"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...
So, we're going to take the shuttle, with a database of 100+ flights (and
200+ successful SRB flights) and replace it with a "safer" vehicle with an
all new SRB design. Somehow a brand new vehicle will be safer on day one.

And existing EELV designs aren't considered as safe because they had
teething problems early on in their flight history. Heck, Ares I is having
more than teething problems and there hasn't been a single test flight! All
of the problems are being hand-waved away by NASA's PR machine as normal
problems to be solved during the development cycle.

Ares I's thrust oscillation problems sure seem to be unique to the
convoluted Ares I design. As far as I know, this will be the first time one
big SRB has been used as a first stage with a liquid fueled second stage in
a (almost) two stage to orbit launch vehicle. Now add to that the first
time such a vehicle has been used to launch astronauts and it's no wonder
why there are so many people who are a bit worried that Ares I may not live
up to its promises.

Also add to that the underperformance of Ares I which has forced Orion's
requirements to be constantly changing, and this thing is now driving
Orion's design. It's unbelievable.

This is not how Apollo/Saturn went. Apollo/Saturn was successful only
because von Braun did *not* believe the mass estimates of the spacecraft
people and he put a pretty huge performance margin into the design of Saturn
V. This time around, it's the inadequacies of the launch vehicle that are
driving the spacecraft design. To me, that's a recipe for "Epic Fail!" as
they say on the Internets. ;-)

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson