ATK Fights Back

For ATK to make such a statement, shouldn't Ares I actually have "demonstrated capability" and "proven superiority"?

To say this is just a bit self serving would be an understatement.

Ah, the old "sunk cost" argument. You know when that is someone's position, they have no real case for their viewpoint. I'm sorry, but 5 years to reach PDR? PDR is not even near halfway to operational status. You have to finish CDR, fabrication, integration, test, and all the while reworking issues that come up. The Ares I is 10 years, maybe even 15 years, from flying and will cost more than the US contribution to ISS.

"To abandon Ares I as a baseline vehicle for an alternative without demonstrated capability nor proven superiority (or even equivalence) is unwise and probably not cost-effective."

So even ATK would agree that NASA should replace Ares I with a Commercial Crew Program using an Atlas V or Delta IV. Both those launch vehicles have EXACTLY the attributes that ATK promotes: Demonstrated capability and proven superiority!

Thanks ATK for finally seeing the light and promoting what's best for NASA (vs what's best for ATK)!

If I remember correctly, some high level manager said that Ares 1 was basically a training program for a new generation of NASA engineers to relearn how to build a rocket since that expertise had essentially retired/left. With Ares 1 canceled whatever expertise NASA was planning on developing just turned to dust.

Which makes me wonder just who in NASA, engineering wise, will have the KSA (knowledge, skills & ability) to oversee any work performed by contractors in the years ahead? Over in DOD, how have they dealt with the need for engineering talent to adequately review contractor technical performance?

Going with Orion on an Atlas or Delta is about the only way I can see of having the spacecraft ready by 2015.

@David McEwen

"If I remember correctly, some high level manager said that Ares 1 was basically a training program for a new generation of NASA engineers to relearn how to build a rocket since that expertise had essentially retired/left. With Ares 1 canceled whatever expertise NASA was planning on developing just turned to dust."

COME ON! You conveniently forget about the Atlas V and Delta IV. Perhaps the NASA rocket expertise left the Agency, but I can assure you that rocket designers, experts and operators are busily working today at United Launch Alliance. Perhaps NASA doesn't need to recreate what's readily available in Industry.

There actually are a fair number of people left who did work the development of several successful manned rockets and space vehicles. NASA management, in their wisdom, decided to give the management responsibilities to people mostly aged 35-45, which ground-ruled out experience. It would have been good for them to learn, but they were not learning from one another.

Its a sad day for NASA that NASA has lost its 'independence', but I believe the nation will be better off for it in the long run.

Even in the short run, say the next ten years, it probably won't matter very much, or we might actually come out ahead.