DARPA Hypersonic Program Axed

[GregBurch]

Bummer:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:b47b5367-e89d-4b6d-bd47-5e05016f7e32

... not surprising given the budget blood all over the floor but still ... bummer.

 

[willy88]

:axehead:

That really sucks.

 

[GregBurch]

Prepare yourself for more suckage.

 

[eveningsky339]

Always nice to hear that congress is saving money by cutting some of these programs. And at the same time sending out 700 billion dollars for no reason. :dry:

 

[Andy44]

Yeah, hope none of you guys work on the Constellation project. I don't give it much chance of surviving the next few years, except maybe for the LEO part.

BTW: I wonder how many Ares rockets could be flown for 700B?

 

[SlyCoopersButt]

I too fear many more axes will be dished out to many important and ambitious programs in the future. Science and it's progress is taking a beating due to the lack of support it needs from everyone in this country and around the world. All science programs require people to be united on them and Believe in them to work. And it can work. Everone is so used to it in daily life that it's taken for granted and being neglected.

 

[simonpro]

Yeah, hope none of you guys work on the Constellation project. I don't give it much chance of surviving the next few years, except maybe for the LEO part.

One can only hope. Maybe then they'll have a proper think about what they want, rather than coming up with these half-baked ideas every few years.

 

[willy88]

Maybe we should invest in some more hope in private companies, my brain tells me that they're the future of spaceflight.

 

[JamesG]

The end result of DARPA and other research agencies tendency to produce perpetual development programs with little to show for it for the time and money invested. They, NASA, or others have been working on hypersonic vehicles of various types and utility for over 20 years now with no practical applications (unless you believe the tin-foil-hat crowd).

 

[simonpro]

Actually this is probably the only area where I do believe the tin foil hat crowd, in this case I'd be willing to bet (any sum) that the research program has been terminated now as it's accomplished it's objectives.

 

[Donamy]

Good insight.

 

[Hielor]

One can only hope. Maybe then they'll have a proper think about what they want, rather than coming up with these half-baked ideas every few years.

Constellation half-baked? What's wrong with the Constellation program? And do you have a better idea?

 

[eveningsky339]

Constellation half-baked? What's wrong with the Constellation program? And do you have a better idea?

I have a better idea: let's not relive Apollo. All that's missing is the Saturn IV.

 

[GregBurch]

Constellation half-baked? What's wrong with the Constellation program? And do you have a better idea?

uhmmm ... one can find pages and pages and pages of detailed criticism of Constellation here on this forum alone that many here believe substantiates this characterization. Look beyond the forum and you'll find volumes and volumes of criticisms. And, yes, many have much better ideas.

 

[Andy44]

I have a better idea, let me have my tax money back so I can invest it in SpaceX or other productive space enterprises.

As for what's wrong with Constellation in a technical sense, do a google on "Ares I problems".

 

[GregBurch]

Actually this is probably the only area where I do believe the tin foil hat crowd, in this case I'd be willing to bet (any sum) that the research program has been terminated now as it's accomplished it's objectives.

My friend, I'd love to agree with you. On even-numbered days, I'm tempted to suspend my doubts and believe that those donuts on a rope mean something ... but then on odd-numbered days, I remove my tin-foil hat ... :lol:

 

[C3PO]

Constellation half-baked? I'd say more like 1/8 to 1/32 baked.

 

[eveningsky339]

I have a better idea, let me have my tax money back so I can invest it in SpaceX or other productive space enterprises.

As for what's wrong with Constellation in a technical sense, do a google on "Ares I problems".

Right you are. NASA had its time and place... But now it's time for capitalism to step in and take over.

 

[Hielor]

So you're complaining about NASA going to a capsule design ("reliving Apollo") and saying that SpaceX is better?

Oh. Wait. SpaceX IS using a capsule design. Whoops.

