Author Topic: Do you believe in DIRECT?  (Read 70532 times)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #140 on: 01/16/2008 08:14 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 16/1/2008  3:37 PM

Hahaha.   Shows they haven't even bothered to look at the paper - its 131 pages!
-Ross.
I saw that and was debating how to point out that slight discrepancy in his otherwise irrefutable (?) logic. Everybody’s a critic these days. I guess it’s not even a requirement to be aware of the facts any more before you are able to critique them.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline imcub

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #141 on: 01/16/2008 09:18 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 16/1/2008  12:37 PM

Hahaha.   Shows they haven't even bothered to look at the paper - its 131 pages!

EDIT:   Just to be 100% crystal clear, I'm not actually trying to be insulting to Seattle Dave - it genuinely made me laugh in a humerous way.   All I could think was underestimating the size of the largest AIAA paper in history by 40% deserved a "missed a bit" line!   Perhaps I should have added a smilie to show I mean no offense: :)

Ross.

Download 131 page pdf file ... change font ... now its an 80 page pdf ... SeattleDave was right. :bleh:

I too voted #4 ... still have fingers and toes crossed and hoping some form of it is adopted ... sooner than later.

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #142 on: 01/17/2008 07:33 pm »
Total votes 49.

1. 1 Vote - (2%).         DIRECT is just amateur study without any indepth analysis:
3. 6 Votes – (12.2%)   If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul:
4. 37 Votes – (75.5%)    If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes:
5. 1 Vote – (2%)           I am not qualified to offer an informed opinion:
9. 2 Votes – (4%)         DIRECT is better than Ares I/Ares V:
10. 2 Votes - (4%)        This whole thread is based on one person's negative bias. What a joke. It's beneath this forum. No valid question:


1. DIRECT is just amateur study without any indepth analysis: 1 Votes - (2%)

1.   JIS

3. If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul: 6 Votes – (12.2%)

1.   CFE (I'd like for NASA to adopt the basic concepts behind DIRECT)
2.   Kaputnik (I really like DIRECT, and I think the basic idea of it is inherently better than the Ares designs)
3.   PaulL
4.   CEV Now
5.   Verio Fryar
6.   Seattle Dave

4. If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes: 36 Votes – (75.5%)

1.   MATTBLAK
2.   kraisee
3.   John Duncan
4.   rumble
5.   monkeyb
6.   spacediver
7.   bad_astra
8.   savuporo
9.   pad rat
10.   Giovanni DS
11.   Quintus
12.   fcrec
13.   TrueGrit
14.   tankmodeler
15.   JonSBerndt
16.   imfan
17.   marsavian
18.   HIP2BSQRE
19.   Steven Pietrobon
20.   jongoff
21.   luke strawwalker
22.   texas_space
23.   brihath
24.   Lampyridae
25.   veedriver22
26.   Norm Hartnett
27.   jml
28.   Lee Jay
29.   DLK
30.   clongton
31.   mattrog
32.   pierre
33.   Scotty
34.   C4NP
35.   anonymous1138
36.   imcub
37.   Yegor

5. I am not qualified to offer an informed opinion: 1 Vote – (2%)

1.   davo-g


9. DIRECT is better than Ares I/Ares V: 2 Votes – (4%)

1.   William Barton
2.   Trever (I believe the J-232 to be superior to development of Ares 1 & V)

10. This whole thread is based on one person's negative bias. What a joke. It's beneath this forum. No valid question: 2 Votes - (4%)

1.   rsp1202
2.   Nathan


Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #143 on: 01/17/2008 07:50 pm »
I voiced a personal opinion as to the merit of this whole thread. It wasn't a "vote."

Offline Stephan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Paris
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #144 on: 01/17/2008 08:10 pm »
I've voted "If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes"
Best regards, Stephan

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #145 on: 01/18/2008 03:10 am »
Now: total voiced opinions 50.

