’re gonna fall over backwards and cry out ‘I’ve fallen and I can’t get up’ which is some sort of clever metaphor of something or other. So, unless there happens to be yet another space program — secretly being built for the last five years in a hidden underground laboratory, which has a alternate version of Orion, and Chariot, and ATHLETE, and lunar habs, and all that other cool stuff, except *better, cheaper, and even more magic than before* — is suddenly unveilied, I have to do with what is available. So, in the meantime, I will have to support Constellation, otherwise known as the US official and supported baseline for human space flight. I guess that’s pretty radical, though.
…But I think I’ve gotten off topic.

It doesn’t reflect directly on this discussion, but I thought this editorial was rather interesting:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1405/1
I was particularly intrigued by a idea that NASA is some $11 billion underfunded from what was expected when the Moon return mission was proposed in 2004.

I have to let you know how much I appreciate all of you taking the time out of your busy days and nights to make all of these arguments come to life. It means the world to me that you guys care enough to write this stuff down and submit it on our site… Instead of others. *AND* I love that you are all very civil with one another. For me, this is the best way for people like me to learn and be exposed to these kinds of conversations. It gives me all sides of an argument and time for me to do some research on my own. I find it very empowering. Like I’ve said before, when Ben came to me and said he wanted to do a Space podcast… I pretty much told him to have fun because I would not be joining him. I had no interest in space at all and in my ignorance figured that he would run out of topics in about a month. I’m not saying that I have come all that far as of yet. (see Cariann say “solar flares” instead of “solar panels”) But I am trying.
So, I just wanted to thank all of you who are taking the time to, albeit unknowingly I’m sure, educate me on some of the intricacies of the topics we bring up on the show.
-Cariann

It’s in NASA’s own documentation. Because Ares I is a solid fueled rocket, it can’t be shut down during flight. This fact means that they need a more powerful escape tower rocket to pull the capsule away from a still accelerating Ares I. A more powerful escape rocket means a heavier escape rocket and the extra mass was compensated for by getting rid of one astronaut.

The extreme vibration of the solid fueled rocket engine required a much heavier shock absorber system. Thus a yet another astronaut had to be sacrificed.

But this is all I’m saying on the subject, because it appears that you are a hopeless True Believer.

[shakes head in utter dismay]

Furthermore, $30 billion doesn’t impress me that much. Maybe it’s just this new economy where they throw that much around like pocket change. We spent something like $30 billion on GM, and we may not even get any more crappy cars out of it. Firstly, it’s $30 billion over like, 15 years. They (Congress) try to defray the cost to taxpayers by stretching it out like that, but I think that’s counterproductive. Just spend the $30 billion and build the damn thing before they get wet feet and cancel the program. Another quote from the NASA speaker was his belief that many of the problems experienced by the development teams were due to them not even getting the limited funding they were due. That might be because of the lingering questions about the fate of the Space Shuttle, but I’ll take the easy route and put the blame on Congress for that too, because they don’t have the balls or the brains to value the human space program as they should…

I’ll admit, however, that I do wonder about the value of the Ares I vehicle itself. It seems to be rather costly, and not improve launch capabilities by much. However, it is, as they stated in the Committee meeting, an ‘architecture’ and it isn’t just as easy as all that to replace it, such as with an EELV. That would probably have a profound negative effect on the development of the Ares V, which I totally do support since it’s an awesome example of a BFR.

I’ve heard that many of the design choices for Ares I were made for safety and reliability reasons. Another fatal accident in NASA space flight might be the doom of the civil American human space program for yet another generation, so I definitely think that safety considerations should not be overlooked. I’ve not seen an apples-to-apples type comparison of the safety risks of Ares/EELV/DIRECT/other, but I’m very skeptical of the supposed improvements that DIRECT makes claims to.

I’m also extremely skeptical about anyone who makes claims about the ‘majority’ of NASA. NASA is like, 100,000 people (just a guess, really), spread over dozens of sites across the country. Even if we’re only talking about the launch vehicle development teams, I imagine the ‘majority’ are just doing their job as best they can. A few anecdotal tales of internal squabbles or the bellyaching of a couple errant, unsatisfied engineers really doesn’t cut it. I understand NASA doesn’t have the best track record about such things, but if the decision making processes and management structure changes that resulted from some of the previous such issues (i.e. the negligently unrealistic safety predictions for the Space Shuttle) have come to the conclusion that Ares program is the way to go, I’d like to understand why it’s conclusions about NASA’s future direction are apparently so wrong.

That isn’t to say that it might _not_ be wrong. I hope that the HSF committee can find a direction that can be more widely supported, and not compromise the vision that we have, such as it is.

Tangentially related to this, I’d just like to opine about the choice of destination. I think the return to the Moon is a good mission. I think a Mars mission would be much more likely to be a Apollo-repeat, where we go a few times, decide that it costs too much and wallow for another few decades. I think that Moon missions are attainable in the relatively near term, and would be much more likely to result in permanent stays. I think interest in space exploration would be significantly heightened by a continuing presence on the Moon, and we could stay there while testing equipment, developing in-situ technology, and exploring the yet-unexploited scientific potential present on the lunar surface. In contrast to the ISS, where the only things of interest are, A. astronauts, and B. the ISS, on the Moon, there is at least the Moon to be interested in. So, once everyone goes, ‘Ooh!’ to some shiny new hardware, we could, like, dig a hole, or go for a drive, and maybe find something else the taxpayers and space-geeks can go ‘Ooh!’ about.

And maybe we can find some sweet Lunar lava tubes, and go about preparing for the first Lunar colony.
Whew! Quite a rant, there….