Because he is being told that there is a thought process going on that Ares has come too far so that it would be a huge decision to just cut it. Also, the NEO note along with the announcement of the review implies that Ares quite possibly is continued being used.
It would be a huge decision indeed. Doesn't mean it would be the wrong one though. I'll dig out the post or article you're talking about later and have a look more closely.
That is business as usual while developing a new system. Today people expect 100% reliability, almost no problems at all and no huge costs. And this does simply not work, well at best on paper if at all.
A brand new system, yes. Because that's what this system is, absolutely brand new, not the "Shuttle Derived" one that it initially set out to be. And brand new implies unforeseen problems to crop up in the development.
The Space Shuttle development did not look very promising as well (it caused Skylab being abandoned). The exploding main engines and the massive tiles losses during early and even late tests, as only one example, have caused a massive delay. The whole "new" program back in the late 70's initially made even STS-1 pilot Robert Crippen, but some others think, that NASA has screwed up bad this time. Would the internet have been existed at that time already, oh boy, we'd have seen a comparable flame war going on in blogs and comments sections. Less than ever because the Shuttle had been tested manned on its very first lift off into space. Unimaginably today since a lot of sissies would express their concerns like they do on Ares.
Quite possibly there would have been such a discussion, yes. I see that as a huge benefit of the internet, however - the ability for minority voices to be heard by the many, so that a worthwhile idea can be communicated. The Shuttle is an engineering marvel, no question, but, as you say, it didn't do what it set out to. Maybe, if the Internet had existed back then, there would indeed have been a huge debate about its abilities. I'm fairly certain that when they put it into use, they didn't intend it to be the only US spacecraft for the next 30, probably now 40 years. I really don't think the Shuttle is a good analogy to use in providing an argument for letting NASA get on with it.
The Shuttle never became what it was designed for: being a cheap vehicle that is being launched hundreds of times until the year 2000. Today fans and NASA workers get stuck on it and even support an extension of the foam losing flights followed by a usage of its hardware for another decades into the future.
Yes, because it's the best that's already available. When NASA announced Ares, it said that the system would continue to use "the best and most reliable systems from the Space Shuttle, its SRBs and SSMEs". Well, bang went that plan. Those most reliable parts can no longer be used. It needs an even bigger SRB, a complete new engine on the upperstage, all without getting (a weakened) Orion into orbit. And if the SRB explodes, it looks like Orion's parachutes will be melted by flying chunks of solid fuel, since a bigger abort motor would be too heavy.
Of course people want to maintain some parts of the Shuttle. It would be cheaper to develop, probably quicker, and is proven over hundreds of flights. The foam is hardly a problem anymore, considering that was a danger to the side mounted Orbiter, not the top mounted capsule Orion.
All that on paper. I very doubt that it would be anything but cheaper. I think it's a great dream rather than reality would reveal.
Cheaper isn't a bad thing to go on right now, looking at NASAs budget. They certainly aren't burdened with weight problems, considering it's a Shuttle stack reconfigured. Even with the excessive margins they've used on their numbers, the rocket can still comfortably lift a lunar class Orion. And more. 20mT+, can't remember the exact amount, but it's plenty.
As for Shuttle infrastructure, I don't see how that can be argued against. Pads, launch platforms and such will have to be modified far, far less for something that more or less resembles a Shuttle, than thin little Ares I and the Monolithic Ares V. Development time? No new engines. No new boosters. It won't be done overnight, but I'd like to think the changes from the Shuttle into it wouldn't take 8, 9 years, which is how long Ares I is expected to be. Orion would be the thing delaying things, unlike the situation that's likely to be faced.
Because thousands of jobs are going to be lost. It is a job-keeping concept in the first place.
It's a concept which does exactly what Constellation wanted back in 2005. A Shuttle derived system, that is safer and cheaper. It avoids the political minefield of huge job losses as well, yes. It's a system which works in a great deal of ways. It's not purely job oriented.
Whenever we talk about the 62 allegedly NASA engineers who allegedly designed DIRECT, we merely just talk about 0,8% of NASA people who are going to lose their jobs because of the Shuttle retirement. DIRECT might not be an amateur effort, but it's not a major effort as well. It's a small group of allegedly NASA employees that represent 0,00X% of all NASA employees.
About 34.000 NASA people worked on Apollo. Would 60 or 100 different voices have made a difference? No.
I'd call formulating a rocket launch system for the next generation of US human spaceflight, and progressing it to such a level that it will be potentially considered by the Whitehouse as its primary system for the next 30 years, fairly major. It's a great disservice to say otherwise. You also seem to think that the ones working on the project are its only supporters at the agency. I strongly, strongly doubt that is the case. Again, not solely about the job aspect either.
As for severe minorities of the agency ever managing to change policy, I believe the Apollo LOR system would be one example. Back in the day of no internet, no less.
Your arguments seem to be based on "NASA has always done things this way, lets trust them," and "we've gone too far to turn back now". I see both as weak. 1 - NASA is fallible. 2 - We're not even close to the point of no return yet. If there is substantial evidence that the current path is misguided, that should not be ignored. If there is yet more evidence that an alternative path could be more suitable, then that evidence should be examined, not cast away as a fringe group worried about their job statuses.
---------- Post added 08-05-2009 at 02:38 AM ---------- Previous post was 08-04-2009 at 11:29 PM ----------
Just spent some time digging around that quote you provided from the NSF managing editor. It appears that it was posted late May, a few days before the USAF released their study into the (lack of) effectiveness of Ares I's LAS in the event of SRB explosion. This is not a small setback.
I dug up a couple of, more recent, posts from the NSF managing editor. I'm wary of quoting him, as I wouldn't feel comfortable inferring things into what he says without him here to either correct or confirm what I say. Rather, I'll just link to the two posts, and let you read into them what you will:
14th July, 2009:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17820.msg436826;topicseen#msg436826
31st July, 2009:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18073.msg451103#msg451103
As I said, I don't wish to infer things into what he's saying, but I think the phrase "death throws" is fairly clear. Also, notable that support for DIRECT or other SDLV's isn't solely the realm of those losing jobs, or those uneducated in NASA history and processes. There just comes a time when a program is so far off course, you just have to kill it.