1. 1 Vote - (2%). DIRECT is just amateur study without any indepth analysis.
3. 6 Votes – (12%) If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul.
4. 38 Votes – (76%) If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes.
5. 1 Vote – (2%) I am not qualified to offer an informed opinion.
9. 2 Votes – (4%) DIRECT is better than Ares I/Ares V.
10. 2 Votes - (4%) This whole thread is based on one person's negative bias. What a joke. It's beneath this forum. No valid question.


Offline SpaceFrak

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Finland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #146 on: 01/18/2008 10:06 am »
Hello!
I voted option 4.
It just makes too much sense go "Direct" way.. and since the studies  (NLS..) allready were made in 90's .. they are reinventing the wheel!

-SpaceFrak-  :laugh:

Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #147 on: 01/18/2008 11:06 am »
Option 5

Offline Paul Howard

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #148 on: 01/18/2008 11:18 am »
3 because if a 1000 engineers are busy changing Ares in a major overhaul, a three man PDF sure would need it too.

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #149 on: 01/18/2008 11:42 am »
I voted #3 - "If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul"

Not the most fortunate formula, but a close fit to my position and wonderfully vague. Where "position" is defined as
"I have nothing against a 2-launch Lunar exploration architecture, based on 4- or 5-seg SRB, 8.4m dia core, RS-68, J-2
but
the J-120 configuration must go."


As explanations have been demanded (Chuck), here we go again - now we have a second Direct V2 thread, credits go to JIS this time. My nit picking with Direct in the main thread is there to stay. "You", in the following, indicates the Direct team front persons (Ross, Chuck, Steven et al)

1/ I do not beleive you can eliminate double development costs - unless you develop first the full J-232 configuration, mitigate all risk, take care of all the issues, and only then derive the J-120 configuration with minimal impact over cost. But then you cross the line named by Dr.Griffin "too much upfront development cost".
Of course this opinion, like most of the stuff I post here at NSF, carry little weight as I never worked anything aerospace. Of course again, you stated that you have solid analisys in hand, from NASA or major contractor engineers saying that the transition from the Shuttle ET to an inline core is piece of cake, just mill the tanks walls less, rearange the O2 tank elements differently - yeah, right - and voila - you're good to go for both configurations: battleship for J-120 and optimization (as in "less mass") for J-232.

2/ The J-120 config is overkill for Orion to ISS. I've never seen NASA using anything overkill like that (neither DOD, NRO, etc., Russia, China, India etc. you name it) - but of course maybe I was not paying attention. Cost apart, gap shortening apart, it is an ugly ungainly fat cow imho.

3/ All other proposed advantage of the full advertized J-120 40+ tonnes to LEO capability have fallen to the scrutiny.
3a/ Cargo to ISS is the market earmarked for COTS - just read around if you don't trust my word (spacepolitics.com).
3b/ More, you never convinced me that Orion as currently designed could take a simple cargo palet and do RPOD at ISS. That cargo palet would have to be a very smart (expensive) piece of spacecraft. Orion has it's nav sensors in the wrong place for anything else except the missions for which it's designed now.
3c/ There is no evidence or hint that another NASA Directorate is planning a 40+ tonnes IMLEO mission.
3d/ "Shuttle derived" and "polar orbits" do not mix, unless you build a new launch complex somewhere.

4/ If, ignoring all the above, you would still go ahead for a crash program with the J-120, the point being to shorten "the gap", the target being - as advertised - 2011 IOC, then, given the budget constraints (go-as-you-can-pay still applies, and you have to "go" fast), you would have to mothball the J-2X and the upperstage (you would outright kill the 5-seg SRB of course); you would risk later development issues for J-232; and the next Administration ... well ... we had our dispute recently in the Direct thread (page 150).

