John Young: Ares I won't work, announcement coming May 23

[collectSPACE]

Over on collectSPACE, one of our frequent and trusted contributors posted a report about John Young's recent comments at an event held over the past weekend. Included was the following interesting tidbit from Young:

"On May 23, we are gonna find out that the Ares I booster isn't powerful enough to get [the Orion spacecraft] into orbit."

Young elaborated, ending with "...we have to get another [launch] vehicle." Read the full post by Jim Busby here: John Young: Ares I won't work, announcement coming May 23.

Young admits that he doesn't know the significance of May 23, and comparing sources with Chris Bergin offline, neither do we. Any ideas? Both Chris and I are following up on this, but perhaps someone reading this (between our two sites) knows who or what led Young to say that change is coming...

[AntiKev]

Okay, this begs the question.  If NASA decides to drop the Ares I and go with an EELV (pipe-dream I know), will that speed up the development of Orion?  If so, does this mean we get Ares V faster?  I'm sure I know the answer to both questions, they are a little bit loaded I will admit.

[stockman]

This could be a very good thing if true. They are early enough in this process that they could go with one of the EELV's as you mentioned and concentrate entirely on the Orion Crew Capsule. With any luck the funds that were going to Ares could be redirected to this effort and accelerate construction.

I always thought that the Ares program was an attempt to utilize existing Shuttle hardware (solids and tank). Maybe this (again if true) was an orchestrated attempt to TRY to use these assets but in the end come up short so they can terminate it with a clear conscience and move on to a more realistic approach.

Simplistic thinking on my part I admit but this is the first thought that came to my mind when I read this initial post.

woohoo!  No more weight scrubs!

[William Barton]

I find myself wondering if something like this could eventually point in the direction of a single-launcher architecture like the Ares IV.

[ShuttleDiscovery]

I wouldn't of thought NASA were too happy to hear Young say that about the Ares I!

[jongoff]

I'm kind of skeptical myself.  There've been a lot of false reports of doom in the past.  Rumors of its death have alas been frequently exaggerated.  I think Ares I and the whole ESAS transportation system is fundamentally flawed on many levels, but I'd be honestly surprised if NASA up and admitted that Ares I was technically unworkable.  Especially if it was.  I mean, with the attitude I've seen out of most of the Ares I program managers, I'd be amazed if they could actually admit they were ever wrong about anything.

I'd be glad to see it go (especially if they went with a more commercially responsive approach--yeah right), but I'm not holding my breath till I hear the data.

~Jon

[Analyst]

I agree with the last post. How can you explain this after two years of saying this is the right way?

Analyst

[kool-aid]

Analyst - 24/4/2007  10:20 AM

I agree with the last post. How can you explain this after two years of saying this is the right way?

Analyst

They don't.

After two years of saying how crucial nuclear propulsion was the exploration of space, did they offer an explanation why Prometheus was cancelled?  Did all those companies who put breathless ads in Space News about the criticality of nuclear (no pun intended) go back and say "oops, sorry, guess we don't need it so bad..."

I remember watching a video at Oshkosh where Steve Cook described how essential scramjets were going to be to building a "highway to space".  I even got yo-yos and trinkets with "highway2space.com" on them.  But I guess Steve Cook doesn't think scramjets are so important anymore, and highway2space.com is cybersquatted.

Did they explain away X-33 and SLI and X-38 and all the others when they got cancelled?

Did they explain why it was okay to cut all the science out of ISS after science was used to sell it?

Did they explain why it's okay to send astronauts on Soyuzes to ISS for 5+ years after 2010?

Did they explain why we won't be able to carry up critical spares to ISS or return racks?

Did they explain why....oh, you get the picture.

[astrobrian]

IMHO, if all these reports are true of the ARES I issues, I too would like to see an ARES IV design come out of it.  If they go with an EELV what happens to ARES V? does it go down with the ship as well, and the LSAM along with it? should be an interesting next 30 days on this issue.

[wannamoonbase]

If true I wouldn't mind seeing an Ares IV.  Would give one vehicle to work with, could do 2 launches for lunar ops.  However a Delta 4 derived LV would provide a common liquid engine (US built) between the two vehicles.  As well I don't think 39A or B have RP1 facilities anymore and no question they would want to use 39.  And Michoud could easily do the work for both stages required.

That said I don't see it falling apart.  Lots of times there have been stories about Ares 1 short comings and things keep on trucking.  But who knows, if it is not going to work the sooner the better.

Seems that these rumors will continue until it is either canceled, takes off for the first time or splashes into the Atlantic.

[rsp1202]

"Orion is too big and heavy a spacecraft. It isn't like the lightweight six-person crew exploration vehicle we proposed." You all sure it's the Ares that's on the chopping block?

[kool-aid]

wannamoonbase - 24/4/2007  10:49 AM

Seems that these rumors will continue until it is either canceled, takes off for the first time or splashes into the Atlantic.

That's a pretty safe statement, sort of like "we'll either live, or we'll die."

John Young seems to be saying Ares 1 is going to die on May 23.  If it does it may take Griffin, Horowitz, and ATK with it.

There's been a lot of rumors on this, but John Young is old enough and enough of a space-hero that he's probably reached a zero-incorrect stage of life and will say whatever he wants.

[RedSky]

kool-aid - 24/4/2007  10:36 AM

Analyst - 24/4/2007  10:20 AM

I agree with the last post. How can you explain this after two years of saying this is the right way?

Analyst

They don't.  ....

I suppose they could always use the excuse of the budget.  Here's a sample of what could be said:
"Although our design of Ares I is sound, we simply cannot afford it.  We designed the best system with certain assumed budgetary promises, which, if we are truthfully realistic about current and future budget expectations, will simply not be there.  Therefore, we are changing our design and plans accordingly..."

[JIS]

I think it's safe bet to say that nothing will happen. At the worst case they cut back on deltaV of Orion keeping it back from achieving global moon access (for now).