Ares 1 vs. commercial launchers - how to replace the space shuttle?

How will we replace the space shuttle?

Two recent editorials in the journal Space News, one by Congressman Ralph Hall opposing a commercial solution to Earth to low Earth orbit space flight, the other by Patti Grace Smith, a former FAA associate administrator for commercial space transportation, supporting commercial space flight, illustrates the development of a new and quite unnecessary controversy in space policy.

The controversy was caused by various options in the Augustine Commission report that suggests scrapping the Ares 1 space launcher in favor of a commercial launcher to be developed. On the merits, it is an intriguing idea. There are a number of space launchers that already exist, such as the Atlas V, or soon will exist, such as the Falcon 9, that could serve to launch space craft with both cargos and crews to low Earth orbit. Patti Grace Smith argues that these are viable solutions, especially considering the much higher cost of building the Ares 1.

Congressman Hall on the other hand maintains that commercial space launchers will “not be ready in time” to fill the space flight gap between the retirement of the space shuttle in 2010/2011 and the advent of the Ares 1, planned for 2015, but possibly not until 2017. Ralph Hall suggests accelerating the development of the Ares 1 with more funding.

Congressman Hall also suggests that the Ares 1 will be far safer than any commercial space launcher. Patti Grace Smith disputes this.

Whatever the merits of the argument, and on the balance advocates of commercial launchers may have the edge, the question of government launcher vs. commercial launcher has entered the political realm, where outcomes are neither necessarily pretty nor desired.

Originally the idea had been to develop both the Ares 1 and commercial launchers. The theory was that if a commercial launcher could be developed in time to fill the space flight gap, the Ares 1 would only serve as a public backup option. If the commercial solution was not forthcoming in time, the Ares 1 would still be able to fill the gap.

However funding and technical problems have served to delay the development of the Ares 1. Some of the hysterical attacks on the Ares 1 that have appeared on the Internet are wide of the mark. The Augustine Commission itself suggested that there were no technological show stoppers for Ares 1.

The problem appears to be money. Promised funding for the entire exploration project, including the Ares 1, has fallen short. Ares 1 has fallen prey to the iron rule of new technology development; that it always costs more and takes longer. Naturally a cheaper, quicker commercial solution now seems appealing.

Unfortunately the notion of scrapping Ares 1 in favor of a commercial launcher has run into contractor politics. Ending the Ares 1 project would also end the flow of money to certain contractors engaged in building the rocket. These contractors have the ear of Congressmen like Ralph Hall. If it comes to a fight between Ares 1 and commercial launchers, Ares 1 might win the battle in Congress. An important core market for commercial space, the servicing of the International Space Station, might vanish overnight.

The sad part of the story is that the whole thing might be avoided by sticking to the original, two track plan of building the Ares 1 and encouraging a commercial solution. Thus the two would be seen as complementary and not as competitors.

This fight has happened before. Back in the early 1980s, a company called Space Industries proposed launching a human tended Industrial Space Facility as a compliment to the space station, then in the design stage. But certain business interests in Houston and politicians in Washington began to see the ISF as a cheap replacement for the space station and not as a compliment. NASA and its contractors moved quickly and the Industrial Space Facility was throttled in the crib. Commercial space was set back for a generation, with only now plans for commercial space stations in development by such companies as Bigelow.

The problem, of course, is that doing Ares 1 and commercial launchers, while it makes the most political and even actual sense, costs more money than doing one or the other. Is there the will the spend such money? Recent history, sadly, causes one to doubt it.