Having vented all my distaste for the J-120 configuration - I really do not need and do not seek such an opportunity, but thank you JIS for stirring this wasp nest, and thank you Chuck and Ross for demanding clarifications, and thanks to others for suspecting foul play with the poll -

I still consider a 2 - launch J-232 (or very similar) architecture a good, appealing solution. I favour heavy launch 100+ tonnes IMLEO for any serious moon-Mars-and-beyond vision. If the Ares-I/V architecture doesn't make it ... there lays my only hope to witness the first habitat module on (or under) lunar regolith. Sometime soon, that is !

Therefore I picked # 3.

Be well !

renclod

Offline Hotdog

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Cape Town, South Africa
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #150 on: 01/18/2008 11:42 am »
I voted 4.

I'm sure there will be many details that would change from proposal to final design but I do not think there will be any major issues.

This is not a design specification or a design report, it is a proposal. Obviously there would be major work to take this document to a design specification. I don't think anyone would contest that, but I think some people who are voting option 3 might be confusing the issues.

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #151 on: 01/18/2008 11:46 am »
I voted 3 ("If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul")

This is a fun study, and has its cheerleaders, but only from armchair engineers. This site has bus loads of NASA and USA engineers on here and you try and find one who'll back Direct as a good idea. And don't give me that "They'd lose their job if they said so." You can't get sacked for opinions on a message board.
Let's go and explore space.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #152 on: 01/18/2008 11:55 am »
Quote
Space101 - 18/1/2008  7:46 AM

And don't give me that "They'd lose their job if they said so." You can't get sacked for opinions on a message board.
Oh yes you *CAN*. And not just this board either. I am personally acquainted with several persons who lost their jobs for *EXACTLY* this reason. You need to take off your rose colored glasses and look at the real corporate world. It can be ugly. Especially if the man at the top is a bully.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #153 on: 01/18/2008 12:09 pm »
Quote
Space101 - 18/1/2008  7:46 AM

I voted 3 ("If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul")

This is a fun study, and has its cheerleaders, but only from armchair engineers. This site has bus loads of NASA and USA engineers on here and you try and find one who'll back Direct as a good idea. And don't give me that "They'd lose their job if they said so." You can't get sacked for opinions on a message board.

As with "paper rocket," "armchair engineer" is a dismissive pejorative that means nothing and accomplishes nothing. It's just name calling. And if you really believe you can't get sacked for opinions on a message board, you're living in some other universe. Here in NC, we had a teacher sacked (sacking upheld by the court system) for saying in her blog that she was a Wiccan.

I'm not an engineer, I'm a professional cheerleader. No cheerleaders, no bucks. No bucks... you know the rest. The taxpayers are deaf to scientists, and don't even know aerospace engineers exist. Most Americans still think an engineer is the guy who drives a train. I'm sure most engineers don't want to believe that, because it disenfranchises their feelings of occupying a special place in the scheme of things. But walk down a random street in any major city you want, and stop random people. Ask them what an engineer does for a living. The ones who don't think you drive a choo-choo, won't have a clue what you do, and will give you a blank stare. Then they'll go to the polls and vote for a candidate whose belief systems match their own. I've got around 50,000 people who know my name and listen to my opinions with an open mind. It's a drop in the bucket, of course, but it's more than nothing.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #154 on: 01/18/2008 12:10 pm »
Quote
Space101 - 18/1/2008  7:46 AM

I voted 3 ("If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul")

This is a fun study, and has its cheerleaders, but only from armchair engineers. T

Incorrect.  Many NASA and USA engineers do

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #155 on: 01/18/2008 12:15 pm »
Quote
clongton - 18/1/2008  6:55 AM

Quote
Space101 - 18/1/2008  7:46 AM

And don't give me that "They'd lose their job if they said so." You can't get sacked for opinions on a message board.
Oh yes you *CAN*. And not just this board either. I am personally acquainted with several persons who lost their jobs for *EXACTLY* this reason. You need to take off your rose colored glasses and look at the real corporate world. It can be ugly. Especially if the man at the top is a bully.

