Well, it's not only an inevitable trend. NASA already is "
the god of the gaps", and it was a god without a vision for a long time, as I often tend to mention.
The gap between STS and Ares is not NASA's first one as we know. The gap between ASTP and STS already was a huge one, while STS-1 still was anything but certain in 1979 because of problems with the SSME's and the TPS (which already caused a delay of more than one year).
Related to the sense or nonsense of Ares I-X in this context, the "cold" Enterprise test in 1979 also did not proof anything for example. It did not even leave the launch pad. I can only imagine what certain people today would think in case NASA would carry Ares I-X to the launch pad only, just to look if the white room and different connections do fit. Without any doubt, would the STS development take place right now, we would see the same amount of criticism we see on Ares right now. Steve Cook is rather right when he mentions that everything is within what you typically associate with a launch vehicle development program. The difference just is that we have the internet today and a lot more information along the media and people all over the world. I actually doubt that the STS had less criticism back in the late 1970's. It was just silent criticism without blogs, forums and tons of news resources. But the STS was a "relatively" successful program at the end. So Ares will be for sure, or lets say it has to be. There is no real alternative anymore, just like after ASTP in 1975.
Anyway, the Space Shuttle needs to be retired, which was not only recommended by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Further operation beyond 2010 possibly would increase the risk of losing a crew from 1 in 12 to 1 in 8 (yes, it is againg, which is even visible). The mistake of NASA was a delay of decisions and a loss of visions (which in my humble point of view already took place in the 1990's). But by Constellation, NASA got a pretty good new vision finally at the very last seconds I think. And if we keep the promised extra budget in mind again, Ares I might even lift off manned in 2014 already. But that's still not certain for now.
I don't see a serious reason for bashing the Ares I development (2 tons of extra weight also is no insuperable obstacle). But I do agree to the nonsense of the second huge gap within NASA's history, which could have been prevented. But NASA still is on the forefront of manned space flight, and is going to remain so. I don't see what ESA or Roscosmos seriously have to offer once Ares runs its show, including manned lunar missions later on. And not to mention private companies, which did not even enter LEO manned yet.
-----Post Added-----
@Moonwalker:
I am convinced that Ares-I will fly eventually. (If it doesn't, NASA will lose it's "S").
It would not only lose its "S", it would probably lose its whole name and would become split into different small departments I think. But this was a serious risk in the early 1990's alerady, caused by the problems with the HST.
IMHO NASA should focus more on the exploration/space travel.
Well, IMHO they do so very well by Constellation
The Space Shuttle was bounded to LEO. Orion is going to be bounded to nothing between Earth, Moon and Mars.
Personally I like solid rockets. They are very reliable, but the way NASA is using the STS SRB's is just plain wrong IMHO. When you're talking about adding a 2000 kg mass damper to a launcher, there should be alarm bells going off L/R&C. How much weight did they save by not painting the ET's?
The STS actually has a pretty big mass damper: the ET. Of course the ET is not just useless weight, while a mass damper is not useless too. But it's the only reason why the two SRB's do not need mass damper. But for single use as a first stage, mass damper have to be installed obviously. This is the compromise if you want to use a reusable solid rocket first stage.
My 2'nd problem is that NASA is once again trying to build a space craft for very different missions.
What's the exact problem of trying to build a space craft for very different missions?
I hope that SpaceX's Dragon can be the "American Soyuz" because I think that's what NASA has been missing since Gemini.
I don't think that SpaceX will manage to enter LEO manned anytime soon. They have to do a lot of work still.
By the way, Gemini actually has nothing to do with Soyuz. The Gemini capsule was just a small manned rendezvous and EVA test vehicle. NASA did not miss an "American Soyuz" at all by developing and operating the Apollo spacecraft just right after Gemini, which even flew to the Moon