The SRBs are a proven design that have catastrophically failed exactly once in over 120 launches, with two being used in each launch. SpaceX's launcher is on what, one success with two catastrophic failures out of 4 launches now? Basing designs on well-known proven technology is a bad idea, why, again?

Sure the Ares I has issues right now. Guess what? All launchers do at this phase in their development.

I glanced through the last several pages of the Space Flight News forum and did not see any "detailed criticism" of Constellation, much less "pages and pages" of it. Yeah, I may have missed it, but from what I saw, everything the Anti-Constellation crowd says pretty much boils down to one thing: "It's not cool enough." The Pro-Constellation arguments have been much more reasoned out.

Especially given the way the US economy is, we can't afford to fund non-proven systems to the extent that they would need in order to become viable. If only the treasury would throw hundreds of billions of dollars at NASA the way they throw it at financial companies, but that's not going to happen. ($700 billion is nearly 4 times the total cost of the Shuttle program to date)

The cost of a single shuttle launch is enormous (I saw sources between $400-500mil and $1.5 bil per). Going to a simpler system is going to allow more launches in the same budget, and have more left over for those "cool" projects.

I've seen people berating the Constellation system for not being fully reusable(which, in my opinion, fits into the "cool" category). Frankly, reusability is overrated. The amount of damage sustained by a shuttle's tiles on a nominal entry is significant, and is one of the primary reasons that the USSR didn't go forward with the Buran program. In fact, with the Ares I first stage being a (reusable) SRB and the Orion capsule having the possibility to be reusable, it wouldn't surprise me if the Ares I is in fact the most reusable launcher (by mass, if you will) in history.

 

[eveningsky339]

So you're complaining about NASA going to a capsule design ("reliving Apollo") and saying that SpaceX is better?

It's not about capsule design. It's the entire program-- going back to the moon. Been there, done that, sorry Charlie.

Oh. Wait. SpaceX IS using a capsule design. Whoops.

Very astute observation.

The SRBs are a proven design that have catastrophically failed exactly once in over 120 launches, with two being used in each launch. SpaceX's launcher is on what, one success with two catastrophic failures out of 4 launches now? Basing designs on well-known proven technology is a bad idea, why, again?

What SRBs have to do with this is a mystery to me.

Sure the Ares I has issues right now. Guess what? All launchers do at this phase in their development.

I glanced through the last several pages of the Space Flight News forum and did not see any "detailed criticism" of Constellation, much less "pages and pages" of it. Yeah, I may have missed it, but from what I saw, everything the Anti-Constellation crowd says pretty much boils down to one thing: "It's not cool enough." The Pro-Constellation arguments have been much more reasoned out.

It's more like: "It's a waste of my tax money because Apollo already did everything Constellation is planning to do."

Especially given the way the US economy is, we can't afford to fund non-proven systems to the extent that they would need in order to become viable. If only the treasury would throw hundreds of billions of dollars at NASA the way they throw it at financial companies, but that's not going to happen. ($700 billion is nearly 4 times the total cost of the Shuttle program to date)

The only non-proven systems you seem to be complaining about are the Falcon rockets used by SpaceX.

The cost of a single shuttle launch is enormous (I saw sources between $400-500mil and $1.5 bil per). Going to a simpler system is going to allow more launches in the same budget, and have more left over for those "cool" projects.

A SpaceX launch would be about $19.2 million, if I recall correctly. And no more jumping through the hoops of government bureaucracy, either.

I've seen people berating the Constellation system for not being fully reusable(which, in my opinion, fits into the "cool" category). Frankly, reusability is overrated. The amount of damage sustained by a shuttle's tiles on a nominal entry is significant, and is one of the primary reasons that the USSR didn't go forward with the Buran program. In fact, with the Ares I first stage being a (reusable) SRB and the Orion capsule having the possibility to be reusable, it wouldn't surprise me if the Ares I is in fact the most reusable launcher (by mass, if you will) in history.

And it's still a waste of my money.