Excuse me! But is this the deal now? Anyone dare not tow the Direct line on this thread and one of you is on standby with crap like this? Do not think you have the freedom to patronise people who have been here since the start of the site. Got it? You're just one thread on one part of the forum.

What I said is completely true. You need to PROVE otherwise. You cannot be sacked for posting anything on a message board without the full compliance of proof from the site the content was posted on.

If there was a ground swell of NASA engineering interest and support of direct, we would see it, just as they do openly on the other threads.
Let's go and explore space.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #156 on: 01/18/2008 12:18 pm »
Quote
Yegor - 17/1/2008  3:33 PM

Total votes 49.

1. 1 Vote - (2%).         DIRECT is just amateur study without any indepth analysis:
3. 6 Votes – (12.2%)   If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul:
4. 37 Votes – (75.5%)    If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes:
5. 1 Vote – (2%)           I am not qualified to offer an informed opinion:
9. 2 Votes – (4%)         DIRECT is better than Ares I/Ares V:
10. 2 Votes - (4%)        This whole thread is based on one person's negative bias. What a joke. It's beneath this forum. No valid question:


1. DIRECT is just amateur study without any indepth analysis: 1 Votes - (2%)

1.   JIS

3. If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul: 6 Votes – (12.2%)

1.   CFE (I'd like for NASA to adopt the basic concepts behind DIRECT)
2.   Kaputnik (I really like DIRECT, and I think the basic idea of it is inherently better than the Ares designs)
3.   PaulL
4.   CEV Now
5.   Verio Fryar
6.   Seattle Dave

4. If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes: 36 Votes – (75.5%)

1.   MATTBLAK
2.   kraisee
3.   John Duncan
4.   rumble
5.   monkeyb
6.   spacediver
7.   bad_astra
8.   savuporo
9.   pad rat
10.   Giovanni DS
11.   Quintus
12.   fcrec
13.   TrueGrit
14.   tankmodeler
15.   JonSBerndt
16.   imfan
17.   marsavian
18.   HIP2BSQRE
19.   Steven Pietrobon
20.   jongoff
21.   luke strawwalker
22.   texas_space
23.   brihath
24.   Lampyridae
25.   veedriver22
26.   Norm Hartnett
27.   jml
28.   Lee Jay
29.   DLK
30.   clongton
31.   mattrog
32.   pierre
33.   Scotty
34.   C4NP
35.   anonymous1138
36.   imcub
37.   Yegor

5. I am not qualified to offer an informed opinion: 1 Vote – (2%)

1.   davo-g


9. DIRECT is better than Ares I/Ares V: 2 Votes – (4%)

1.   William Barton
2.   Trever (I believe the J-232 to be superior to development of Ares 1 & V)

10. This whole thread is based on one person's negative bias. What a joke. It's beneath this forum. No valid question: 2 Votes - (4%)

1.   rsp1202
2.   Nathan

Huh? I voted for item 4 on the poll, along with most everyone else, and don't recognize option 9.

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #157 on: 01/18/2008 12:19 pm »
Quote
Jim - 18/1/2008  7:10 AM

Quote
Space101 - 18/1/2008  7:46 AM

I voted 3 ("If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul")

This is a fun study, and has its cheerleaders, but only from armchair engineers. T

Incorrect.  Many NASA and USA engineers do

I look forward to seeing the proof of that.
Let's go and explore space.

Offline PhalanxTX

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #158 on: 01/18/2008 12:27 pm »
Space101, I am a former NASA intern and current NASA contractor.  I have a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from Texas A&M and a M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Rice.  I voted for option 4.

Have a nice day. :)
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program, and if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!"

-- Larry Niven, quoted by Arthur Clarke in interview at Space.com, 2001

One Percent for Space!

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #159 on: 01/18/2008 12:27 pm »
Hey, the sand pit is over there ====>>

Any more arguments on here and I'll shut this down.

It is a rather silly poll if you ask me, and it's only getting sillier: (though it's not particularly silly) ;)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0